[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13641-13643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6638]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-02-054]
RIN 1625-AA09 [Formerly 2115-AE47]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Manasquan River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised its proposal to change the 
operating regulations that govern the Route 70 Bridge across the 
Manasquan River. The revised proposal would change the regulation with 
a new provision to limit the required openings of the draw year-round 
from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour with closure periods from 4 p.m. 
to 7 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. This proposed change is intended to 
reduce traffic delays while still providing for the reasonable needs of 
navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 19, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431 
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, or they may be hand 
delivered to the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-
6222. Commander (Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public 
docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the 
public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be 
available for inspection or copying at the above address between 8 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly Gregory, Bridge Administrator, 
Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CCGD05-02-
054), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be 
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will 
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal 
Register.

Regulatory Information

    On September 12, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Manasquan River, 
New Jersey'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 57773). We received 14 
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was 
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Route 70 Bridge is a movable bridge (single-leaf bascule) owned 
and operated by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) 
connecting the Borough of Point Pleasant and Brick Township in Ocean 
County with Brielle Borough and Wall Township in Monmouth County. 
Currently, 33 CFR 117.727 requires the draw of the Route 70 Bridge, 
mile 3.4 at Riviera Beach, to open on signal from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. The 
draw need not be opened from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. In the closed position 
to vessels, the bridge has a vertical navigation clearance of 15 feet 
at mean high water.
    On behalf of residents and business owners in the area, NJDOT 
requested changes to the existing regulations for the Route 70 Bridge 
in an effort to balance the needs of mariners and vehicle drivers 
transiting in and around this seaside resort area. Route 70 is a 
principal arterial highway that serves as a major evacuation route in 
the event of tidal emergencies. Bridge openings at peak traffic hours 
during the tourist season often cause considerable vehicular traffic 
congestion while accommodating relatively few vessels. To ease traffic 
congestion, NJDOT requested that the movement of marine traffic be 
regulated. The Coast Guard reviewed NJDOT yearly drawbridge logs for 
1999, 2000, and 2001. The logs revealed that the bridge opened for 
vessels 1028, 1026, and 1020 times, respectively. During the peak 
boating season from May through September, the logs revealed from 1999 
to 2001, the bridge opened 750, 792 and 794 times, respectively. NJDOT 
contended that with an average of only five openings per day during the 
prime boating period vessel traffic through the bridge is minimal. 
Also, NJDOT officials, residents and business owners pointed out that 
from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays, vehicular traffic congestion is at 
its peak. During the peak boating season from May through September, 
the logs revealed from 1999 to 2001, the bridge opened from 4 p.m. to 7 
p.m. on Fridays 36, 35, and 26 times, respectively. The Coast Guard 
believed based on the minimal number of openings identified by the 
bridge logs, that the initial proposal limiting the openings of the 
draw year-round from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour and implementing 
closure periods from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays would more fairly 
balance the competing needs of vehicular and vessel traffic. However, 
the Coast Guard received 14 comments on the NPRM, most suggesting 
additional changes to the proposed regulations. After further review of 
the bridge logs, the Coast Guard has determined that since vessel use 
year-round is relatively low, an alternative proposal should be 
considered.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 14 comments on the NPRM. Eleven letters 
supported the proposed changes to the regulations, two responses 
opposed the proposed changes and another comment suggested a height 
restriction placed on vessels that travel under the bridge.
    Of the 11 letters supporting the proposed changes to the 
regulations, five letters went further in asking to extend the 
suggested closure periods on Fridays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. to include 
Monday through Thursday; two letters supported the proposal without 
changes; one comment requested

[[Page 13642]]

commuter hours from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.; one 
comment requested closure periods of the bridge on all days between 5 
p.m. and 7 p.m.; and another letter considered operating the bridge to 
open hourly from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. during the months of March, April, 
October and November and only open with a 24-hour advance notice during 
December, January and February. Two comments, one from the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the other from the New Jersey Historic 
Preservation Office, had no objection to the issuance of the proposed 
regulations.
    Two of the remaining three comments opposed the proposed changes to 
the regulations and one had no opinion to the proposed regulation. One 
comment from a yacht club stated that their membership objects to any 
changes to the proposed regulations for the following reasons: safety, 
the environment and liability losses. Another comment suggested a 
reduction of the bridge closure period to 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., especially 
if done five days a week, and emergency openings for boater safety. The 
Coast Guard responded to this comment in writing and indicated that in 
the event of marine emergency 33 CFR 117.31(b) provides for unscheduled 
openings of the bridge. The last comment requested a height restriction 
placed on vessels with lowerable appurtenances (i.e. antennas etc.,) 
that transit under the bridge. All comments and the Coast Guard's 
written response to those comments are contained in the docket.
    Based on these comments the Coast Guard conducted further review of 
the proposal. Further review of the bridge logs reveal from 1999 
through 2001, the bridge opened year-round from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., 
Mondays through Thursdays, 72, 73, and 60 times respectively. In view 
of these statistics, the Coast Guard is proposing a different change to 
the regulation by scheduling the openings of the draw year-round from 7 
a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour and with closure periods year-round 
from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mondays to Fridays. These changes would enhance 
vehicular traffic without significantly affecting vessel traffic. 
Considering the minimal number of openings identified by the bridge 
logs, the Coast Guard believes that the revised proposal will more 
fairly balance the needs of vehicular and vessel traffic.

Discussion of Proposal

    On September 12, 2002, the Coast Guard issued a NPRM proposing to 
amend 33 CFR 117.727 by inserting a provision to schedule the required 
openings of the draw year-round from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour 
with closure periods from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays.
    Upon receiving comments to this proposal and further reviewing the 
bridge logs, the Coast Guard now proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.727 by 
inserting a new provision to limit the required openings of the draw 
year-round from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour with closure periods 
from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mondays through Fridays.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the supplemental 
proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic 
transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with 
the scheduled bridge openings, to further minimize delay.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this supplemental proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The supplemental proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the 
rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and 
mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled 
bridge openings can minimize delay.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this supplemental proposed rule so that they 
can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, 
or governmental jurisdiction and you have any questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ann B. Deaton, 
Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.

Collection of Information

    This supplemental proposed rule would call for no new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this supplemental 
proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not 
have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this supplemental proposed rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This supplemental proposed rule will not affect a taking of private 
property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights.

[[Page 13643]]

Civil Justice Reform

    This supplemental proposed rule meets applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 
Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this supplemental proposed rule under Executive 
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and 
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 
may disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This supplemental proposed rule does not have tribal implications 
under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how this to best carry out the Order. We 
invite your comments on how this supplemental proposed rule might 
impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a 
``tribal implication'' under the Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this supplemental proposed rule under Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement 
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this supplemental 
proposed rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), 
of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically 
excluded from further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or 
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 
117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 
5039.
    2. Section 117.727 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  117.727  Manasquan River.

    The draw of the Route 70 Bridge, mile 3.4, at Riviera Beach, shall 
open on signal on the hour, except that from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday 
through Friday and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., every day the draw need not 
be opened.

    Dated: February 24, 2003.
Arthur E. Brooks,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 03-6638 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P