[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42017-42019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-05-079]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal 
Waterway, Manasquan River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations 
that govern the operation of the Route 35 Bridge, at New Jersey 
Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW) mile 1.1, across Manasquan River, at 
Brielle, New Jersey. The bridge will be closed to navigation on three 
four-month closure periods beginning from 8 a.m. November 1, 2006 until 
5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. 
March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 
1, 2009. The extensive structural, mechanical, and electrical repairs 
and improvements necessitate these closures.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 6, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The 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 
Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management 
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 42018]]

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 CGD05-05-
079, 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 a return 
receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. 
We will consider all submittals 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 Commander (obr), 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.

Background and Purpose

    The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) owns and 
operates the Route 35 Bridge, at NJICW mile 1.1, across Manasquan 
River, at Brielle, New Jersey. The current operating regulations set 
out in 33 CFR 117.733(b) requires the drawbridge to open on signal 
except as follows: from May 15 through September 30, on Saturdays, 
Sundays and Federal holidays, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. the draw need only 
open 15 minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after the hour; on 
Mondays to Thursdays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., and on Fridays, except 
Federal holidays from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open 15 
minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after the hour; and year-round 
from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need only open if at least four hours 
notice is given.
    Parsons Brinkerhoff, a design consultant, on behalf of NJDOT 
requested a temporary change to the existing regulations for the Route 
35 Bridge to facilitate necessary repairs. The repairs consist of 
extensive structural rehabilitation, mechanical, electrical repairs and 
improvements to necessitate this closure. To facilitate repairs, the 
bascule span must be closed to vessel traffic on three four-month 
closure periods beginning 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 
1, 2007; from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; 
and from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed the bridge data provided by NJDOT. The 
data, from years 2003 to 2005, shows a substantial decrease in the 
number of bridge openings and vessel traffic transiting the area 
between November and March. Based on the data provided, the proposed 
closure dates will have minimal impact on vessel traffic.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing the 
Route 35 Bridge over the Manasquan River, at NJICW mile 1.1, at 
Brielle, New Jersey, set out in 33 CFR 117.733(b). The Coast Guard 
proposes to temporarily suspend 33 CFR 117.733(b) and insert this new 
specific regulation at 33 CFR 117.733(l).
    Paragraph (l) would allow the draw to be closed to vessel traffic 
during the rehabilitation project on three four-month closure periods 
beginning 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from 8 
a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m. on 
November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009.

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 (DHS).
    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 historical data, and on the fact that the proposed closure 
periods support minimal impact due to the reduced number of vessels 
requiring transit through the bridge.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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 proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The off-season closure dates proposed for the 
bridge are designed to minimize the number of small entities affected.
    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 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 questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222. The Coast 
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or 
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This 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 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 proposed rule will not

[[Page 42019]]

result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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 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 would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit 
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, 
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation because it has been determined that the 
promulgation of operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically 
excluded.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    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; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. From 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from 
8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m. 
on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009, in Sec.  117.733, 
suspend paragraph (b) and add a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.733  New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (l) From 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007; 
from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8 
a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009, the Route 35 
Bridge, mile 1.1, at Brielle may remain closed to navigation.

    Dated: July 11, 2005.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-14322 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P