[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76255-76257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0926]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal 
Waterway, Barnegat Bay, Seaside Heights, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating 
schedule that governs the S37 Bridge, at NJICW mile 14.1 over Barnegat 
Bay, at Seaside Heights, NJ. Over the span of two and half years, the 
bridge will be closed to navigation for three four-month closure 
periods. Extensive replacement of parts and repairs to the bridge 
necessitate these closures.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0926 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries 
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these 
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Jim Rousseau, District Five Prevention Bridges, the 
Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]. 
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by 
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will 
be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will 
include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2012-0926), indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and 
material online http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a

[[Page 76256]]

comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered 
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. 
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered 
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the 
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and 
a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of 
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding 
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0926] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``Search.'' then click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated 
with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand 
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will 
consider all comments and material received during the comment period 
and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0926) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in 
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please explain 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.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Parsons Brinkerhoff, a design consultant on behalf of NJDOT, 
requested a temporary change to the existing regulations for the S37 
Bridge to facilitate necessary repairs. The repairs consist of 
extensive structural rehabilitation, decking replacement, bearing 
replacement, electrical repairs, gate replacement and improvements to 
necessitate this closure. To facilitate repairs, the bascule span would 
be maintained in the closed position to navigation on three four-month 
closure periods beginning at 8 a.m., December 1, 2015 until 8 p.m., 
March 31, 2016; from 8 a.m., December 1, 2016 until 8 p.m., March 31, 
2017; and from 8 a.m., December 1, 2017 until 8 p.m. March 31, 2018.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed the bridge data provided by NJDOT. The 
data, from years 2004 to 2013, shows a substantial decrease in the 
number of bridge openings and vessel traffic transiting the area 
between December and March. Spring and fall average openings are 
approximately 100 per month. Winter months average approximately 6 
vessel openings per month. A survey was conducted with nine local 
commercial marinas also indicating minimal impact to their customers 
and operations. The S37 Bridge, also known locally as the Thomas A. 
Mathis Bridge, is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a vertical 
clearance of approximately 30 feet, above mean high water. Based on the 
data provided, the proposed closure dates will have minimal impact on 
vessel traffic.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend 33 CFR 117.733(c)(1) 
governing the S37 Bridge, at NJICW mile 14.1, over Barnegat Bay, at 
Seaside Heights, NJ. The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend 33 
CFR 117.733(c)(1) and insert this new regulation at 33 CFR 
117.733(c)(4). Paragraph (c)(4) would allow the draw to be maintained 
in the closed position to vessels during the extensive rehabilitation 
project on three four-month closure periods beginning 8 a.m., December 
1, 2015 until 8 p.m., March 31, 2016; from 8 a.m., December 1, 2016 
until 8 p.m., March 31, 2017; and from 8 a.m., December 1, 2017 until 8 
p.m., March 31, 2018. Vessels with a mast height less than 30 feet can 
pass underneath the bridge in the closed position at anytime. The 
Atlantic Ocean is the only alternate route available for vessels unable 
to pass underneath the bridge and the bridge will be unable to open 
during the closure period.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under 
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget 
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The proposed change is expected 
to have minimal impact on mariners due to slow down of users in the 
winter months with no anticipated change to vessel traffic.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. There 
have been minimal vessel requests requiring openings for the past 9 
years in the winter months. Vessels that can safely transit under the 
bridge may do so at any time.
    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.

[[Page 76257]]

3. 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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT'' section to coordinate protest activities so that 
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not 
result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This proposed 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a 
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply 
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. 
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an 
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. From December 1, 2015 through March 31, 2018 in Sec.  117.733, 
suspend paragraph (c)(1) and add paragraph (c)(4), to read as follows:


Sec.  117.733  New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) From every December 1 through March 31, beginning in 2015 until 
2018, the draw may remain closed to navigation.
* * * * *

    Dated: November 18, 2013.
Steven H. Ratti,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2013-29859 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P