Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 33 CFR Part 117

RIN ID: RIN 2115-AE47

CGD ID: [CGD01-01-095]

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Drawbridge operations:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Shrewsbury River, NJ

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 10, 2001.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Monmouth County highway bridge, at mile 4.0, across the Shrewsbury River at Sea Bright, New Jersey. This proposed temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge owner to open the bridge at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., only, from November 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002. A twelvehour advance notice would be required for all bridge openings. This action is necessary to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.

SUMMARY: New Jersey,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD0101 0), 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 if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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 First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 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

The Monmouth County highway bridge, at mile 4.0, across the Shrewsbury River has a vertical clearance of 15 feet at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.755.

The bridge owner, Monmouth County, asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge. This proposed temporary rule would allow the bridge owner to open the bridge at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., only, from November 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002. A twelvehour advance notice would be required for all bridge openings. Discussion of Proposal

This proposed temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge owner to open the bridge at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., only, after a twelvehour advance notice is given, while structural repairs are underway at the bridge.

The timed openings and the advance notice requirement are necessary to assist in scheduling repairs and to allow the contractor sufficient time to remove equipment and materials from the bridge in order to provide bridge openings.

The number of bridge openings from November through February in past years have been relatively low. The bridge opening log data for November through February for the past two years is as follows: 19992000 20002001 November.......................................... 68 85 December.......................................... 31 38 [[Page 36528]]
January........................................... 14 6 February.......................................... 7 13

The Coast Guard believes this rulemaking is reasonable based upon the relatively low number of bridge opening requests during past years November through February and the fact that this work is necessary maintenance required to assure continued uninterrupted operation of the bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, Feb. 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will still continue to open daily for navigation.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601612), we 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, notforprofit 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 section 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 conclusion is based upon the fact that the bridge will still continue to open daily for navigation.

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.

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. 35013520.). Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 15311538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate. Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 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 E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Environment

We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 21, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of drawbridge regulations have been found not to have a significant effect on the environment. A written ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is not required for this rule.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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 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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

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

PART 117DRAWBRIDGE 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 1.051(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102587, 106 Stat. 5039.

2. From November 1, 2001, through February 28, 2002, in Sec. 117.755 temporarily suspend paragraph (b) and add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.755 Shrewsbury River.
* * * * *
(c) The Monmouth County highway bridge, mile 4.0, at sea Bright shall open on signal at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., after at least a twelvehour advance notice is given. Advance notice may be given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

Dated: June 25, 2001.
G.N. Naccara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 0117387 Filed 71101; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 491015P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Judy Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 6687165.