[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18181-18183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2014-0121]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Great Egg Harbor Bay, (Ship
Channel and (Beach Thorofare NJICW)), Somers Point and Ocean City, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the operating schedules that
govern the opening of the S52 (Ship Channel) Bridge, mile 0.5, across
Great Egg Harbor Bay at Somers Point, NJ and the Route 52 (Ninth
Street) Bridge, mile 80.4, across Great Egg Harbor Bay Beach Thorofare
NJICW at Ocean City, NJ. The existing regulations contain drawbridge
operation schedules for the Route 52 Bridges. However, the existing
bridges were modified in 2012 from movable bridges to fixed bridges.
Since the bridges are no longer movable bridges, the regulations
controlling the opening and closing of the bridges are no longer
necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0121. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the in ``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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management Specialist, Coast
Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, 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
NJICW New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
A. Regulatory History and Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Route 52 bridges that once
required draw operations as outlined in 33 CFR 117.753 and 33 CFR
117.733(h) were modified from movable bridges to fixed bridges. As
such, the bridges no longer open for the passage of vessels. Therefore,
the regulations are no longer
[[Page 18182]]
applicable and should be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to
publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to
place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that
have no further use or value.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The bridges have been fixed
bridges for 2 years and this rule merely requires an administrative
change to the Code of Federal Regulations, in order to omit a
regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The
modification has already taken place and the removal of the regulation
will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway.
Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
B. Basis and Purpose
On September 19, 2005, a Coast Guard Bridge Permit (1-05-5) was
issued to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to
replace the existing bascule bridges, which carries Route 52 over Great
Egg Harbor Bay (Ship Channel) at Somers Point, NJ and over Great Egg
Harbor Bay (Beach Thorofare NJICW) at Ocean City, NJ, with new fixed
bridges. NJDOT completed construction for the new fixed bridges in May
2012. The elimination of these drawbridges necessitates the removal of
the drawbridge operation regulations in 33 CFR 117.753 and 33 CFR
117.733(h) that contain the operating schedules pertaining to the
former drawbridges.
C. Discussion of the Final Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 without
publishing an NPRM. The change removes the regulations governing
movable bridges that were modified to fixed bridges. Specifically, this
rule will remove the section of 33 CFR 117.753 that refers to the S52
Bridge at mile 0.5 and section of 33 CFR 117.733(h), that refers to the
Route 52 Bridge at mile 80.4, from the Code of Federal Regulations
since they govern bridges that are no longer able to be opened.
D. Regulatory Analysis
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13653, 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. We
reached this conclusion based on the fact that the regulations are no
longer necessary since these bridges have been modified to fixed
bridges.
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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This final rule would affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: None. Due to the fact that these
bridges have been fixed bridges for 2 years, this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
3. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
4. 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 States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it
does not have implications for federalism.
5. 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.
6. 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
7. Taking of Private Property
This 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.
8. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.
9. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this 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 might
disproportionately affect children.
10. Indian Tribal Governments
This 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.
11. 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. The Administrator of the Office
[[Page 18183]]
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.
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
13. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded
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 rule involves the removal of regulations for bridges
that are now fixed bridges. 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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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.
Sec. 117.733 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 117.733, remove paragraph (h) and redesignate paragraphs
(i) through (m) as paragraphs (h) through (l).
Sec. 117.753 [Removed]
0
3. Remove Sec. 117.753.
Dated: March 19, 2014.
Steven H. Ratti,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-07083 Filed 3-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P