
[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 34239-34241]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-15]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0233]
RIN 1625-AA09

 
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Manasquan River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the Route 70 Bridge, mile 3.4, across Manasquan River at 
Riviera Beach, NJ. The existing bridge has been modified by permit from 
a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. Since the bridge is no longer a 
movable bridge, the regulation controlling the opening and closing of 
the bridge in no longer necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0233 and are available online 
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket 
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0233 
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in 
the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or 
copying at the 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, 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 
District, at (757) 398-6222. 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: 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 bridge 
that the regulation governed has been modified from a movable bridge to 
a fixed bridge and does not open for the passage of vessels.
    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 because this rule removes the 
regulation used for the operation of a movable bridge that has been 
modified to become a fixed bridge. The modification has already taken 
place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners.

Background and Purpose

    On September 23, 2005, a Coast Guard Bridge Permit (2-05-5) was 
issued to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to 
replace the existing single-leaf bascule bridge, which carries Route 70 
over Manasquan River at Riviera Beach, NJ, with a new fixed bridge. 
NJDOT completed construction for a new fixed bridge in December 2008.

[[Page 34240]]

    Since the bridge has been modified to a fixed bridge, a special 
operating regulation for a movable bridge is unnecessary. This final 
rule removes the operating regulation regarding the Route 70 Bridge.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 without 
publishing an NPRM. The change removes the regulation governing a 
movable bridge that was modified to a fixed bridge that does not open 
for the passage of vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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. This rule is not ``significant'' under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnessary. This rule merely removes an 
operating regulation for a movable bridge that was modified to a fixed 
bridge and no longer opens for the passage of vessels. Therefore, the 
operating regulation is unnecessary and its removal will not have a de 
minimis economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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. Since the bridge is no longer a movable bridge, the 
regulation controlling the opening and closing of the bridge is no 
longer necessary. Hence this action removing the operating regulation 
of the bridge will have no economic impact on small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small 
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who 
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to 
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman 
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness 
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of 
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 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 rule calls 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 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 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

[[Page 34241]]

systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. 
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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. Therefore, 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.

0
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.  117.727  [Amended]


0
2. Section 117.727 is removed.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. E9-16833 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
