Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Point Pleasant, NJ, 16153-16156 [2021-05154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16153
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 57 / Friday, March 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Proposed
fee
Item No.
Current
fee
Total 3 .....................................
80
*
*
1 Projected
*
Change
in fee
60
Estimated
annual number
of services
requested 1
Percentage
increase
20
33.33
*
Estimated
change in
annual fees
collected 2
15,900,000
*
$318,000,000
*
*
passport workload included in this CoSM update, FY 2020, 2021 and 2022 receipts projected by the PPT directorate as of July
2020.
2 The Department of State retains this fee.
3 The Department anticipates implementing this fee change in FY 2022. FY 2022 volumes are used to project fee collection totals.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the 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. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this
rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to require consultations or
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. The
regulations implementing Executive
Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities do not
apply to this regulation.
Executive Order 13771
This rule is not subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because
it is a transfer rule.
Executive Order 13175
The Department has determined that
this rulemaking will not have tribal
implications, will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments, and will not
preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the
requirements of Executive Order 13175
do not apply to this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 22
Consular services, Fees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the preamble, 22 CFR part 22 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 22—SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR
CONSULAR SERVICES—
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND
FOREIGN SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 22
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1153 note,
1157 note, 1183a note, 1184(c)(12), 1201(c),
1351, 1351 note, 1714, 1714 note; 10 U.S.C.
2602(c); 22 U.S.C. 214, 214 note, 1475e,
2504(h), 2651a, 4206, 4215, 4219, 6551; 31
U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 10718, 22 FR 4632 (1957),
3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 382; E.O. 11295,
31 FR 10603 (1966), 3 CFR, 1966–1970
Comp., p. 570.
2. In § 22.1, amend the table by
revising entry 2(g) under the heading
‘‘Passport and Citizenship Services’’ to
read as follows:
■
§ 22.1
*
Schedule of fees.
*
*
*
*
SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES
Item No.
Fee
Passport and Citizenship Services
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Passport book security surcharge (enhanced border security fee) ........................................................................................
*
*
*
*
Ian Brownlee,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[FR Doc. 2021–06263 Filed 3–25–21; 8:45 am]
Coast Guard
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
33 CFR Part 117
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New
Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Point
Pleasant, NJ
Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
AGENCY:
16:46 Mar 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
ACTION:
$80
*
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the Route 88 (Veterans
Memorial) Bridge and Route 13
(Lovelandtown) Bridge across the New
Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW) at
Point Pleasant Canal, mile 3.0 and 3.9,
respectively at Point Pleasant, NJ. This
proposed modification will allow the
drawbridges to be maintained in the
closed position overnight.
SUMMARY:
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0647]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 26, 2021.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16154
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 57 / Friday, March 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0647 using Federal e-Rulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders,
Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth
District, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone
(757) 398–6587, email
Mickey.D.Sanders2@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
NJICW New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
The New Jersey Department of
Transportation, which owns and
operates the Route 88 (Veterans
Memorial) Bridge and Route 13
(Lovelandtown) Bridge, across the
NJICW at Point Pleasant Canal, mile 3.0
and 3.9, respectively, at Point Pleasant,
NJ, has requested this modification to
reduce the number of bridge openings
during off-peak hours.
The Route 88 (Veterans Memorial)
Bridge across the NJICW at Point
Pleasant Canal, mile 3.0, at Point
Pleasant, NJ, has a vertical clearance of
10 feet above mean high water in the
closed-to-navigation position. The
bridge currently operates under 33 CFR
117.5.
The Route 13 (Lovelandtown) Bridge
across the NJICW at Point Pleasant
Canal, mile 3.9, at Point Pleasant, NJ,
has a vertical clearance of 30 feet above
mean high water in the closed-tonavigation position. The bridge
currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.
The Point Pleasant Canal is used
predominately by recreational vessels
and pleasure craft. The three-year
average number of bridge openings,
maximum number of bridge openings,
and bridge openings between 11 p.m. to
7 a.m., by month and overall for August
2017, through August 2020, as drawn
from the data contained in the bridge
tender logs, is presented below. There is
a monthly average of two bridge
openings for each bridge, from 11 p.m.
to 7 a.m., from August 2017 to August
2020.
Average
openings
Month
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
January ........................................................................................................................................
February .......................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................
May ..............................................................................................................................................
June .............................................................................................................................................
July ...............................................................................................................................................
August ..........................................................................................................................................
September ...................................................................................................................................
October ........................................................................................................................................
November ....................................................................................................................................
December ....................................................................................................................................
4
2
7
24
51
74
125
101
63
51
29
16
Maximum
openings
14
7
21
72
154
223
376
407
190
155
89
49
Proposed
openings
11 p.m.–
7 a.m.
0
0
0
2
6
18
20
20
8
6
7
1
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Impact on Small Entities
The bridge owner has requested to
modify the operating regulation for the
bridges, due to the limited number of
requested openings of the bridges from
11 p.m. to 7 a.m., over a period of
approximately three years. The data
presented in the table above
demonstrates that the requested
modification may be implemented with
de minimis impact to navigation. This
proposed modification will allow the
drawbridges to be maintained in the
closed position from 11:01 p.m. to 6:59
a.m. and shall open on signal, if at least
four hours advance notice is given.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the fact that an average of
only two bridge openings occurred per
month from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., from
August 2017 through August 2020.
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.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridges
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
IV. 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 and Executive
orders and we discuss First Amendment
rights of protestors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 57 / Friday, March 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 section. 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. 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).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
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 the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental
Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3–1 of the U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental
Consideration nor a Memorandum for
the Record are 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.
G. 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.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16155
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in this docket and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
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; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 117.733 as follows:
a. Remove paragraphs (i) and (k);
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through
(h) and (j) as paragraphs (d) through (k),
respectively; and
■ c. Add new paragraphs (b) and (c).
The additions read as follows:
■
■
■
§ 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The draw of the Route 88 Bridge,
mile 3.0, across Point Pleasant Canal at
Point Pleasant, shall operate as follows:
(1) From 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. the draw
shall open on signal.
(2) From 11:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal, if at least
four hours advance notice is given.
(c) The draw of the Route 13 Bridge,
mile 3.9, across Point Pleasant Canal at
Point Pleasant, shall operate as follows:
(1) From 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. the draw
shall open on signal.
(2) From 11:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal, if at least
four hours advance notice is given.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
16156
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 57 / Friday, March 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 5, 2021.
L.M. Dickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021–05154 Filed 3–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
37 CFR Chapter III
[Docket No. 2021–1]
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims
Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act Regulations
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notification of inquiry.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is
issuing a notification of inquiry
regarding its implementation of the
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims
Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act. The CASE
Act establishes the Copyright Claims
Board (‘‘CCB’’), an alternative forum in
which parties may voluntarily seek to
resolve certain copyright infringement
and other claims. The Office must
establish regulations to govern the CCB
and its procedures, including rules
addressing service of notice and other
documents, waiver of personal service,
notifications that parties are opting out
of participating in the forum, discovery,
a mechanism for certain claims to be
resolved by a single CCB Officer, review
of CCB determinations by the Register of
Copyrights, publication of records,
certifications, and fees. The statute also
allows the Office to adopt several
optional regulations, including
regulations addressing claimants’
permissible number of cases, eligible
classes of works, the conduct of
proceedings, and default
determinations. The statute vests the
Office with general authority to adopt
regulations to carry out its provisions.
To assist in promulgating these
regulations, the Office seeks public
comment regarding the subjects of
inquiry discussed in this notification.
DATES: Initial written comments must be
received no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on April 26, 2021. Written
reply comments must be received no
later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
May 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of governmental
efficiency, the Copyright Office is using
the regulations.gov system for the
submission and posting of public
comments in this proceeding. All
comments are therefore to be submitted
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Mar 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
electronically through regulations.gov.
Specific instructions for submitting
comments are available on the
Copyright Office’s website at https://
www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/caseact-implementation/. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible
due to lack of access to a computer and/
or the internet, please contact the Office
using the contact information below for
special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
R. Riley, Assistant General Counsel, by
email at jril@copyright.gov, Brad A.
Greenberg, Assistant General Counsel,
by email at brgr@copyright.gov, or
Rachel Counts, Paralegal, by email at
rcounts@copyright.gov. They can each
be reached by telephone at 202–707–
8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. The CASE Act and the Copyright
Claims Board
On December 27, 2020, the President
signed into law the Copyright
Alternative in Small-Claims
Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act of 2020.1
The statute establishes the Copyright
Claims Board (‘‘CCB’’), a voluntary
tribunal in the Copyright Office
(‘‘Office’’) comprised of three Copyright
Claims Officers who have the authority
to render determinations on certain
copyright disputes that have a low
economic value (‘‘small copyright
claims’’). Congress created the CCB to
address the significant challenges of
litigating small copyright claims in
federal court,2 a problem analyzed in
depth in the Office’s 2013 policy report,
Copyright Small Claims.3 This report
included model legislation that
Congress drew on in developing the
statute, and Congress incorporated the
Office’s report and supporting materials
into the statute’s legislative history.4
Prior to the CCB beginning operations,
jurisdiction to hear copyright
infringement suits resides exclusively in
federal courts.5 The statute does not
displace or limit the ability to bring
copyright infringement claims in federal
court. Instead, the law provides an
alternative forum to decide small
copyright claims in a manner that is
more accessible to pro se parties and
other parties that otherwise could not
afford to litigate their claims.6
The CCB has the authority to decide
copyright infringement claims (asserted
by copyright holders), claims seeking a
declaration of noninfringement (asserted
by users of copyrighted works or other
accused infringers), and
misrepresentation claims under 17
U.S.C. 512(f).7 District courts can also
refer parties to have their disputes
decided by the CCB as part of their
alternative dispute resolution
programs.8
While the statute mandates the
creation of the CCB, it does not change
the underlying copyright law with
respect to these disputes. The CCB will
employ existing case law in making its
determinations and, in the case of
conflicting judicial copyright precedents
that cannot be reconciled, the CCB
‘‘shall follow the law of the Federal
jurisdiction in which the action could
have been brought if filed in a district
court of the United States,’’ or, if the
action could have been brought in
multiple jurisdictions, the jurisdiction
that ‘‘has the most significant ties to the
parties and conduct at issue.’’ 9 All CCB
determinations are non-precedential.10
The CCB may consult with the Register
of Copyrights on general issues of law,
although, similarly to the Copyright
Royalty Board (‘‘CRB’’), it cannot do so
regarding the facts of any pending
matter or the application of law to those
facts.11
Participation in the CCB is voluntary
for all parties.12 In establishing the CCB,
Congress adopted a system whereby
respondents must be notified of a claim
asserted against them, and have the
opportunity to opt out of participating
in this alternative forum.13 As with
private arbitration models, participants
may consent to participate in CCB
proceedings, waiving their ability to
have a dispute heard in federal court
including any right to a jury trial.14 As
noted below, default determinations are
able to be reviewed and set aside by an
Article III judge, as an additional
safeguard for defaulting respondents.15
6 H.R.
1 Public
Law 116–260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182,
2176 (2020).
2 See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 18–20
(2019). Note, the statute’s legislative history cited is
for H.R. 2426, 116th Cong. (2019), the CASE Act of
2019, a bill largely identical to the CASE Act of
2020.
3 U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Small Claims
(2013) https://www.copyright.gov/docs/
smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf (‘‘Small
Claims Report’’).
4 H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 19.
5 17 U.S.C. 301(a); 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Rep. No. 116–252, at 17.
U.S.C. 1504(c)(1)–(3).
8 Id. 1509(b); see 28 U.S.C. 651.
9 17 U.S.C. 1503(b), 1506(a)(2); H.R. Rep. No.
116–252, at 21–22, 25–26.
10 H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 21–22, 33.
11 17 U.S.C. 1503(b)(2); see also id. 802(f)(1)(A)(i)
(parallel CRB provision).
12 See id. at 1503(a), 1504(a); H.R. Rep. No. 116–
252, at 17, 21.
13 17 U.S.C. 1506(g)(1), (i).
14 H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 21; Small Claims
Report at 97–99.
15 17 U.S.C. 1508(c)(1)(C).
7 17
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 57 (Friday, March 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16153-16156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0647]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway, Point Pleasant, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Route 88 (Veterans Memorial) Bridge and Route 13
(Lovelandtown) Bridge across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW) at Point Pleasant Canal, mile 3.0 and 3.9, respectively at
Point Pleasant, NJ. This proposed modification will allow the
drawbridges to be maintained in the closed position overnight.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 26, 2021.
[[Page 16154]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0647 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch,
Fifth District, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone (757) 398-6587, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
NJICW New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The New Jersey Department of Transportation, which owns and
operates the Route 88 (Veterans Memorial) Bridge and Route 13
(Lovelandtown) Bridge, across the NJICW at Point Pleasant Canal, mile
3.0 and 3.9, respectively, at Point Pleasant, NJ, has requested this
modification to reduce the number of bridge openings during off-peak
hours.
The Route 88 (Veterans Memorial) Bridge across the NJICW at Point
Pleasant Canal, mile 3.0, at Point Pleasant, NJ, has a vertical
clearance of 10 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation
position. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.
The Route 13 (Lovelandtown) Bridge across the NJICW at Point
Pleasant Canal, mile 3.9, at Point Pleasant, NJ, has a vertical
clearance of 30 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation
position. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.
The Point Pleasant Canal is used predominately by recreational
vessels and pleasure craft. The three-year average number of bridge
openings, maximum number of bridge openings, and bridge openings
between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., by month and overall for August 2017,
through August 2020, as drawn from the data contained in the bridge
tender logs, is presented below. There is a monthly average of two
bridge openings for each bridge, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., from August
2017 to August 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Month Average Maximum openings 11
openings openings p.m.- 7 a.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................................... 4 14 0
February........................................................ 2 7 0
March........................................................... 7 21 0
April........................................................... 24 72 2
May............................................................. 51 154 6
June............................................................ 74 223 18
July............................................................ 125 376 20
August.......................................................... 101 407 20
September....................................................... 63 190 8
October......................................................... 51 155 6
November........................................................ 29 89 7
December........................................................ 16 49 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge owner has requested to modify the operating regulation
for the bridges, due to the limited number of requested openings of the
bridges from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., over a period of approximately three
years. The data presented in the table above demonstrates that the
requested modification may be implemented with de minimis impact to
navigation. This proposed modification will allow the drawbridges to be
maintained in the closed position from 11:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and
shall open on signal, if at least four hours advance notice is given.
IV. 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 and Executive orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that an
average of only two bridge openings occurred per month from 11 p.m. to
7 a.m., from August 2017 through August 2020.
B. 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
[[Page 16155]]
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.
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
section. 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.
C. 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).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
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 the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are 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.
G. 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.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to 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; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 117.733 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (i) and (k);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (h) and (j) as paragraphs (d)
through (k), respectively; and
0
c. Add new paragraphs (b) and (c).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the Route 88 Bridge, mile 3.0, across Point
Pleasant Canal at Point Pleasant, shall operate as follows:
(1) From 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. the draw shall open on signal.
(2) From 11:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. the draw shall open on signal, if
at least four hours advance notice is given.
(c) The draw of the Route 13 Bridge, mile 3.9, across Point
Pleasant Canal at Point Pleasant, shall operate as follows:
(1) From 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. the draw shall open on signal.
(2) From 11:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. the draw shall open on signal, if
at least four hours advance notice is given.
* * * * *
[[Page 16156]]
Dated: March 5, 2021.
L.M. Dickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-05154 Filed 3-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
