[Federal Register: November 25, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 227)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70552-70554]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25no02-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-02-014]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Northeast Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, NC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulations that govern the
operation of the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear
River, mile 1.0, in Wilmington, North Carolina. The final rule will
reduce the number of bridge openings for transit of pleasure craft
during a four-year bridge repair project. This change will reduce
traffic delays while still providing for the reasonable needs of
navigation. In addition, an administrative correction is being made to
the name of the waterway. The ``Northeast River'' is being changed to
the ``Northeast Cape Fear River''.
DATES: This rule is effective December 26, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as available in the docket, are
part of docket CGD05-02-014 and are available for inspection or copying
at Commander (Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th
Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004 between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator,
Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On May 30, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Northeast Cape Fear
River, Wilmington, North Carolina'' in the Federal Register (67 FR
37746). We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No
public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Isabel S. Holmes Drawbridge is owned and operated by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The regulation in 33 CFR
117.5 requires the bridge to open promptly and fully once a request to
open is received. When the bridge is
[[Page 70553]]
closed there is 40 feet of vertical clearance.
The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge crosses the Northeast Cape Fear River.
It makes connections with Route 133 and the US-17 corridor, which
supports the general north/south flow of traffic through the region.
The bridge is one of two river crossings under high vehicular use in
the region. According to figures from 1999, approximately 19,000
vehicles pass over the bridge every day. Between 1999 and the present,
an average of 12 pleasure craft per month transited the area and
required bridge openings between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Motorists did not have an alternate route when traveling this stretch
of highway unless they drove several traffic congested miles. Boaters
did not have an alternate route to transit this waterway when the
drawbridge was closed.
NCDOT requested permission to decrease the number of openings for
pleasure craft to avoid excessive/hazardous traffic back-ups during
repairs. NCDOT proposed an inter-modal compromise that will limit the
times of draw openings during hours of bridge repair. NCDOT asserts
that by closing the bridge to pleasure craft during daytime hours,
except for two scheduled openings per day for waiting vessels,
vehicular traffic congestion will be reduced and highway safety will be
enhanced. NCDOT provided statistical data, which supports the traffic
counts for a two-way four-lane bridge being changed to a two-way two-
lane bridge. The data also revealed that the draw was opened an average
of 12 times/month for pleasure craft, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6
p.m. The Coast Guard considered restricting all navigation but chose
not to, due to the safety concerns of restricting commercial vessels
with hazardous cargoes. The Coast Guard believes that closure during
the proposed time periods will not overburden recreational marine
traffic while allowing the continued use of two lanes for the two-way
flow of vehicular traffic.
This final rule will revise 33 CFR 117.829, which regulates the
scheduled openings of the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across
Northeast Cape Fear River at mile 27.0. The previous regulatory text
contains no paragraph designation. The regulatory text describes the
``Northeast River,'' and this section is incorrectly titled the
``Northeast River.'' This final rule corrects the river name and
includes the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge in the same section.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received one letter on the NPRM. This letter stated
they had no objection to the proposed rule, therefore, no changes were
made to the final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
This final 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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, l979).
We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal
that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
We reached this conclusion based on the fact that these changes
will not impede maritime traffic transiting the bridge, but merely
require mariners to plan their transits in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings, while still providing for the needs of the
bridge owner.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this final rule will 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 final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the regulation does not
restrict the movement of commercial navigation, but only restricts the
movement of pleasure craft (approx. 12 openings each month). In
addition, to avoid any potential restriction to navigation, maritime
advisories will be widely available to users of the river.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. In our notice of
proposed rule making we provided a point of contact to small entities,
who could answer questions concerning proposed provisions or options
for compliance.
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 could 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 final rule will not result in such expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This final 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 final 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.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this final 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 may
disproportionately affect children.
[[Page 70554]]
Indian Tribal Governments
This final 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 final 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.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this final rule and
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. The final rule only involves the operation
of an existing drawbridge and will not have any impact on the
environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section
117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. Section 117.829 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.829 Northeast Cape Fear River.
(a) The draw of the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge, at mile 1.0, at
Wilmington, North Carolina will operate as follows:
(1) The draw will be closed to pleasure craft from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
every day except at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. when the draw will open for all
waiting vessels.
(2) The draw will open on signal for Government and commercial
vessels at all times.
(3) The draw will open for all vessels on signal from 6 p.m. to 6
a.m.
(b) The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the
Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 27.0, at Castle Hayne, North Carolina
shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given.
Dated: November 12, 2002.
James D. Hull,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-29905 Filed 11-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P