[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6511]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 22, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
33 CFR Part 116
Alteration of Obstructive Bridges; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 116
[CGD 91-063]
RIN 2115-AE15
Alteration of Obstructive Bridges
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations which
provide guidance for declaring a bridge unreasonably obstructive to the
free navigation of navigable waters of the United States and the
procedures for alteration of an obstructive bridge under the Truman-
Hobbs Act, the Bridge Act of 1906, and the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899. The proposed amendments clarify and update
regulations describing the procedures involved and provide additional
details.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-063), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the above address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection of information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, or
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying in room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Marcia L. Waples, Chief, Alterations, Drawbridges, and Systems
Branch (G-NBR-1), at (202) 267-0375.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (CGD 91-063) and the specific section of this
proposal to which each comment applies, and give a reason for each
comment. The Coast Guard requests that all comments and attachments be
submitted in an unbound format suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If not practical, a second copy of any bound material is
requested. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. This proposal may be changed in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address
under ``ADDRESSES''. The request should include reasons why a hearing
would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Ms.
Marcia L. Waples, Project Manager, and LT Ralph L. Hetzel, Project
Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Background and Purpose
There are three primary Federal statutes which contain provisions
that address the issue of bridges which are alleged to unreasonably
obstruct navigation. Under section 18 of the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 502) and section 2 of the Truman-
Hobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 512), and applicable delegation regulations, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall order the alteration of a bridge
which unreasonably obstructs the free navigation of the navigable
waters of the United States. Under section 4 of the Bridge Act of 1906
(33 U.S.C. 494), the same provision applies to bridges over waters
which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and which are used,
or susceptible to being used, in their natural condition or by
reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign
commerce.
Until 1940, paying for the alteration of an obstructive bridge in
order to render the waters that it traverses reasonably free and
navigable was, in all cases, the responsibility of the bridge owner.
Upon passage of the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. 511-524, partial
Federal funding of bridge alterations was made available through
apportionment of the total cost of the alteration between the United
States and the bridge owner. However, the Truman-Hobbs Act only applies
to lawful bridges that carry only railroad traffic or both railroad and
highway traffic, or are publicly-owned highway bridges. Title 33, part
116 of the Code of Federal Regulations, contains regulations governing
alteration of bridges which are unreasonably obstructive to free
navigation of a navigable water of the United States under any of the
three statutes cited above.
In response to issues raised by Congress in the fall of 1991
regarding administration of the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Coast Guard
reviewed its guidance contained in chapter 6 of the Bridge
Administration Manual, COMDTINST M16590.5 (series), pertaining to
bridges eligible for consideration under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The
Coast Guard also reviewed the implementing regulations contained in 33
CFR part 116. These reviews were conducted in order to ascertain
whether the Bridge Administration Manual and the implementing
regulations reflect, accurately and with sufficient detail, the
procedures used for determining if a bridge is an unreasonable
obstruction to navigation and, if so, the process for determining if it
may be altered under the Truman-Hobbs Act. As a result of this review,
the guidance set forth in chapter 6 of the Bridge Administration
Manual, COMDTINST 16590.5 (series), was revised on February 27, 1992,
in order to clarify and provide additional detail concerning the manner
in which the U.S. Coast Guard administers the Truman-Hobbs Act.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide clarification
of the procedures for determining whether a bridge unreasonably
obstructs navigable waters, and, if it does, procedures for ordering
its alteration.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendment revises 33 CFR part 116 by adding new
descriptive language and clarifying, reordering and reformatting
existing provisions that are still valid. The following is a
discussion, section by section, of the changes the proposed amendment
would make.
Section 116.01 would be enhanced to include a reference to the
statutes pertaining to obstructive bridges and would address the types
of bridges that may be considered for alteration under the Truman-Hobbs
Act. A note would be added to direct the reader to the Bridge
Administration Manual, COMDTINST 16590.5 (series), for further
guidance, if desired.
Section 116.05 would address who can file a complaint, to whom it
should be sent, and what information it should include.
Section 116.10 would address the District Commander's procedures
for acting on complaints, or investigating suspicions related to
allegedly obstructive bridges. Under the revised provisions, the
complainant would be encouraged to furnish specific details and
information to the District Commander in writing to support an
allegation of unreasonable obstruction of navigation.
Section 116.15 would provide for a public hearing to determine if
there is a need for an alteration and if so, the extent of the
alteration needed.
Proposed Sec. 116.20 describes the calculation of the benefit to
cost ratio and its application.
Section 116.25 describes the issuance of the Order to Alter and is
essentially unchanged from current Sec. 116.25.
Section 116.30 would provide for the submission and approval of
plans and specifications for a bridge alteration.
Section 116.35 would describe the format of the apportionment of
costs for bridges eligible for alteration under the Truman-Hobbs Act.
Section 116.40 would provide for the submission of bids, the
approval of the award of contract, the approval of the apportionment of
cost, the guaranty of cost and allowance for partial payments.
Section 116.45 provides for appeals in the event that the
complainant or the bridge owner is not satisfied with any decision made
during the process. Additionally, the Truman-Hobbs Act provides for
judicial review of the apportionment of costs.
Regulatory Assessment
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action and has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive
Order 12866 and is not significant under the ``Department of
Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures'' (44 FR 11040,
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Assessment is
unnecessary. This proposal merely updates regulations describing
administrative procedures for implementing provisions governing
alteration of obstructive bridges. There will be no direct cost to the
general public.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated
small businesses that are not dominant in their field and that
otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
This proposal is intended to clarify regulations describing
existing procedures used by the U.S. Coast Guard to implement statutory
provisions governing alteration of obstructive bridges. The procedures
described in this proposal are not new. This proposal describes some
procedures in use, but not currently set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations. It also deletes some outdated provisions in the CFR.
Therefore, this proposal is largely editorial in nature and imposes no
special expense on small businesses. Because it expects the economic
impact of this proposal to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that
contains a collection of information requirement, to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection of information requirements include
reporting, record keeping, notification, and other similar
requirements.
This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements
in Sec. 116.35. The following particulars apply:
DOT No: 2115.
OMB Control No: 2115-AE15.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Alteration of Obstructive Bridges.
Need for Information: The information being collected will be used
in executing an action required by law.
Proposed use for information: To provide for apportionment of costs
to be paid by the bridge owner and to be paid by the Federal government
for alteration of a bridge that unreasonably restricts navigation.
Frequency of Response: Once per action.
Burden Estimate: The estimated time needed to respond to the
collection is 40 hours to research and reproduce files and to prepare
correspondence.
Respondents: Less than 10, in any year, of the possible 1600
drawbridge owners.
Form(s): None.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 40.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under section 305(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons submitting
comments on the requirements should submit their comments both to OMB
and to the Coast Guard where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Administering the
alteration of bridges found to be unreasonably obstructive to free
navigation of the navigable waters of the United States has been
committed to the Coast Guard by statute and therefore this proposal, if
adopted, is expected to preempt state action on similar matters.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that under section 2.B.2.g. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation because it is a Bridge
Administration Program action involving the promulgation of procedures,
processes, and guidance for alteration of bridges. A Categorical
Exclusion Determination is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 116
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 116 as follows:
1. Part 116 is revised to read as follows:
PART 116--ALTERATION OF OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES
Sec.
116.01 Purpose.
116.05 Complaints of unreasonably obstructive bridges.
116.10 Preliminary review.
116.15 Public hearings.
116.20 Benefit-to-cost ratio for Truman-Hobbs Act projects.
116.25 Order to Alter.
116.30 Plans and specifications.
116.35 Apportionment of costs under the Truman-Hobbs Act.
116.40 Submission of bids, approval of award, guaranty of cost, and
partial payments for bridges eligible to be altered under the
Truman-Hobbs Act.
116.45 Appeals.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 33 U.S.C. 521, 49 CFR 1.46(c).
Sec. 116.01 Purpose.
This part outlines the general procedures by which a bridge may be
determined to be an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and an order
to alter issued. This part contains regulations to implement three
statutes which pertain to obstructive bridges: Section 18 of the Rivers
and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 502., section 4 of the
Bridge Act of 1906, 33 U.S.C. 494, and the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1940, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 511-524. Only a railroad bridge, a combination
highway/railroad bridge, or a publicly-owned highway bridge may be
eligible for alteration under the Truman-Hobbs Act.
Note: In addition to the regulations contained in this subpart,
guidance can be found in chapter 6 of COMDTINST M16590.5 (series),
entitled, ``Bridge Administration Manual.'' This manual may be
reviewed at Coast Guard Headquarters or any district office.
Sec. 116.05 Complaints of unreasonably obstructive bridges.
Any person, company, or other entity may submit a complaint that a
bridge unreasonably obstructs navigation to the commander of the Coast
Guard district in which the bridge is located. The complaint should be
in writing and include specific details to support the allegation.
Sec. 116.10 Preliminary review.
(a) The commander of the Coast Guard district in which the bridge
is located may review the district files and records of accidents as
well as details of any complaint submitted to the Coast Guard, to
determine if a bridge appears to be an unreasonable obstruction to the
navigation of a waterway of the United States and to determine if
further investigation is necessary. The District Commander may conduct
a preliminary investigation.
(b) If the District Commander conducts a preliminary investigation,
the District Commander will notify the complainant of the results of
the investigation. The notification will include sufficient information
so that the basis for the decision is apparent, and, inform the
complainant of the appeal process.
(c) The District Commander also will determine, (if the preliminary
review indicates alteration may be required), if the bridge in question
is eligible for consideration under the Truman-Hobbs Act.
(d) Preliminary determinations by the District Commander under this
section may be appealed as described in Sec. 116.45.
Sec. 116.15 Public hearings.
Before issuing an Order to Alter, a public hearing will be held by
the District Commander of the district in which the bridge is located,
at a location close to the bridge in question. At the hearing, the
owners and controllers of the bridge, the complainant(s), and other
interested parties will be given reasonable opportunity to offer
evidence and be heard, orally or in writing, on the extent of any
alteration necessary.
Sec. 116.20 Benefit-to-cost ratio for Truman-Hobbs Act projects.
(a) Computation of the benefit-to-cost ratio for the proposed
alteration project must be calculated by dividing the annualized
navigation benefit of the bridge alteration by the annualized
government share of the cost of the bridge alteration. Benefits data
should be collected over a statistically valid time period.
(b) In order for a bridge to be considered an unreasonable
obstruction to navigation under the Truman-Hobbs Act and to qualify for
alteration under the provisions of that Act, the benefits to
navigation, expressed in dollars, must be greater than or equal to the
government share of the cost of altering the bridge (the ratio must be
at least 1:1). If so, then the bridge is declared unreasonably
obstructive to navigation and an Order to Alter will be issued under
the Truman-Hobbs Act.
Sec. 116.25 Order to Alter.
(a) The District Commander will review the complaint and all
gathered facts, including those from a hearing or from an investigation
report, and make a preliminary recommendation whether a bridge should
be declared an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and that an Order
to Alter should be issued.
(b) The Commandant will make a final determination, and issue an
Order to Alter if the bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to
navigation. The order may be accompanied by a Letter of Special
Conditions, setting forth safeguards to protect the environment or
otherwise providing for other special conditions or needs relevant to
the alteration project.
(1) An Order to Alter for a bridge that is not eligible for Truman-
Hobbs funding, will specify the changes that are required to be made
and will prescribe a reasonable time in which to accomplish them.
(2) If a bridge is eligible to be altered under the Truman-Hobbs
Act, the Order to Alter also will specify the navigational clearances
to be accomplished.
(c) The order will be served promptly on the bridge owner. A copy
of the order as served, together with a statement on the order executed
by the person serving the order, showing on whom, when, and where the
service was made, must be returned to the Commandant. Alternatively,
service may be made by certified mail, return receipt requested (signed
by the addressee), postage prepaid, in place of personal service.
(d) Failure to comply with any order issued under the provisions of
this part will subject the owner or controller of the bridge to the
penalties prescribed in 33 U.S.C. 495, 502, or 519, as appropriate, and
as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 116.30 Plans and specifications.
(a) The bridge owner must submit plans and specifications to
provide for alteration of the bridge in accordance with the Order to
Alter to the Commandant (G-NBR). The plans and specifications, at a
minimum, must provide for the clearances identified in the Order to
Alter, and also may include any additional alteration of the bridge
that the owner considers desirable to meet the requirements of railroad
or highway traffic.
(b) Commandant (G-NBR) will approve or reject the plans and
specifications in whole or in part, and may require the submission of
new or additional plans and specifications.
(c) When Commandant (G-NBR) has approved the plans and
specifications, they are final and binding upon all parties, unless
changes are approved later.
Sec. 116.35 Apportionment of cost under the Truman-Hobbs Act.
(a) The bridge owner must bear such part of the cost attributable
to the direct and special benefits which will accrue to the bridge
owner as a result of the alteration, including expected savings in
repair and maintenance, expected increased carrying capacity, costs
attributable to the requirements of highway and railroad traffic, and
actual capital costs of the used service life. The United States will
bear the balance of the costs, including that part attributable to the
necessities of navigation.
(b) ``Direct and special benefits'' ordinarily will include items
desired by the owner but which have no counterpart in the old bridge or
are of higher quality than similar items in the old bridge such as
improved signal and fender systems, pro rata share of dismantling
costs, and improvements included, but not required, in the interests of
navigation.
(c) The statements of the proportionate shares of cost will include
or be accompanied by a breakdown of the statements of total cost and
proportionate shares, including sufficient details of the features of
construction to show how the apportionment was determined and to permit
adequate review and auditing of the statements.
(d) The Commandant may require an equitable contribution from any
interested person, firm, association, corporation, municipality,
county, or State desiring alteration or relocation. This requirement
may be made for other reasons, in addition to the bridge being an
unreasonable obstruction to navigation, as a condition or precedent to
the making of an order to alter.
(e) Proportionate shares of cost to be borne by the United States
and the bridge owner are developed in substantially the following form:
Total cost of project................................... $____________
Less salvage............................................ $____________
Less contribution by third party........................ $____________
Cost of Alteration to be Apportioned.................... $____________
Share to be borne by the bridge owner:
Direct and Special Benefits:
a. Removing old bridge................................ $____________
b. Fixed charges...................................... $____________
c. Betterments........................................ $____________
Expected savings in repair or maintenance costs:
a. Repair............................................. $____________
b. Maintenance........................................ $____________
Costs attributable to requirements of railroad and/or
highway traffic........................................ $____________
Expenditure for increased carrying capacity............. $____________
Expired service life of old bridge...................... $____________
Subtotal............................................ $____________
Share to be borne by the bridge owner................... $____________
Contingencies........................................... $____________
Total................................................. $____________
Share to be borne by the United States.................. $____________
Contingencies......................................... $____________
Total government costs................................ $____________
Sec. 116.40 Submission of bids, approval of award, guaranty of cost,
and partial payments for bridges eligible to be altered under the
Truman-Hobbs Act.
(a) Bids obtained by the bridge owner must be submitted to
Commandant for approval.
(b) Having provided the bridge owner with opportunity to be heard
during the development of the Apportionment of Costs, an Order of
Apportionment of Costs is issued by the Commandant.
(c) After the bridge owner submits the guaranty of costs required
by 33 U.S.C. 515, the Commandant authorizes the owner to award the
contract.
(d) Partial payments of the government's costs are authorized as
the work progresses to the extent that funds have been appropriated.
Sec. 116.45 Appeals
(a) If a complainant disagrees with a recommendation regarding
obstruction or eligibility made by a District Commander, or Commandant
(G-NBR), the complainant may appeal to the Chief, Office of Navigation
Safety and Waterway Services.
(b) The appeal must be submitted in writing to Chief, Office of
Navigation Safety and Waterway Services, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, within 30 days after the
District Commander's or Commandant (G-NBF) decision. The Chief, Office
of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services, will make a decision on the
appeal within 60 days after receipt of the appeal. The decision of this
appeal shall constitute final agency action.
(c) Any order of apportionment made or issued under section 6 of
the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. 516, may be reviewed by the Court of
Appeals for any judicial circuit in which the bridge in question is
wholly or partly located, if a petition for review is filed within 90
days after the date of issuance of the order. The review is described
in section 10 of the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. 520. The review
proceedings do not operate as a stay of any order issued under Truman-
Hobbs, other than an order of apportionment, nor relieve any bridge
owner of any liability or penalty under other provisions of that act.
Dated: March 15, 1994.
R.C. Houle,
Acting Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 94-6511 Filed 3-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
