FR 2021-02058

The document from the Federal Register pertains to a temporary modification in the operation of the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge in Atlantic City, NJ. This rule affects the bridge's schedule by keeping it closed to marine traffic during specific off-peak periods from 2021 to 2023. The United States Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, has issued this regulation to address necessary maintenance work, ensuring the safety and longevity of the bridge while balancing navigational requirements on the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.

General Summary

The bridge is set to remain closed from March 3, 2021, through March 31, 2023, specifically from November 1 to March 31 of each year, to facilitate essential maintenance efforts that include reduced vertical and horizontal clearances. During these times, vessels that can navigate the adjusted clearances can still pass with a 30-minute advance notice. This measure is intended to accommodate urgent maintenance while minimally disrupting waterway traffic.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from this regulation. Firstly, the document lacks detailed financial accountability regarding the maintenance costs, which might raise concerns about prudent use of resources. Additionally, while referencing several Executive Orders and laws, there is minimal explanation of their application to ensure legal compliance, potentially leading to misunderstandings.

The technical nature of reduced bridge clearances could also pose comprehension challenges to the general public without further clarification. Furthermore, the regulation presumes no significant impact on small entities, yet it does not provide empirical data or analyses to affirm this conclusion convincingly.

The notification of bridge closure times would benefit from clearer communication about impacts on local marine traffic, including contingency plans to mitigate these impacts. Moreover, the choice behind the maintenance period appears opaque, possibly unsettling stakeholders seeking transparency in decision-making processes.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, the public will experience limited disruption due to the off-season timing of bridge closures, which strategically targets lower traffic periods for marine activities. Yet, transparency concerning the decision-making process around timing and financial details could foster greater public trust and readiness.

For marine operators, especially those representing small entities like local fishing or tour vessels, the bridge's temporary closure may introduce operational challenges. Entities heavily reliant on waterway access during the off-season could experience inconveniences, albeit mitigated by the notice requirement for necessary transits. However, the assumption of minimal economic impact on small businesses might not universally hold.

On a positive note, the extended maintenance period should enhance the long-term reliability and safety of the Route 30 Bridge, ultimately serving both local and transient marine traffic more securely. This initiative underscores a commitment to infrastructure improvement while recognizing the need to maintain navigational avenues on vital waterways.

Overall, stakeholders and the general public may understand this temporary rule as a necessary compromise, balancing current inconvenience against future enforcement benefits and infrastructural safety. The key issue remains ensuring all affected parties are adequately informed and their concerns duly addressed throughout the process.

The Federal Register document regarding the temporary final rule modifying the operating schedule of the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge contains limited explicit references to financial spending, appropriations, or financial allocations. The principal mention of financial implications within the text is related to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to consider the financial effects of their regulatory actions.

Financial Reference and Context

Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the document notes that it considers actions potentially resulting in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments—or by the private sector—of $100,000,000 or more in any given year. This reference highlights an important measure meant to prevent undue financial burden on these entities as a consequence of federal regulation.

Issues Relating to Financial References

1. Lack of Detailed Budget Information: One of the issues identified is the absence of detailed information regarding the budget or costs directly associated with the bridge maintenance. The document does not provide an explicit breakdown of the financial implications for the bridge maintenance project. This lack of transparency could raise concerns about the possibility of wasteful spending, especially as it implies adherence to financial thresholds set by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, without detailing how close the project might come to these limits.

2. Application and Compliance with Financial Legislation: While the document refers to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and other legislative and Executive Orders, it lacks elaboration on the application and compliance with these legal requirements. The oversight in explaining how the financial impacts are managed or reported could create ambiguity and potentially limit stakeholders' understanding of the responsible fiscal management of the project.

3. Impact on Small Entities: The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis assumes no significant economic impact on small entities but does not present specific data or a thorough analysis to back this assertion. Without a financial impact study, these entities remain unclear about their susceptibility to potential indirect costs, such as changes to navigation routes or alterations in local marine traffic.

4. Transparent Decision-Making: Lastly, the document lacks clarity about criteria or rationale behind selected maintenance periods, which indirectly relate to financial impacts on stakeholders. The absence of transparency might lead to speculative concerns about efficient allocation and potential hidden costs during other periods, such as increased operational costs to accommodate restricted navigation or potential economic disruptions during peak operations.

In summary, while the financial implications are acknowledged, the document does not sufficiently elaborate on the detailed financial aspects of the project. Greater transparency and clarity in financial planning would address some of the concerns and potential uncertainties among the affected communities and the public at large.