1625-0073_ss 08-10-10

1625-0073

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR

ALTERATION OF UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES

OMB No.: 1625-0073

Collection Instruments: None

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances which make the collection of information necessary.

Under the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 494, 502, 511, 513, 514, 515 516, 517, 521, 522, 523 and 524 the Commandant of the Coast Guard is authorized to determine if a bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. If a bridge is determined to be unreasonably obstructive, under the Truman-Hobbs Act, then under the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 514, the bridge owner is required to prepare and submit general plans, specifications, and mapping location to provide for the alteration of the unreasonably obstructive bridge. These plans and specifications submitted by the bridge owner will assist the Commandant in determining under the provisions of

33 U.S.C. 516 the apportionment of cost between the United States and the bridge owner and under 33 U.S.C. 517 the partial payments to be made by the United States to the bridge owner as the alteration progresses.

 

2. Purpose of the Information Collection

Once a bridge has been determined to be an unreasonable obstruction to navigation safety, the engineers at the Office of Bridge Programs, Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC, collect the necessary information (general plans, specifications, and mapping location) to determine both the scope of the alteration project and the apportionment of cost. This is not a frequent collection of information; it is collected all at once at the start of the project. The information is reviewed to determine how to proceed with the alteration and to determine what part of the cost of alteration is betterment and what part is necessary to meet the needs of navigation. It also determines the apportionment of the costs to the bridge owner and the Federal government by inserting the cost information, which is part of the plans, into a mathematical model. If this information is not collected, the alteration could not proceed nor could the cost be apportioned. Thus, an unreasonable obstruction to navigation would continue to be a hazard to navigation safety.

3. Consideration of the use of improved information technology to reduce the burden.

The information collected via mail, phone, fax or electronically, when possible, will be used in executing an action required by law. The nature of the information requested is case-specific and not readily adaptable to information technology systems. Under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the bridge owner is required to submit architectural plans, specifications and local mapping for the bridge. When possible, this information is provided by the bridge owner in electronic format. However, many times the detailed drawings or mapping locations are too large or in a format not compatible with the Coast Guard’s computer systems and must be provided by the bridge owner in hardcopy form. Therefore, improved information technology has not been particularly useful in obtaining the required information which is unique to the Engineering Division of the Bridge Program.

4. Efforts to identify duplication.

There is no other Federal agency with similar programs concerning bridges over navigable waters of the United States. The responsibility for bridges over navigable waters of the United States rests solely with the Coast Guard. There is no similar information available, which could be used or modified for this purpose. Each collection is unique to the case specific bridge. This collection is not reported on any form, and, therefore is not duplicated elsewhere.

5. Methods used to minimize the burdens to small business.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses or other small entities. The respondents are, with few exceptions, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or organizations employing more than 100 persons.

6. Consequences to the Federal program if collection were not done or conducted less frequently.

The result would be noncompliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and the bridge engineering program would be ineffective. Less frequent collection would result in the Coast Guard's inability to make informed decisions on whether the bridge in question or the alteration of that bridge would meet the reasonable needs of navigation with due consideration of the effects on the human environment. Thus, unreasonably obstructive bridges would remain unaltered and a hazard to navigation safety.

7. Special circumstances that require collection to be conducted in an inconsistent manner.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the guidelines in 5CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8. Solicitation of Comments.

A 60-day Notice and 30-day Notice were published in the Federal Register to obtain public comment on this collection. (See USCG-2010-0981: November 4, 2010; 75 FR 67990; February 15, 2011 76 FR 8764). The USCG has not received any comments on this information collection.

9. Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information collection. Neither bridge owner nor respondents to public notices on bridge projects are compensated for providing data or information.

10. Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection.

11. Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive nature.

12. Estimate of annual hour and cost burden.

Approximately four engineering studies are initiated per year. Each study requires a one-time submission of subject information (e.g., plans and specifications). Our chief engineer (CE) estimates an annual hour burden of approximately 60 hours per study for a total of 240 hours per year for the four studies. This is based on the CE’s personal experience and that of the engineering staff that are in contact with the bridge owner on a frequent basis during the course of a bridge alteration project.

The annualized cost to respondents for the hour burden for collections of information is approximately $3,880/engineer, $258/technician, and $216/secretary with approximately $1,000 for travel expenses and $500 for photography and printing for a total annual cost per study of $5,854. The total annual cost burden for four studies is $23,416. (See Table I.)

TABLE I
BRIDGE OWNER
Personnel	No. of hours	Salary per hour	Total Hourly Cost Burden (Q12)*	Travel Expense	Photo and Printing	Total Annual Cost/Study (Q13)*	No. of Engineering Studies per Year	Total Annual Cost Burden (Q14)
Engineer	48	$81	$3,880
Technician	6	$43	$ 258
Secretary	6	$36	$ 216
			$4,354	$1,000	$500	$5,854	4	$23,416

* For frequency of response, see column “No. of Engineering Studies Per Year.”

** For Q13 start-up cost is not applicable. Cost shown is operational cost.

13. Provide an estimate of the annualized capital/start-up costs to respondents.

There are no record keeping, capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

14. Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

Annualized cost to the Federal government is approximately $7,938/engineer and $936/secretary with approximately $1,000 for travel and $250 for photography and printing for a total cost of $10,124 per study or $40,496 for four studies. (See Table II.)

TABLE II
U.S. COAST GUARD
Personnel	No. of hours	Salary per hour	Total Hourly Cost Burden (Q12)*	Travel Expense	Photo and Printing	Total Annual Cost/Study (Q13)*	No. of Engineering Studies Per Year	Total Annual Cost Burden (Q14)
Engineer	98	$81	$7,938
Technician	--	$ 0	$ 0
Secretary	26	$36	$ 936
			$8,874	$1,000	$250	$10,124	4	$40,496

*For frequency of response, see column “No. of Engineering Studies Per Year.”

**For Q13 start-up cost is not applicable. Cost shown is operation cost.

15. Reason for changes or adjustments in the burden.

There has been no change to the method of collection so the amount of hourly cost and burden for time has not changed.

16. Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical purposes.

17. Approval for not to explain the OMB expiration date.

USCG will display the expiration date for OMB approval of this information collection.

18. Exception to the certification statement.

USCG does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This section does not apply because the collection of information does not employ statistical method.

Page 4 of 4