[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38417-38419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16518]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0423]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation that governs
the operation of the SR#38 Bridge in Centerton (Burlington County Route
635) over Rancocas Creek, mile 7.8, at Mt. Laurel, Westampton and
Willingboro Townships in Burlington County, NJ. The proposed rule
intends to change the current operating regulation and allow the bridge
to remain in the closed position for the passage of vessels. There have
been no requests for openings since the early 1990's. This proposed
rule will also reflect a name change.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 4, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received
by the Coast Guard on or before August 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0423 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge
Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email:
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec. Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
A. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2015-0423), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one
[[Page 38418]]
of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0423] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.
2. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2015-0423 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
3. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
4. Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a
request for one that reaches the Coast Guard on or before August 5,
2015 using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
B. Basis and Purpose
The current operating schedule for the SR#38 bridge is set out in
33 CFR 117.745 (b) which allows the SR#38 Bridge to operate as follows:
From April 1 through October 31 open on signal from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
From November 1 through March 31 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. open on signal
if at least 24 hours notice is given. Year round from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
need not open for the passage of vessels.
The bridge owner, County of Burlington, NJ requested a change in
the operation regulation for the SR#38 Bridge, mile 7.8, across
Rancocas Creek in Mt. Laurel, NJ and that its name is changed to what
it is known locally. The County of Burlington provided information to
the Coast Guard about the lack of any openings of the draw spans dating
back to the early 1990's. The bridge is currently closed to navigation
and vehicular traffic due to emergency repairs and emergency
inspections since May 2015. The last requested opening was in the early
1990's as an emergency request. There have been monthly openings as per
maintenance requirements.
In the closed-to-navigation position, the SR#38 Bridge has vertical
clearances of six feet above mean high water. Typical waterway users
include very small recreational vessels including canoes and kayaks.
C. Discussion of Proposed Rule
In order to align the operating schedule of the SR#38 bridge with
observed marine traffic the proposed change amends the regulation by
adding a paragraph (c) to state ``that the bridge need not open.'' The
lack of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for over 20
years illustrates that the vessels that use this waterway can safely
navigate while the bridge is in the closed-to-navigation position. The
current regulation also incorrectly identifies the bridge as the SR#38
Bridge. This proposed change will change the name to the Centerton
County Route 635 Bridge. All language in existing paragraph (b) will
remain the same except for the removal of the SR#38 bridge reference.
While this proposed rule will allow the bridge to remain closed to
navigation, it does not alleviate the bridge owner of his
responsibility under 33 CFR 117.7.
D. 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 or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. Based on County of Burlington
bridge tender logs, there will not be any vessels impacted by this
proposed change. No bridge openings have been requested in over 20
years.
2. 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. This action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: There have been no requests for the bridge
to open since the early 1990's, and the bridge has been unable to open
since May of 2015.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 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.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in
[[Page 38419]]
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,
above. 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.
4. 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.).
5. Federalism
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 does not have implications for federalism.
6. 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.
7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
8. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
9. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed 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.
10. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
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.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not 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.
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; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.745, revise paragraph (b) introductory text and add
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.745 Rancocas Creek
* * * * *
(b) The drawspan for the Riverside-Delanco/SR#543 Drawbridge, mile
1.3 at Riverside must operate as follows:
* * * * *
(c) The draw of the Centerton County Route 635 Bridge, mile 7.8, at
Mt. Laurel, need not open for the passage of vessels.
Dated: June 11, 2015.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16518 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P