80 FR 57720 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 186 (September 25, 2015)

Page Range57720-57721
FR Document2015-24333

The Coast Guard is changing 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 new rule will change the current 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 rule also reflects a name change.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57720-57721]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24333]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing 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 new rule will 
change the current 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 rule also reflects a name 
change.

DATES: This rule is effective October 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket 
USCG-2015-0423. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the 
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open 
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge 
Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email: 
[email protected].

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. Regulatory History and Information

    On July 6, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, 
Centerton, NJ'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 38417). We received no 
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and 
none was held.

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. The Coast Guard will allow the above 
mentioned Bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position in 
accordance with 33 CFR 117.39. In the closed to navigation position, 
the bridge need not open for the passage of vessels.
    In the closed-to-navigation position, the SR#38 Bridge has vertical 
clearances of six feet above mean high water. Vessels which can safely 
transit under the bridge in the closed to navigation position can do so 
at any time.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    In order to align the operating schedule of the SR#38 bridge with 
observed marine traffic the proposed change amended 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. The proposed change would change the name to the Centerton 
County Route 635 Bridge. All language in existing paragraph (b) would 
remain the same except for the removal of the SR#38 bridge reference.
    While the proposed rule allowed the bridge to remain closed to 
navigation, it did not alleviate the bridge owner of his responsibility 
under 33 CFR 117.7.
    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of 
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this 
final rule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 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 received no comments from the Small Business 
Administration on this rule. This rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: owners and operators 
of vessels intending to transit in that portion of Rancocas Creek that 
cannot transit under the Centerton Bridge during mean high water. Due 
to the fact that there have been no requests for openings in nearly 20 
years, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Coast

[[Page 57721]]

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this final rule. If the rule affects 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or 
action of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against 
small entities that question or complain about this final rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. 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).

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 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 rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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 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 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 might 
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does 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 action 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 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 concluded 
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
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: September 15, 2015.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-24333 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


80_FR_57906
Current View
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis rule is effective October 26, 2015.
ContactIf you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email: [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 57720 
RIN Number1625-AA09

2019 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR