2023-08554. Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Burlington County, NJ

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the US Route 543 (Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington County, NJ. The proposed rule allows the drawbridge to change its operating schedule to reduce the number of bridge openings during off-peak hours. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES:

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2022–0221 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTAR INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or e-mail Mr. Mickey D. Sanders, Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb); telephone [phone], email [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

OMB Office of Management and Budget

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

On May 23, 2022, we published a Test Deviation (TD) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Burlington County, NJ, in the Federal Register (86 FR 16153). We received no comments on this rule. The US Route 543 (Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of 4 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.745(b).

The Rancocas Creek is used predominately by recreational vessels and pleasure crafts. The three-year, monthly average number of bridge openings from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 1 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., daily, as drawn from the data contained in the bridge tender logs, is presented below.

April to October (2018, 2019 and 2020)	Average monthly openings
Monday–Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m	4
Saturday & Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1 p.m	2
Daily, 8 p.m. to 11 p.m	7

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The bridge owner requested to modify the operating regulation for the bridge, due to the limited number of requested openings of the bridge from April 1 to October 31, over a period of approximately three years. The data presented in the table above demonstrates the requested modification may be implemented with de minimis impact to navigation. The modification will allow the drawbridge to open on signal from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, from April 16 through October 15.

IV. 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 and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that an average of only four bridge openings occurred Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., two openings Saturday and Sunday, from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m., and seven openings daily, from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., from April 1 to October 31, of 2018, 2019 and 2020.

B. 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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.

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 proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.

C. Collection of Information

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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 is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The Coast Guard has determined 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are 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.

G. 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2022–0221 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

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

1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

2. Revise § 117.745 paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

§ 117.745

Rancocas Creek.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) From April 16 through October 15, open on signal from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.

* * * * *

Dated: April 6, 2023.

S.N. Gilreath,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.