Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ, 38417-38419 [2015-16518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
in a manner satisfactory to the
Commissioner (or within such further
time as the Commissioner may approve
in writing), the interest allowance in
such cash payment shall be reduced by
the amount determined, based on a pro
rata calculation of interest by day, to
have been incurred as a result of the
failure of the mortgagee to comply with
the specified time period.
*
*
*
*
*
(u) Disallowance of expenses due to
mortgagee failure to meet timelines.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, FHA may deny payment of
any amount claimed for any expenses,
such as taxes, special assessments,
hazard insurance, forced placed
insurance, flood insurance, homeowner
association (HOA)/condominium
association (COA) fees or dues, utilities,
inspections, debris removal, and any
property preservation and protection
expenses, that were paid or incurred by
or on behalf of the mortgagee during any
period of delay or as a result of any
delay by the mortgagee in taking any
required actions prior to the expiration
of the time periods set forth in
paragraph (u)(1) of this section.
(1) If a mortgagee fails to comply with
any of the timeframes established by the
Secretary for actions set forth in this
paragraph, the mortgagee must curtail
all claim expenses in accordance with
paragraph (u)(2) of this section:
(i) The timeframe for taking of First
Legal Action to commence foreclosure;
(ii) The reasonable diligence
timeframes established by the state in
which the property is located;
(iii) The timeframe to convey a
property after obtaining title and
possession;
(iv) The timeframe for marketing a
property; or
(v) Any other timeframe established
under this subpart that is applicable to
the mortgagee’s filing of a claim for
insurance benefits.
(2) For a mortgagee that does not meet
one or more of the deadlines in
paragraph (u)(1) of this section, the
mortgagee must curtail on a prorated
basis:
(i) Expenses in paragraph (u) of this
section incurred during or as a result of
any failure by the mortgagee to act
within the applicable time period; or
(ii) Expenses that are reasonably
estimated to have been incurred during
or as a result of any failure by the
mortgagee to act within the applicable
time period if the amount of expenses
specifically incurred beyond the
applicable deadline is unavailable or
not itemized; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
(iii) Any additional expenses incurred
as a result of the mortgagee’s failure to
comply with the timeframe.
(3)(i) Regardless of the review type, if
FHA determines that the mortgagee’s
claim included expenses incurred after
the expiration of a timeframe listed in
paragraph (u)(1) of this section, FHA
may, in its discretion:
(A) Reduce the amount of insurance
benefits paid to the mortgagee; or
(B) Demand for repayment of all
expenses that were not curtailed by the
mortgagee.
(ii) FHA may offset any future claims
made by a mortgagee if the mortgagee
does not satisfy any demand for
repayment under paragraph (u)(3)(i)(B)
of this section within 30 days of the date
FHA issues the demand for repayment.
■ 6. Revise the heading of § 203.474 to
read as follows:
38417
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
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:
https://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:
james.l.rousseau2@uscg.mil. 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:
Coast Guard
Table of Acronyms
§ 203.474 Additional limitation on claim
submission for rehabilitation loans secured
by other than a first mortgage.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 11, 2015.
Edward L. Golding,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Housing.
[FR Doc. 2015–16479 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§ Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0423]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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 (https://
www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or
hand delivery, but please use only one
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
38418
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://
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
https://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 81⁄2 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.
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jul 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
38419
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
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.
2. In § 117.745, revise paragraph (b)
introductory text and add paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
■
§ 117.745
Rancocas Creek
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The drawspan for the RiversideDelanco/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]
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
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
40 CFR Part 52
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9929–06–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan To Address
Pollution Affecting Visibility
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Arkansas
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Arkansas on
September 16, 2009, for the purpose of
addressing the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding
interference with other states’ programs
for visibility protection for the 2006
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM
06JYP1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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:
james.l.rousseau2@uscg.mil. 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 https://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 (https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
