Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Burlington County, NJ, 24739-24741 [2023-08554]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
conspicuously disclose all material
terms of the transaction before obtaining
the consumer’s billing information.’’
The requirement in ROSCA to disclose
‘‘all material terms of the transaction’’
cannot reasonably be interpreted to
include all product efficacy claims or
any material fact about the underlying
good or service. A term of the
transaction is distinct from an
advertising claim or other potentially
material information.
The cases in which I supported
alleging violations of ROSCA under this
Section clearly involved material terms
of the transaction. In MoviePass,
consumers purchased a movie
subscription and the term at issue was
whether the subscription was
unlimited.9 In WealthPress, another
recent matter alleging violations of
ROSCA under this Section, the terms at
issue were included by the marketer in
the ‘‘terms and conditions’’ section of
the website and consumers were
required affirmatively to agree to accept
the terms to complete the transaction.10
The facts in these cases do not support
a reading of the ROSCA ‘‘material term
of the transaction’’ language to include
any advertising claim.
It is useful also to recall the genesis
of ROSCA and the specific grant of
authority Congress provided the
Commission. As noted in the findings,
ROSCA was promulgated to address a
specific abuse in negative option
marketing prevalent at that time—thirdparty upsells of products or services
made during check-out for an initial
purchase that included negative option
features.11 The terms of the third-party
offer that included the negative option
feature were not adequately disclosed
and consumers were not given an
opportunity to consent to a transfer of
their billing information to a third-party.
They were then locked into recurring
charges to which they had not
consented and often had difficulty
cancelling. The provisions in Section
8403 were ancillary to the intent of the
statute and there is no indication in the
statute or the legislative history that
they were intended to confer on the
Commission authority to seek civil
penalties or redress for representations
wholly unrelated to the terms of the
negative option feature. In other words,
9 See
Concurring Statement of Commissioner
Christine S. Wilson, In re Moviepass, Inc. (June 7,
2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/
public_statements/1590708/commissioner_wilson_
concur_moviepass_final.pdf.
10 See Christine S. Wilson, Concurring Statement
of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson, WealthPress
Holdings, LLC (Jan. 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/
system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2123002wealthpresswilson
concurstmt.pdf.
11 See 15 U.S.C. 8401.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 21, 2023
Jkt 259001
this proposed Negative Option Rule is
inconsistent with the FTC’s prior
ROSCA cases.
The proposed Rule also will treat
marketers differently for purposes of
potential monetary liability for Section
5 violations, depending on whether they
sell products or services with or without
negative option features.
The careful reader may observe that
the Commission’s Telemarketing Sales
Rule (TSR) also includes a prohibition
on general misrepresentations.12 But the
TSR was promulgated pursuant to
Congressional authorization.13 The
legislative history and Statement of
Basis and Purpose of the TSR also
provide a substantial evidentiary basis
establishing that outbound
telemarketing routinely was used as a
vehicle for fraud and deception—
marketers disturbed consumers in the
solitude of their homes, and subjected
them to deception and aggressive sales
tactics that caused significant consumer
injury.14
I appreciate staff’s steadfast efforts to
protect consumers from deceptive
negative option practices. I might have
supported a tailored rule to address the
negative option marketing abuses
prevalent in our law enforcement
experience that consolidated various
legal requirements. This proposal
instead attempts an end-run around the
Supreme Court’s decision in AMG to
confer de novo redress and civil penalty
authority on the Commission for Section
5 violations unrelated to deceptive or
unfair negative option practices.
For these reasons, I dissent.
[FR Doc. 2023–07035 Filed 4–21–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2022–0221]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Rancocas Creek, Burlington County,
NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
12 16 CFR 310.3(a)(2)(iii) (prohibiting
misrepresentations regarding ‘‘[a]ny material aspect
of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central
characteristic of the goods or services that are the
subject of a sales offer’’).
13 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act. 15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.
14 See, e.g., 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995)
(Statement of Basis and Purpose for the
Commission’s Rule).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the US Route 543 (RiversideDelanco) 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.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 24, 2023.
DATES:
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.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Mickey D.
Sanders, Fifth Coast Guard District
(dpb); telephone (757) 398–6587, email
Mickey.D.Sanders2@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
AGENCY:
ACTION:
24739
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
24740
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Average
monthly
openings
April to October
(2018, 2019 and 2020)
Monday–Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m ..
Saturday & Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1
p.m ............................................
Daily, 8 p.m. to 11 p.m .................
4
2
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 21, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 Apr 21, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
[FR Doc. 2023–08554 Filed 4–21–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2023–0234]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Great
Egg Harbor Bay, Ocean City, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of Great Egg
Harbor Bay in Ocean City, NJ. The safety
zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment
from potential hazards created by a
barge-based fireworks display. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Delaware Bay. Vessels within
the zone prior to the enforcement period
must leave the zone before the
enforcement period begins. We invite
your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before May 24, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2023–0234 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24741
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Petty Officer Dylan Caikowski,
Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone (215) 271–4814, email
SecDelBayWWM@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On February 16, 2023, Ocean City,
New Jersey notified the Coast Guard that
it will be conducting a fireworks display
from 9:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 29,
2023. The fireworks are to be launched
from a barge in Great Egg Harbor Bay in
the vicinity of Rainbow Channel.
Hazards from a fireworks display
include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and
falling hot embers or other debris. The
COTP has determined that potential
hazards associated with the fireworks to
be used in this display would be a safety
concern for anyone within a 600-foot
radius of the barge.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within a 600-foot
radius of the fireworks barge before,
during, and after the scheduled event.
The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a
safety zone from 9 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on
July 29, 2023. The safety zone would
cover all navigable waters within 600
feet of a barge in Great Egg Harbor Bay
located at approximate position latitude
39°17′23.7″ N, longitude 074°34′31.3″
W. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels and these
navigable waters before, during, and
after the scheduled 9:15 p.m. to 9:30
p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24739-24741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08554]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2022-0221]
RIN 1625-AA09
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 (757) 398-6587, email [email protected].
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
Sec. 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.
[[Page 24740]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
April to October (2018, 2019 and 2020) 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.
[[Page 24741]]
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
0
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.
0
2. Revise Sec. 117.745 paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 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.
[FR Doc. 2023-08554 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
