Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, Norfolk, VA, 52158-52161 [E9-24485]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52158
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(B) Within the next 10 days after the
inspection, report the cracks to PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager,
CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, using the
Crack Report Form (Figure 4) in PILATUS
PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No.
1, dated November 17, 2008. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approved
the information collection requirements
contained in this regulation under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
and assigned OMB Control Number 2120–
0056.
(ii) If no cracks are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this
AD, no further action is required. Make an
entry in the airplane logbook to show
compliance with this AD.
(4) As of 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, do not install any main-gear support
struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N
114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs.
Note 1: If you have any main-gear support
struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N
114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs
held as spares, you may return them to
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison
Manager, CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, for
replacement with a new main-gear support
strut, P/N 532.10.09.128.
dated November 17, 2008; and PILATUS PC–
7 Service Bulletin No. 32–025, Rev. No. 1,
dated November 17, 2008, for related
information.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
October 5, 2009.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–24450 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0754]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,
Norfolk, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows: No
differences.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily change the regulations that
govern the operation of the Berkley
Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Eastern
Branch of the Elizabeth River, Norfolk,
VA. Due to the temporary closure of two
area bridges, the Berkley Bridge has
experienced an increase in traffic
volume. The proposed change would
provide set opening periods for the
bridge during the day, relieving
vehicular traffic congestion during the
weekday daytime hours while still
providing for the reasonable needs of
navigation.
DATES: Comments, related material, and
requests for public meeting must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before
December 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2009–0754 using any one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: 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.
• Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI FOCA AD HB–2009–011,
dated September 10, 2009; and PILATUS PC–
7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No. 1,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:26 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Waverly Gregory,
Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard
District, telephone 757–398–6222,
e-mail Waverly.W.Gregory@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
FAA AD Differences
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–
4090; e-mail: doug.rudolph@faa.gov. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. All
comments received will be posted,
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2009–0754),
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
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 delivery, 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 e-mail
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, click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2009–0754’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the
balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM
09OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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.
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, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009–
0754’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. 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. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
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).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one 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.
Background and Purpose
On behalf of the cities of Chesapeake
and Norfolk Virginia, the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT)
who owns and operates the lift-type
Berkley Bridge has requested a
temporary change to the existing bridge
regulations. The current regulation set
out in 33 CFR 117.1007(b) and (c)
allows the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, in
Norfolk, Virginia to remain closed one
hour prior to the published start of a
scheduled marine event regulated under
§ 100.501, and remain closed until one
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:26 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
hour following the completion of the
event unless the Patrol Commander
designated under § 100.501 allows the
bridge to open for commercial vessel
traffic. In addition, the bridge shall open
on signal any time except from 5 a.m.
to 9 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, and shall open at any time for
vessels with a draft of 18 feet or more,
provided that at least 6 hours advance
notice has been given to the Berkley
Bridge Traffic Control Room AT (757)
494–2490. Vessel traffic on this
waterway consists of pleasure craft, tug
and barge traffic, and ships with assist
tugs seeking repairs. There is no
alternate waterway route.
Due to the temporary closure of two
area bridges, this bridge and its
approaches have experienced traffic
back-ups, delays, and traffic congestion
due to an increase in vehicular traffic.
This temporary change will allow from
March 9, 2010 to October 5, 2012, the
draw of the Berkley Bridge to open on
signal to vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1
p.m., and 2:30 p.m. and permit VDOT
to monitor, measure, and identify
congested roadway locations during
heavy traffic periods. By implementing
scheduled bridge openings, we
anticipate a decrease in vehicular traffic
congestion during the daytime hours.
Concurrent with the publication of
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a
Test Deviation [USCG–2009–0754] has
been issued to allow VDOT to test the
proposed schedule and to obtain data
and public comments. The test period
will be in effect during the entire Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking comment
period. Also, a count of the delayed
vessels during the closure periods will
be taken to ensure any future regulation
will not have a significant impact on
navigation. This NPRM has been
coordinated with the main commercial
waterway user group that has vessels
transiting in this area and there is no
expectation of any significant impacts
on navigation. The Berkley Bridge is the
principle arterial route in and out of the
city of Norfolk and serves as the major
evacuation highway in the event of
emergencies. The monthly vehicular
traffic count submitted by VDOT for the
last quarter of calendar year 2008 shows
the average daily traffic volumes at the
Berkley Bridge as shown below:
October ....
November
December
2008
2008
2008
83,296
99,643
106,856
vehicles.
vehicles.
vehicles.
The traffic counts reveal that from
October 2008 to December 2008, the
Berkley Bridge has experienced a seven
percent (or 23,560-car) increase in traffic
flow during the morning and evening
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52159
rush hours. The Coast Guard believes
that this traffic increase is due to the
previously referenced temporary closure
of two area bridges in November, 2008.
The Coast Guard anticipates a continued
increase in vehicular traffic over the
bridge until one or both bridges are
reopened to traffic at which time the
vehicular traffic on the Berkley Bridge
will subside.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily amend the regulations
governing the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4,
at Norfolk, Virginia, at 33 CFR 117.1007,
by inserting a new paragraph(c)(3) to
read as follows: From March 9, 2010 to
October 5, 2012, the draw shall open on
signal to vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1
p.m. and 2:30 p.m. This temporary
change will reduce the daytime
openings to specific times which will
help to alleviate the congestion on the
Berkley Bridge and its approaches from
the increased vehicular traffic during
repair work of the aforementioned
bridges.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.
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, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). We expect the economic impact
of this proposed rule to be so minimal
that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this
conclusion based on the fact that the
proposed changes have only a minimal
impact on maritime traffic transiting the
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in
accordance with the scheduled bridge
openings, to minimize delays.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM
09OCP1
52160
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because the rule only adds minimal
restrictions to the movement of
navigation, in allowing four scheduled
openings during the day, outside of the
advance notice request opening.
Mariners who plan their transits in
accordance with the scheduled bridge
openings can minimize delay.
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.
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 proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
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 Waverly W.
Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth
Coast GuardDistrict, (757) 398–6222.
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.
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.).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:26 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 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.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
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.
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.
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This proposed rule
does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use
of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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 because it
simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. 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 § 117.1007 add a new paragraph
(c)(3) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM
09OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
§ 117.1007
Branch
Elizabeth River—Eastern
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) From March 9, 2010 to October 5,
2012, the draw shall open on signal at
9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Dated: August 20, 2009.
Wayne E. Justice,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9–24485 Filed 10–7–09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL–8967–7]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to EPA
for final authorization of the changes to
its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed
Michigan’s application and has
preliminarily determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed
to qualify for final authorization, and is
proposing to authorize Michigan’s
changes.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received on or before November
9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
RCRA–2009–0762 by one of the
following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: greenberg.judith@epa.gov.
Mail: Ms. Judith Greenberg, Michigan
Regulatory Specialist, RCRA Programs
Section (LR–8J), Land and Chemicals
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID Number EPA–R05–RCRA–
2009–0762. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:26 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epagov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some of the
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.
You may view and copy Michigan’s
application Mondays through Fridays,
excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m. at the following addresses:
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith
Greenberg, (312) 886–4179; or Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality,
Constitution Hall, 525 W. Allegan St.,
Lansing, Michigan (mailing address P.O.
Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909),
contact Ronda Blayer, (517) 373–9548.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory
Specialist, RCRA Programs Section,
Land and Chemicals Division (LR–8J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–4179, e-mail
greenberg.judith@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52161
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State
Programs Necessary?
States which have received final
authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must
maintain a hazardous waste program
that is equivalent to, consistent with,
and no less stringent than the Federal
program. As the Federal program
changes, States must change their
programs and ask EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to State programs may
be necessary when Federal or State
statutory or regulatory authority is
modified or when certain other changes
occur. Most commonly, States must
change their programs because of
changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
B. What Decisions Have We Made in
This Rule?
We have preliminarily determined
that Michigan’s application to revise its
authorized program meets all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we
propose to grant Michigan final
authorization to operate its hazardous
waste program with the changes
described in the authorization revision
application. Michigan will have
responsibility for permitting treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
within its borders (except in Indian
Country) and for carrying out the
aspects of the RCRA program described
in its revised program revision
application, subject to the limitations of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New
Federal requirements and prohibitions
imposed by Federal regulations that
EPA promulgates under the authority of
HSWA take effect in authorized States
before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Michigan, including
issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
C. What Will Be the Effect If Michigan
Is Authorized for These Changes?
If Michigan is authorized for these
changes, a facility in Michigan subject
to RCRA will have to comply with the
authorized State requirements instead of
the equivalent Federal requirements in
order to comply with RCRA.
Additionally, such persons will have to
comply with any applicable Federal
requirements, such as HSWA
regulations issued by EPA for which the
State has not received authorization and
RCRA requirements that are not
E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM
09OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52158-52161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24485]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0754]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,
Norfolk, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations
that govern the operation of the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, across the
Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA. Due to the
temporary closure of two area bridges, the Berkley Bridge has
experienced an increase in traffic volume. The proposed change would
provide set opening periods for the bridge during the day, relieving
vehicular traffic congestion during the weekday daytime hours while
still providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments, related material, and requests for public meeting must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0754 using any one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: 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.
Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Waverly Gregory, Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast
Guard District, telephone 757-398-6222, e-mail
Waverly.W.Gregory@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. All comments received will be posted,
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0754), 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 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 delivery, 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 e-mail 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,
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0754'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an
[[Page 52159]]
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.
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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0754'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
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).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one 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.
Background and Purpose
On behalf of the cities of Chesapeake and Norfolk Virginia, the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) who owns and operates the
lift-type Berkley Bridge has requested a temporary change to the
existing bridge regulations. The current regulation set out in 33 CFR
117.1007(b) and (c) allows the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, in Norfolk,
Virginia to remain closed one hour prior to the published start of a
scheduled marine event regulated under Sec. 100.501, and remain closed
until one hour following the completion of the event unless the Patrol
Commander designated under Sec. 100.501 allows the bridge to open for
commercial vessel traffic. In addition, the bridge shall open on signal
any time except from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, and shall open at any time for
vessels with a draft of 18 feet or more, provided that at least 6 hours
advance notice has been given to the Berkley Bridge Traffic Control
Room AT (757) 494-2490. Vessel traffic on this waterway consists of
pleasure craft, tug and barge traffic, and ships with assist tugs
seeking repairs. There is no alternate waterway route.
Due to the temporary closure of two area bridges, this bridge and
its approaches have experienced traffic back-ups, delays, and traffic
congestion due to an increase in vehicular traffic. This temporary
change will allow from March 9, 2010 to October 5, 2012, the draw of
the Berkley Bridge to open on signal to vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1
p.m., and 2:30 p.m. and permit VDOT to monitor, measure, and identify
congested roadway locations during heavy traffic periods. By
implementing scheduled bridge openings, we anticipate a decrease in
vehicular traffic congestion during the daytime hours.
Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [USCG-2009-0754] has been issued to allow
VDOT to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public
comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking comment period. Also, a count of the delayed
vessels during the closure periods will be taken to ensure any future
regulation will not have a significant impact on navigation. This NPRM
has been coordinated with the main commercial waterway user group that
has vessels transiting in this area and there is no expectation of any
significant impacts on navigation. The Berkley Bridge is the principle
arterial route in and out of the city of Norfolk and serves as the
major evacuation highway in the event of emergencies. The monthly
vehicular traffic count submitted by VDOT for the last quarter of
calendar year 2008 shows the average daily traffic volumes at the
Berkley Bridge as shown below:
October................... 2008 83,296 vehicles.
November.................. 2008 99,643 vehicles.
December.................. 2008 106,856 vehicles.
The traffic counts reveal that from October 2008 to December 2008,
the Berkley Bridge has experienced a seven percent (or 23,560-car)
increase in traffic flow during the morning and evening rush hours. The
Coast Guard believes that this traffic increase is due to the
previously referenced temporary closure of two area bridges in
November, 2008. The Coast Guard anticipates a continued increase in
vehicular traffic over the bridge until one or both bridges are
reopened to traffic at which time the vehicular traffic on the Berkley
Bridge will subside.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend the regulations
governing the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, Virginia, at 33 CFR
117.1007, by inserting a new paragraph(c)(3) to read as follows: From
March 9, 2010 to October 5, 2012, the draw shall open on signal to
vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. This temporary change
will reduce the daytime openings to specific times which will help to
alleviate the congestion on the Berkley Bridge and its approaches from
the increased vehicular traffic during repair work of the
aforementioned bridges.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
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,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a
minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can
plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings, to
minimize delays.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises
[[Page 52160]]
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 proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of
navigation, in allowing four scheduled openings during the day, outside
of the advance notice request opening. Mariners who plan their transits
in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay.
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.
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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast GuardDistrict, (757) 398-6222. 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.
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.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
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 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.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
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.
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.
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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 because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. 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 Sec. 117.1007 add a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
[[Page 52161]]
Sec. 117.1007 Elizabeth River--Eastern Branch
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) From March 9, 2010 to October 5, 2012, the draw shall open on
signal at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Dated: August 20, 2009.
Wayne E. Justice,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-24485 Filed 10-7-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
