Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD, 30747-30750 [2010-13119]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA’s authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it proposes to revoke Class E airspace in Northeast Alaska, and establish Class E airspace to allow access at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK, and represents the FAA’s continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Paragraph 6006 Airspace Areas. En Route Domestic * * * * AAL AK E6 * Northeast, AK [New] That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area beginning at lat. 63°55′00″ N. long. 141°00′00″ W., then westward along a line of latitude to 63°55′00″ N. long 144°00′00″ W., to 65°30′00″ N. long 144°00′00″ W., then eastward along a line of latitude to 65°30′00″ N. 144°00′00″ W., to the point of beginning. * * * AAL AK E6 * * * * Barter Island, AK [Removed] * * * AAL AK E6 Mentasta Lake/Mountains Area, AK [Removed] Issued in Anchorage, AK, on May 7, 2010. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group. [FR Doc. 2010–13138 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG–2010–0265] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern the operation of the Pennington Avenue Bridge across Curtis Creek, at mile 0.9, in Baltimore, MD. The proposed rule would eliminate the need for a bridge tender by allowing the bridge to be operated from a remote location at the City of Baltimore Transportation Management Center. This proposed change would maintain the bridge’s current level of operational capabilities and continue providing for the reasonable needs of vehicular transportation and vessel navigation. This proposed rule will also correct the statute mile marker of the I695 Bridge which is also across Curtis Creek in Baltimore, MD. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 2, 2010. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2010–0265 using any one of the following methods: 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 1963 Comp., p. 389. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is to be amended as follows: * * * * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Jun 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) 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. (4) 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 four 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 Coast Guard; telephone 757–398–6629, e-mail Lindsey.R.Middleton@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 33 CFR Part 117 The Proposed Amendment PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 30747 We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to http:// 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–2010–0265), 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 (http:// 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 http:// 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 e-mail address, or a phone number in the body E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM 02JNP1 30748 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://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–2010–0265’’ 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 0265’’ 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). jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Jun 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 Background and Purpose The City of Baltimore has requested a change to the operating procedures for the Pennington Avenue Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 0.9 in Baltimore, MD. The change in the operating procedure would allow the bridge to be operated from a remote location at the City of Baltimore Transportation Management Center. This proposed rule follows the general regulations set out at 33 CFR 117.5 that states: Drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given. The Pennington Avenue Bridge, a lifttype drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 38 feet, above mean high water. The City of Baltimore is installing six video cameras on the bridge to enhance the remote operator’s ability to monitor and control the equipment. The remote office and the bridge site will be equipped with audio devices to enable the remote operator to hear boat horns that may signal for an opening as well as two-way communication. There will be posted signs placed on both sides of the navigational channel providing a phone number for vessels to call to request an opening. Warning lights will be installed on the bridge to signal when the bridge is in operation. All aspects of the current drawbridge operating regulations will remain the same. The City of Baltimore has requested this change to utilize new technology to maintain the bridge’s current level of operating capabilities and continue providing for the reasonable needs of vehicular transportation and vessel navigation. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.557. The current paragraph would be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) would contain the proposed rule for the Pennington Avenue Bridge at mile 0.9 in Baltimore, MD. The rule would allow the draw of the bridge to be operated by the controller at the Transportation Management Center. In the event of failure or obstruction of the video cameras, audio system, or phone communications, the Pennington Avenue Bridge would not be operated from the remote office. In these situations, a bridge tender must be called and be on-site within 30 minutes to operate the bridge. When vehicular and pedestrian traffic has cleared, a horn will sound one prolonged blast followed by one short PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 blast to warn of bridge movement. The channel traffic lights will flash red continually to indicate that the bridge is moving to the full open position for vessels. Once the bridge is in the fully open position, the bridge channel traffic lights will turn and remain green. The draw of the bridge must begin opening within 5 minutes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic clearing the bridge except as provided in 33 CFR 117.31(b). Before the span begins to close, the horn will sound five short blasts and an audio voice-warning device will announce bridge movement. The channel traffic lights will then continually flash red until the bridge is seated and locked down to vessels. Paragraph (b) would contain the existing regulations for the I695 Bridge; however, the statute mile marker of 0.9 is incorrect and will be changed to mile 1.0 which is the accurate mile mark. 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. 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. Although the Pennington Avenue Bridge will be operated from a remote office, mariners can continue their transits because all aspects of the current operating regulations remain essentially the same. 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 small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM 02JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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. The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The rule allows the Pennington Avenue Bridge to operate remotely and mariners will continue to plan their transits in accordance with the existing bridge operating regulations. 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 Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 368–6629 or e-mail at Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. 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. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Jun 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30749 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. Revise § 117.557 to read as follows: § 117.557 Curtis Creek. (a) The Pennington Avenue Bridge, mile 0.9 at Baltimore. (1) The draw of the bridge to be operated by the controller at the City of E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM 02JNP1 30750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules Baltimore Transportation Management Center shall open on signal for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given. (2) The draw of the bridge shall not be operated by the controller at the Transportation Management Center office in the event of failure or obstruction of the video cameras, audio system, or phone lines. In these situations, a bridge tender must be called and be on-site within 30 minutes to operate the bridge on-site. (3) The draw of the bridge must begin opening within 5 minutes of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic clearing the bridge, except as provided in 33 CFR 117.31(b). (4) When vehicular and pedestrian traffic has cleared, a horn will sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast to warn of bridge movement. The channel traffic lights will flash red continually to indicate that the Bridge is moving to the full open position for vessels. Once the bridge is in the fully open position, the bridge channel traffic lights will turn and remain green. (5) Before the span begins to close, the horn will sound five short blasts and an audio voice-warning device will announce bridge movement. The channel traffic lights will then continually flash red until the bridge is seated and locked down to vessels. (6) The owners of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition two board gauges painted white with black figures not less than six inches high to indicate the vertical clearance under the closed draw at all stages of the tide. The gauges shall be placed on the bridge so that they are plainly visible to the operator of any vessel approaching the bridge from either upstream or downstream. (b) The draw of the I695 Bridge, mile 1.0 at Baltimore, shall open on signal if at least a one-hour notice is given to the Maryland Transportation Authority in Baltimore. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Dated: May 14, 2010. Wayne E. Justice, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2010–13119 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2010–0228] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Arkansas Waterway, Little Rock, AR Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the operating procedures on the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at mile 119.6 at Little Rock, AR, so that vessel operators will contact the remote drawbridge operator via microphone keying four times within five seconds on VHF–FM Channel 13 when requesting a draw opening. This keying will activate an indicator on the remote drawbridge operator’s console and send an acknowledgement tone back to the vessel. The remote drawbridge operator would then establish normal verbal radio communications. The intent is to isolate and differentiate the vessel operator radio communications from the railroad communications that the remote drawbridge operator receives, thus ensuring that vessel calls receive immediate attention. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 2, 2010. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2010–0228 using any one of the following four methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) 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. (4) 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 four 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Jun 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 rule, call or e-mail Mr. Eric Washburn, Bridge Management Specialist, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch; telephone 314–269–2378, e-mail Eric.Washburn@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 materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to http:// 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–2010–0228), 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 (http:// 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 http:// 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 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 http://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–2010–0228’’ 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 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 E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM 02JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30747-30750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13119]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0265]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern 
the operation of the Pennington Avenue Bridge across Curtis Creek, at 
mile 0.9, in Baltimore, MD. The proposed rule would eliminate the need 
for a bridge tender by allowing the bridge to be operated from a remote 
location at the City of Baltimore Transportation Management Center. 
This proposed change would maintain the bridge's current level of 
operational capabilities and continue providing for the reasonable 
needs of vehicular transportation and vessel navigation. This proposed 
rule will also correct the statute mile marker of the I695 Bridge which 
is also across Curtis Creek in Baltimore, MD.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before August 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0265 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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 four 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 Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6629, e-mail 
Lindsey.R.Middleton@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 materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change to http://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-2010-0265), 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 (http://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 http://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 e-mail address, or a phone number in the body

[[Page 30748]]

of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://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-2010-0265'' 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0265'' 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

    The City of Baltimore has requested a change to the operating 
procedures for the Pennington Avenue Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 
0.9 in Baltimore, MD. The change in the operating procedure would allow 
the bridge to be operated from a remote location at the City of 
Baltimore Transportation Management Center. This proposed rule follows 
the general regulations set out at 33 CFR 117.5 that states: 
Drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels 
when a request to open is given.
    The Pennington Avenue Bridge, a lift-type drawbridge, has a 
vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 38 feet, above 
mean high water.
    The City of Baltimore is installing six video cameras on the bridge 
to enhance the remote operator's ability to monitor and control the 
equipment. The remote office and the bridge site will be equipped with 
audio devices to enable the remote operator to hear boat horns that may 
signal for an opening as well as two-way communication. There will be 
posted signs placed on both sides of the navigational channel providing 
a phone number for vessels to call to request an opening. Warning 
lights will be installed on the bridge to signal when the bridge is in 
operation. All aspects of the current drawbridge operating regulations 
will remain the same.
    The City of Baltimore has requested this change to utilize new 
technology to maintain the bridge's current level of operating 
capabilities and continue providing for the reasonable needs of 
vehicular transportation and vessel navigation.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.557. The current 
paragraph would be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Paragraph (a) would contain the proposed rule for the Pennington 
Avenue Bridge at mile 0.9 in Baltimore, MD. The rule would allow the 
draw of the bridge to be operated by the controller at the 
Transportation Management Center.
    In the event of failure or obstruction of the video cameras, audio 
system, or phone communications, the Pennington Avenue Bridge would not 
be operated from the remote office. In these situations, a bridge 
tender must be called and be on-site within 30 minutes to operate the 
bridge.
    When vehicular and pedestrian traffic has cleared, a horn will 
sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast to warn of bridge 
movement. The channel traffic lights will flash red continually to 
indicate that the bridge is moving to the full open position for 
vessels. Once the bridge is in the fully open position, the bridge 
channel traffic lights will turn and remain green. The draw of the 
bridge must begin opening within 5 minutes of vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic clearing the bridge except as provided in 33 CFR 117.31(b).
    Before the span begins to close, the horn will sound five short 
blasts and an audio voice-warning device will announce bridge movement. 
The channel traffic lights will then continually flash red until the 
bridge is seated and locked down to vessels.
    Paragraph (b) would contain the existing regulations for the I695 
Bridge; however, the statute mile marker of 0.9 is incorrect and will 
be changed to mile 1.0 which is the accurate mile mark.

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.
    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. Although the Pennington Avenue 
Bridge will be operated from a remote office, mariners can continue 
their transits because all aspects of the current operating regulations 
remain essentially the same.

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 small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and

[[Page 30749]]

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.
    The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The 
rule allows the Pennington Avenue Bridge to operate remotely and 
mariners will continue to plan their transits in accordance with the 
existing bridge operating regulations.
    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 Lindsey Middleton, Bridge 
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 368-6629 or e-mail at 
Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. 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.

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 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

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.

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. Revise Sec.  117.557 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.557  Curtis Creek.

    (a) The Pennington Avenue Bridge, mile 0.9 at Baltimore.
    (1) The draw of the bridge to be operated by the controller at the 
City of

[[Page 30750]]

Baltimore Transportation Management Center shall open on signal for the 
passage of vessels when a request to open is given.
    (2) The draw of the bridge shall not be operated by the controller 
at the Transportation Management Center office in the event of failure 
or obstruction of the video cameras, audio system, or phone lines. In 
these situations, a bridge tender must be called and be on-site within 
30 minutes to operate the bridge on-site.
    (3) The draw of the bridge must begin opening within 5 minutes of 
the vehicular and pedestrian traffic clearing the bridge, except as 
provided in 33 CFR 117.31(b).
    (4) When vehicular and pedestrian traffic has cleared, a horn will 
sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast to warn of bridge 
movement. The channel traffic lights will flash red continually to 
indicate that the Bridge is moving to the full open position for 
vessels. Once the bridge is in the fully open position, the bridge 
channel traffic lights will turn and remain green.
    (5) Before the span begins to close, the horn will sound five short 
blasts and an audio voice-warning device will announce bridge movement. 
The channel traffic lights will then continually flash red until the 
bridge is seated and locked down to vessels.
    (6) The owners of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible 
condition two board gauges painted white with black figures not less 
than six inches high to indicate the vertical clearance under the 
closed draw at all stages of the tide. The gauges shall be placed on 
the bridge so that they are plainly visible to the operator of any 
vessel approaching the bridge from either upstream or downstream.
    (b) The draw of the I695 Bridge, mile 1.0 at Baltimore, shall open 
on signal if at least a one-hour notice is given to the Maryland 
Transportation Authority in Baltimore.

    Dated: May 14, 2010.
Wayne E. Justice,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-13119 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P