Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apponagansett River, Dartmouth, MA, 37041-37044 [2011-15809]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:44 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 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. 37041 Dated: June 10, 2011. Daniel A. Neptun, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2011–15807 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 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 § 33 CFR 117.739 paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 117.739 Passaic River. * * * * * (e) The draw of the Amtrak Dock Bridge, mile 5.0, at Harrison, shall open on signal after at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge; except that, from 7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessel traffic. At all other times, a bridge opening may be delayed no more than ten minutes for the passage of rail traffic, unless the draw tender and the vessel operator agree to a longer delay. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2011–0335] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apponagansett River, Dartmouth, MA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the operation of the Padanaram Bridge across the Apponagansett River, mile 1.0, at Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The owner of the bridge has requested relief from crewing the bridge in the early morning hours when there have been no requests to open the bridge. It is expected that this change to the regulations would provide relief to the bridge owner while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 23, 2011. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2011–0335 using any one of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking 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 methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. SUMMARY: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or e-mail Mr. John W. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 37042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, telephone (617) 223–8364, e-mail john.w.mcdonald@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. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2011–0335), 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 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 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–2011–0335’’ 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:44 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 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–2011– 0335’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. You may also visit either 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. Basis and Purpose The Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Apponagansett River at Dartmouth, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 9 feet at mean high water and 12 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.587. The existing drawbridge operation regulations require the draw to open on signal 1 May through 31 October from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., daily. At all other times the bridge shall open if at least four hours advance notice is given. The Coast Guard received a request from the owner of the bridge, the Town of Dartmouth, to change the drawbridge operation regulations concerning the daily hours the bridge is crewed from 1 May through 31 October. The bridge PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 owner desires to crew the bridge from 6 a.m. through 9 p.m. instead of 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., daily. A review of the bridge opening logs reveals that the bridge has not received any requests to open between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. since 2009. As a result of the above information the Coast Guard believes it is reasonable for the bridge owner to crew the Padanaram Bridge from 6 a.m. through 9 p.m., 1 May through 31 October, since there have been no recent requests to open the bridge before 6 a.m. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.587(a) and (a)(1) by changing the time the bridge will open on signal between 1 May and 31 October. Presently the bridge opens on signal from 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., daily. This action would change that time period to 6 a.m. through 9 p.m., daily. All other requirements of the regulation would remain unchanged. 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, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: The bridge has not received any recent requests to open between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., daily, between May 1 and October 31. The vessels moored upstream from the bridge are recreational vessels and not commercial operators. 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\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / 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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit through the bridge between 1 May through 31 October from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The bridge has not received any requests to open between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., daily, between May 1 and October 31, since 2009. 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. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, telephone 617–223–8364 or e-mail John.w.mcdonald@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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:44 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 37043 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: E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 37044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 117.587 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 117.587 Apponagansett River. (a) The draw of the Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, shall open on signal from 1 May through 31 October, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily, as follows: (1) The bridge shall open on signal, twice an hour, on the hour and half hour between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. * * * * * Dated: June 10, 2011. Daniel A. Neptun, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2011–15809 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0412; FRL–9324–1] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen SUMMARY: (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from glass melting furnaces. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 25, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0412, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ´ Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE Local agency Rule No. SJVUAPCD ................................. 4354 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of this rule? We approved an earlier version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on August 17, 2006 (72 FR 41894). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on October 16, 2008 but did not submit it to us. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:21 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 Rule title Adopted Glass Melting Furnaces .................................................................. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment. PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 09/16/10 Submitted 04/05/11 States to submit regulations that control NOX and PM emissions. Rule 4354 limits NOX, oxides of sulfur (SOX), PM10, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from glass melting furnaces. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule. E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37041-37044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15809]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0335]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apponagansett River, Dartmouth, 
MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations that govern the operation of the Padanaram Bridge across 
the Apponagansett River, mile 1.0, at Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The 
owner of the bridge has requested relief from crewing the bridge in the 
early morning hours when there have been no requests to open the 
bridge. It is expected that this change to the regulations would 
provide relief to the bridge owner while continuing to meet the 
reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before August 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0335 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking 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 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 Mr. John W.

[[Page 37042]]

McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, 
telephone (617) 223-8364, e-mail john.w.mcdonald@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-2011-0335), 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 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 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-2011-0335'' 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-2011-0335'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit either 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.

Basis and Purpose

    The Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Apponagansett River at 
Dartmouth, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed 
position of 9 feet at mean high water and 12 feet at mean low water. 
The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.587.
    The existing drawbridge operation regulations require the draw to 
open on signal 1 May through 31 October from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., daily. 
At all other times the bridge shall open if at least four hours advance 
notice is given.
    The Coast Guard received a request from the owner of the bridge, 
the Town of Dartmouth, to change the drawbridge operation regulations 
concerning the daily hours the bridge is crewed from 1 May through 31 
October. The bridge owner desires to crew the bridge from 6 a.m. 
through 9 p.m. instead of 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., daily.
    A review of the bridge opening logs reveals that the bridge has not 
received any requests to open between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. since 2009.
    As a result of the above information the Coast Guard believes it is 
reasonable for the bridge owner to crew the Padanaram Bridge from 6 
a.m. through 9 p.m., 1 May through 31 October, since there have been no 
recent requests to open the bridge before 6 a.m.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.587(a) and (a)(1) by 
changing the time the bridge will open on signal between 1 May and 31 
October. Presently the bridge opens on signal from 5 a.m. through 9 
p.m., daily. This action would change that time period to 6 a.m. 
through 9 p.m., daily. All other requirements of the regulation would 
remain unchanged.

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, 
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or 
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic 
impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation 
may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be 
minimized for the following reasons:
    The bridge has not received any recent requests to open between 5 
a.m. and 6 a.m., daily, between May 1 and October 31. The vessels 
moored upstream from the bridge are recreational vessels and not 
commercial operators.

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 37043]]

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 affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or 
operators of vessels needing to transit through the bridge between 1 
May through 31 October from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. This proposed rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities for the following reasons:
    The bridge has not received any requests to open between 5 a.m. and 
6 a.m., daily, between May 1 and October 31, since 2009.
    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 Mr. John W. McDonald, Project 
Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, telephone 617-223-
8364 or e-mail John.w.mcdonald@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:


[[Page 37044]]


    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  117.587 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text 
and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.587  Apponagansett River.

    (a) The draw of the Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, shall open on 
signal from 1 May through 31 October, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily, 
as follows:
    (1) The bridge shall open on signal, twice an hour, on the hour and 
half hour between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-15809 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P