Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apponagansett River, Dartmouth, MA, 37041-37044 [2011-15809]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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:
https://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 https://
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 (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–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
https://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: https://
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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
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 https://
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
https://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: https://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 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-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 (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-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 https://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
