Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Blackwater River, South Quay, VA, 76634-76637 [2011-31455]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76634
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
1. On page 69192, column 1, footnote
10, the language ‘‘Section
401(k)(4)(B)(ii) provide that a cash or
deferred arrangement shall not be
treated as a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement if it is part of a plan
maintained by a State or local
government of political subdivision
thereof, or any or agency or
instrumentality thereof.’’ is removed
and is replaced with the new language
‘‘Section 401(k)(4)(B)(ii) provides that a
cash or deferred arrangement shall not
be treated as a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement if it is part of a plan
maintained by a State or local
government of political subdivision
thereof, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof.’’.
2. On page 69193, column 1, under
the paragraph heading ‘‘Judicial
Determinations’’, second paragraph of
the column, second line, the language
‘‘Bingo & Casino, held that the
operating’’ is removed and is replaced
with the new language ‘‘Bingo & Casino,
held that operating’’.
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, Procedure and Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–31463 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
30 CFR Chapter XII
[Docket No. ONRR–2011–0007]
Establishment of the Indian Oil
Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee
Office of Natural Resources
Revenue, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On January 31, 2011, the
Department published a notice of intent
to establish an Indian Oil Valuation
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. In
that notice, we requested interested
parties to nominate representatives for
membership on the Committee and
addressed many of the requirements of
Section 564 of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act. On August 22, 2011,
the Department published a second
notice of intent to establish an Indian
Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee to address the remaining
requirements of Section 564 of the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act and to
inquire if all interests were represented
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
by the proposed members. This notice
establishes the Committee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Karl Wunderlich, Office of Natural
Resources Revenue (ONRR), Telephone:
(303) 231–3663; Fax: (303) 231–3194, or
Email: karl.wunderlich@onrr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
response to our second notice, we
received three responses recommending
three additional members to the
Committee. In response, we have added
the following three recommended
members to the Committee: Patrick
Flynn, employee of Resolute Energy
Corporation, representative of Industry;
Grinnell Day Chief, representative of the
Blackfeet Nation; Alan Taradash,
representative of the Jicarilla Apache
Nation.
One additional comment was received
in response to the second notice of
intent offering broad objections to the
composition of the Committee. In
particular, the commenter felt the
Committee did not represent all
significant interests, did not represent
global energy producer interests,
included members from the oil industry
with conflicts of interest, and should
not have had inclusion from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA).
While ONRR appreciates and
encourages interest in the Indian Oil
Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee, at this time we find it
unnecessary to reconstitute or make
significant changes to the committee.
On January 31, 2011, ONRR solicited
nominees for membership to the
Committee. On August 22, 2011, ONRR
solicited additional nominees. This
provided the commenter two
opportunities to nominate a member
that would represent the significant
interests he felt were omitted. ONRR
believes it has adequately met the intent
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) in soliciting membership and
finding members with an appropriate
balance of viewpoints. ONRR also notes
that the Committee is being formed to
address valuation of oil production from
domestic Indian oil leases. Global
energy interests are most likely
unconcerned with the subject of this
Committee and no nominations were
offered to represent these interests.
Likewise, the proposed representatives
from industry were nominated by their
constituents and have an undeniable
stake in the rulemaking process. Any
perceived conflict of interest on the part
of industry’s nominations was not
adequately described by the commenter.
While the commenter noted that the oil
industry members have conflicts of
interest, this is expected of
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘representative’’ members of a FACA
committee. These members serve as
representatives of outside entities or
groups and their exclusive function is to
represent the points of view of a
particular industry or group (e.g. labor,
agriculture, energy, environmental,
tribal, or some other recognizable group
of persons). In representing the interests
of a specifically identifiable interest
group, the opinions, information, and
advice these members offer will reflect
the biases of the particular group that
the member represents on the
Committee. ONRR firmly believes that
the interests significantly affected by the
rulemaking are represented by the
members.
Finally, the Committee was formed
within the terms of the FACA which
provides for government oversight over
FACA committees. In the case of this
Committee, ONRR believes that BIA
belongs on the Committee, because BIA
issues leases and is the office of record
maintaining surface and mineral
ownership records on Indian Trust
lands.
The Committee will meet at least
quarterly with the first meeting planned
for February 2012.
Certification Statement: I hereby
certify that the Indian Oil Valuation
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is
necessary, is in the public interest, and
is established under the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior.
Dated: December 1, 2011.
Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2011–31559 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–T2–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0943]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Blackwater River, South Quay, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
change the regulations that govern the
operation of the S189 Bridge over
Blackwater River, mile 9.2, at South
Quay, VA. The proposed rule would
change the current regulation requiring
a 24-hour advance notice and allow the
bridge to remain in the closed position
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for the passage of vessels. There have
been no requests for openings in 11
years.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
February 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2011–0943 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking 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 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 email Jim Rousseau, Coast
Guard; telephone (757) 398–6557, email
James.L.Rousseau2@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:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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–2011–0943),
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:39 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
76635
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 email 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–2011–0943’’ 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.
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.
Viewing Comments and Documents
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33
CFR 117.999 for the S189 Bridge over
Blackwater River, mile 9.2, at South
Quay, VA. The current regulation states:
The draw of the S189 bridge, mile 9.2
at South Quay, shall open on signal if
at least 24 hours notice is given. The
new regulation would allow the bridge
to not open for the passage of vessels.
The change of the operating regulation
would reflect the current use of the
waterway and vessels with a mast
height less than 14 feet can pass
underneath the bridge in the closed
position at anytime.
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–
0943’’ 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Basis and Purpose
Virginia Department of Transportation
has requested a change in the operation
regulation of the S189 Bridge across
Blackwater River, mile 9.2, at South
Quay VA. There has been no request for
openings since the year 2000. The only
industrial waterway user to request
openings left the area in 2000. Since
2008 up to the present day the average
daily vehicular count is approximately
2,930. The Coast Guard proposes to
allow the above mentioned bridge to
remain in the closed position to
navigation in accordance with 33 CFR
117.39.
The vertical clearance of the Swing
Bridge is 14 feet above mean high tide
in the closed position and unlimited in
the open position. The current operating
schedule for the bridge is set out in 33
CFR 117.999. The current 24 hour
advance notice is no longer necessary
because of the lack of openings.
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
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76636
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
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
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
the bridge that cannot pass under the
bridge in the closed position. This
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the
following reasons. There have been no
vessel requests for openings for the past
11 years. Vessels that can safely transit
under the bridge may do so at any time.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
Executive Order 12866. The Office of
Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The
proposed change is expected to have
minimal impact on mariners due to no
opening request for the past 11 years
and no anticipated change to vessel
traffic.
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.
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 Jim
Rousseau, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District,
(757) 398–6557 or email
James.L.Rousseau2@uscg. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:39 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
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
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 § 117.999, to read as follows:
§ 117.999
Blackwater River
The draw of the S189 bridge, mile 9.2
at South Quay, need not be opened for
the passage of vessels.
Dated: November 16, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard,
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2011–1013 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking 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 four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge
Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone (216) 902–
6085, email Lee.D.Soule@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:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2011–31455 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2011–1013]
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
RIN 1625–AA09
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.
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
revise the drawbridge opening schedule
for the Lake State Railway Bridge at
mile 3.10, the Independence Bridge at
mile 3.88, the Central Michigan Railroad
Bridge at mile 4.94, the Liberty Street
Bridge at mile 4.99, the Veterans
Memorial Bridge at mile 5.60, and the
Lafayette Street Bridge at mile 6.78, all
over the Saginaw River at Bay City, MI.
The current regulation is confusing,
outdated, and unnecessarily restrictive
for both commercial and recreational
vessels. The proposed regulation will
simplify the regulatory language,
increase access through the drawbridges
for all vessels, and provide for the
reasonable needs of all traffic.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or
before: January 9, 2012.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2011–1013),
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 deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76637
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 email 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–2011–1013’’ 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
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011–
1013’’ 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
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76634-76637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31455]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2011-0943]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Blackwater River, South Quay, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern
the operation of the S189 Bridge over Blackwater River, mile 9.2, at
South Quay, VA. The proposed rule would change the current regulation
requiring a 24-hour advance notice and allow the bridge to remain in
the closed position
[[Page 76635]]
for the passage of vessels. There have been no requests for openings in
11 years.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0943 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking 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 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 email Jim Rousseau, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6557, email James.L.Rousseau2@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-2011-0943), 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 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 email 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-2011-0943'' 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-2011-0943'' 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.
Basis and Purpose
Virginia Department of Transportation has requested a change in the
operation regulation of the S189 Bridge across Blackwater River, mile
9.2, at South Quay VA. There has been no request for openings since the
year 2000. The only industrial waterway user to request openings left
the area in 2000. Since 2008 up to the present day the average daily
vehicular count is approximately 2,930. The Coast Guard proposes to
allow the above mentioned bridge to remain in the closed position to
navigation in accordance with 33 CFR 117.39.
The vertical clearance of the Swing Bridge is 14 feet above mean
high tide in the closed position and unlimited in the open position.
The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR
117.999. The current 24 hour advance notice is no longer necessary
because of the lack of openings.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.999 for the S189
Bridge over Blackwater River, mile 9.2, at South Quay, VA. The current
regulation states: The draw of the S189 bridge, mile 9.2 at South Quay,
shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. The new
regulation would allow the bridge to not open for the passage of
vessels. The change of the operating regulation would reflect the
current use of the waterway and vessels with a mast height less than 14
feet can pass underneath the bridge in the closed position at anytime.
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
[[Page 76636]]
an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The proposed change is expected to have
minimal impact on mariners due to no opening request for the past 11
years and no anticipated change to vessel traffic.
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 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 the bridge that cannot pass
under the bridge in the closed position. This action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. There have been no vessel requests for
openings for the past 11 years. Vessels that can safely transit under
the bridge may do so at any time.
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 Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6557 or email
James.L.Rousseau2@uscg. 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 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
[[Page 76637]]
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. 117.999, to read as follows:
Sec. 117.999 Blackwater River
The draw of the S189 bridge, mile 9.2 at South Quay, need not be
opened for the passage of vessels.
Dated: November 16, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-31455 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
