Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Christina River, Wilmington, DE, 6042-6044 [2012-2789]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6042-6044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2789]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1136]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Christina River, Wilmington, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern 
the operation of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridges over the 
Christina River at miles 4.1 and 4.2, both in Wilmington, DE. Since 
there have been no recorded requests for vessel openings in more than 
20 years for either bridge, this proposal would change the current 
regulations by allowing the drawbridge, at mile 4.1, to be maintained 
in the closed position to navigation and the drawbridge, at mile 4.2, 
to be left in the open-to-navigation position.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-1136 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 Terrance Knowles, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6587, email Terrance.A.Knowles@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-2011-1136), 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-2011-1136'' 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

[[Page 6043]]

become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-
1136'' 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

    Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), who owns and operates both 
swing-type bridges, has requested changes in the operating regulations 
of their railroad drawbridges across Christina River, at miles 4.1 and 
4.2, in Wilmington, DE, set out in 33 CFR 117.237(d).
    The NS drawbridges at miles 4.1 and 4.2 have vertical clearances in 
the closed position to vessels of six and three feet above mean high 
water, respectively.
    Under the regular operating schedule, the drawbridges shall open on 
signal from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., if at least 24 hours notice is given; and 
from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draws need not be opened for the passage of 
vessels.
    There had been no request to open either drawbridge for a vessel 
for more than 20 years. Approximately two trains per day traverse the 
NS drawbridge at mile 4.1, and there is no train service at the NS 
drawbridge at mile 4.2, where the bridge is currently placed in the 
open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.39 and 
117.41, the Coast Guard proposes to allow the NS drawbridge at mile 4.1 
to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position; and allow the NS 
drawbridge at mile 4.2 to be maintained in the open-to-navigation 
position and discontinue draw tender service for both drawbridges. The 
24-hour advance notice in the current regulation is no longer necessary 
due to the lack of openings.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.237(d). This proposed 
change would divide the current paragraph into paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2).
    Paragraph (d)(1) would contain the proposed rule for the Norfolk 
Southern Railroad Bridge at mile 4.1. The rule would allow the draw of 
the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and would not 
require openings for the passage of vessels.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would contain the proposed rule for the Norfolk 
Southern Railroad Bridge at mile 4.2. The rule would allow the draw of 
the bridge to be maintained in the open-to-navigation position and 
would allow for unobstructed passage of vessels.

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 that 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 since there have been no requests for vessel openings for more 
than 20 years for either drawbridge with 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 action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the 
following reasons. There have been no requests to open either 
drawbridge for the passage of vessels for more than 20 years and there 
is no anticipated change to vessel traffic.
    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 Terrance Knowles, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6587 or 
email Terrance.A.Knowles@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

[[Page 6044]]

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 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 paragraph Sec.  117.237(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.237  Christina River

* * * * *
    (d) The following drawbridges at Wilmington shall operate as 
follows:
    (1) The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 4.1, shall be 
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position;
    (2) The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 4.2, shall be 
maintained in the open-to-navigation position.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-2789 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P