Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, New Orleans, LA, 63136-63139 [2013-24319]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63136
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and therefore is not covered under
Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979).
Discussion
We proposed to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 39) with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for
certain Model 767 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28489).
The NPRM proposed to require
modifying a relay installation and
associated wiring of the engine cowl
anti-ice system and performing a
functional test of the thrust reverser
system. The NPRM also proposed to
require replacing the operational
program software of certain indicating/
recording systems. The NPRM was
prompted by numerous operator reports
of failures of the lock flexshaft of the
thrust reverser actuation system (TRAS)
between the upper actuator and the
TRAS lock. We had proposed the AD to
prevent high power in-flight
deployment of a thrust reverser, which
could cause high roll force and
consequent departure from controlled
flight.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Actions Since NPRM (70 FR 28489,
May 18, 2005) Was Issued
Since we issued the NPRM (70 FR
28489, May 18, 2005), we have received
new data that indicate the unsafe
condition would not be adequately
addressed by the proposed action.
Consequently, we issued a new NPRM
(78 FR 3363, January 16, 2013) that
positively addresses the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM (70
FR 28489, May 18, 2005) and eliminates
the need for the actions proposed in that
NPRM (70 FR 28489, May 18, 2005).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6505; fax:
425–917–6590; email: tung.tran@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FAA’s Conclusions
We have determined that the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM (70
FR 28489, May 18, 2005) still exists.
However, the unsafe condition is
addressed in the new NPRM (78 FR
3363, January 16, 2013). Accordingly,
the NPRM (70 FR 28489, May 18, 2005)
is withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the NPRM (70 FR
28489, May 18, 2005) does not preclude
the FAA from issuing the related actions
or commit the FAA to any course of
action in the future.
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws the
NPRM (70 FR 28489, May 18, 2005), it
is neither a proposed nor a final rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
33 CFR Part 117
2013–0562 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments. To avoid duplication, please
use only one of these four methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email the Coast Guard; Mr.
Jim Wetherington telephone 504–671–
2128, emails james.r.wetherington@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0562]
Table of Acronyms
RIN 1625–AA09
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
LDOTD Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§ Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM,
Docket No. FAA–2005–21236,
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–011–
AD, which published in the Federal
Register on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28489).
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 30, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–24797 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, New
Orleans, LA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedules that
govern the US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge
across the Inner Harbor Navigational
Canal (IHNC), mile 3.1 and the Senator
Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./
Seabrook) bridge across the IHNC, mile
4.6, both at New Orleans, LA. This
proposed change would allow for the
safe navigation of vessels while
reflecting the low volume of vessel
traffic through the bridges thereby
increasing efficiency of operations. The
proposed change would allow the
bridges to operate in a manner that
would align the two operating schedules
so the bridge owner would be able to
use the same bridge crew personnel to
operate both bridges with little to no
effect on navigation through the bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
December 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this proposed 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.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG–2013–
0562), 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://
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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, type the
docket number [USCG–2013–0562] in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. 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, type the
docket number (USCG–2013–0562) in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
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.
B. Regulatory History and Information
The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge, mile
3.1, has a current operating schedule
under 33 CFR 117.458(b). The bridge
shall open on signal; except that from 8
p.m. to 7 a.m. the draw shall open on
signal if at least four hours notice is
given, and the draw need not be opened
from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to
6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon
Blvd./Seabrook) Bridge has a current
operating schedule under 33 CFR
117.458(c). The bridge will open on
signal at all times but is allowed to
remain closed from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday. Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development
(LDOTD) (representing the New Orleans
Levee District which is the bridge
owner) has requested to change the
notice required for opening the US 90
(Danzinger) Bridge to two hours notice
24 hours a day; except that the draw
need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. LDOTD would also like
to change the required opening for the
Senator Ted Hickey bridge to on signal
from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m., open on
signal if two hours notice is given from
8 p.m. through 8 a.m. and that the draw
need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
LDOTD initiated this request without
prior consultation of waterway users,
but did consult with the Coast Guard
Eighth District Coastal Region Bridge
Branch (dpb) in New Orleans for
guidance on how to comply with the
requirements of 33 CFR part 117.8.
There were no previous regulatory
publications or public notices
announcing this proposed rule.
However, the Coast Guard decided that
a test deviation would run in
conjunction with the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to ensure that there
were no major concerns on the part of
the waterway users. The test deviation
will run for thirty days in the middle of
the NPRM comment period; from fifteen
days after the NPRM comment period
begins until fifteen days before it ends.
The docket number for the test
deviation is also USCG–2013–0562.
Comments are encouraged.
C. Basis and Purpose
LDOTD, on behalf of the Orleans
Levee District, has requested to modify
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63137
the operating regulations of the U.S. 90
(Danziger) and the Senator Ted Hickey
(Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bridges
on the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal
(IHNC) past the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW). The proposed
change would allow LDOTD to operate
these two bridges with the same
personnel, thereby increasing the
overall efficiency of operations on these
bridges and ultimately reducing overall
operational costs while allowing for
improved transit through these bridges.
This section of the IHNC is not on the
GIWW and therefore has far fewer
opening requests than the GIWW
bridges do. The Danzinger Bridge
averaged nine openings a month, for
vessel traffic, in the last year. The
Senator Ted Hickey Bridge averaged 32
openings per month, for vessel traffic, in
the last year. This regulatory change
would allow for a minimal amount of
personnel to work this section of the
IHNC while still enabling efficient
marine commerce in the area. These
proposed changes would also align the
two bridges’ operating regulations to
simplify the planning and use of these
bridges by the waterway users.
The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge across
the IHNC, mile 3.1, at New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana is a vertical
lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 50
feet above Mean High Water (MHW),
elevation 5.0 Mean Sea Level (MSL), in
the closed-to-navigation position and
120 feet MHW, elevation 5.0 MSL, in
the open-to-navigation position. The
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon
Blvd./Seabrook) Bridge across the IHNC,
mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana is a bascule bridge
with a vertical clearance of 46 feet above
Mean High Water (MHW), elevation 5.0
Mean Sea Level (MSL), in the closed-tonavigation position and unlimited in the
open-to-navigation position.
D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge owner would like to
modify the existing regulation under 33
CFR 117.458(b) and (c). The proposed
change to 33 CFR 117.458(b) would
allow the bridge to open if two hours
notice is given 24 hours a day; except
the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday. The proposed
change to 33 CFR 117.458(c) would
allow the bridge to open on signal from
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 8
a.m. if two hours notice is given; except
the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday. These
regulatory changes would allow LDOTD
to improve the systematic efficiency of
bridge operations for vessels using the
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
63138
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
portions of the IHNC that are not
associated with the GIWW. The
proposed changes would do this by
allowing the bridge operations to be
accomplished with the same personnel
and allowing the regulations to work
with one another thereby allowing for
faster response times for openings and
more efficient use of the water way and
ultimately more fiscal responsibility on
behalf of the owner. There are no
alternative routes in this area. Traffic
that does not require an opening may
pass at any time.
E. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive
orders.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. 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 Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive
Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under
those Orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action. This proposed rule
merely modifies a currently existing
regulation by adjusting the required
time of notification necessary to request
a bridge opening. If this proposed
change is made permanent, mariners
passing through this area will be aware
of the notification requirements and will
be able to plan their transits accordingly
and provide the proper notice if
necessary.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
operators of vessels needing to transit
the Danzinger Bridge with less than two
hours notice 24 hours a day and the
owners or operators of vessels needing
to transit the Senator Tom Hickey bridge
between 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on less than
a two-hour notice.
This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the
following reasons: This proposed rule
would create a consistency of
operational times as well as allow for
the operation of the bridges on this part
of the waterway as a system rather than
as individual bridges as vessel traffic is
relatively low in this general area. By
allowing for consistency between the
bridge schedules, this proposed rule
change could actually allow for a better
flow of commerce in this area. 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would economically
affect it.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
proposed rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.
Order and have determined that it does
not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
7. 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 proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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.
5. Federalism
11. Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
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
4. Collection of Information
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
14. 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. This proposed
rule simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this proposed rule. 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:
■
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In § 117.458 revise paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 117.458 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal,
New Orleans.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge,
mile 3.1, shall open on signal if at least
two hours notice is given; except that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
the draw need not be opened from 7
a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
(c) The draw of the Senator Ted
Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook)
Bridge, mile 4.6, shall open on signal
from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. and from 8
p.m. through 8 a.m. if at least two hours
notice is given; except that the draw
need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Dated: September 23, 2013.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013–24319 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 12
RIN 2900–AO41
Designee for Patient Personal Property
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
regulation that governs a competent
veteran’s designation of a person to
receive the veteran’s funds and personal
effects in the event that such veteran
was to die while in a VA field facility.
The proposed rule would eliminate
reference to an obsolete VA form, clarify
the role of a VA fiduciary for an
incompetent veteran-patient, as well as
restructure the current regulation for
ease of readability.
DATES: Comments must be received by
VA on or before December 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through www.regulations.gov;
by mail or hand-delivery to the Director,
Regulation Policy and Management
(02REG), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or
by fax to (202) 273–9026. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AO41,
Designee for Patient Personal Property.’’
Copies of comments received will be
available for public inspection in the
Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Room 1063B, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Call (202) 461–4902 for an
appointment. (This is not a toll-free
number.) In addition, during the
comment period, comments may be
viewed online through the Federal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63139
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director,
Business Policy, Chief Business Office,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20420; (202) 461–1599. (This is not a
toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If a
competent veteran who is receiving VA
medical care dies in a VA field facility,
any funds and personal effects
belonging to the veteran must be turned
over to the person who had been
designated by the veteran upon
admission to such VA field facility. VA
requests and encourages a competent
veteran to designate an individual and
provide the facility with the
individual’s information in order to
facilitate the process of disposition of
the veteran’s funds and personal effects
in the event of his or her death, and to
help alleviate some of the burden on the
deceased veteran’s survivors.
Current § 12.1(a) states that a
competent veteran who is admitted to
receive VA care will be requested and
encouraged to designate on the
prescribed VA Form 10–P–10,
Application for Hospital Treatment or
Domiciliary Care, a person to whom VA
would deliver the veteran’s funds and
effects in the event of such veteran’s
death. When this regulation was
originally written in 1948, VA Form 10–
P–10 was the VA form used by veterans
to apply for hospital or domiciliary care
in the VA health care system. VA Form
10–P–10 contained a space for a veteran
to designate a person who would
receive the veteran’s funds and effects
in the event of the veteran’s death in a
VA field facility. The veteran provided
the name and address of the designee,
as well as an alternate designee, on the
form. However, VA Form 10–P–10 is an
obsolete form that is no longer used by
VA. The current form that veterans use
to apply for enrollment in the VA health
care system is VA Form 10–10EZ,
Application for Health Benefits.
However, VA Form 10–10EZ does not
include a space for a veteran to
designate someone to receive his or her
funds and effects.
VA currently requests a veteran to
name a designee during the registration
process when VA admits a veteran for
care at a VA field facility. The designee
information is recorded by VA
personnel directly into the veteran’s
record in the Veterans Health
Information Systems and Technology
Architecture (VistA), VA’s patient
database. The veteran is requested to
verify the designation each subsequent
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63136-63139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24319]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2013-0562]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigational Canal,
New Orleans, LA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedules
that govern the US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge across the Inner Harbor
Navigational Canal (IHNC), mile 3.1 and the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C.
Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bridge across the IHNC, mile 4.6, both at New
Orleans, LA. This proposed change would allow for the safe navigation
of vessels while reflecting the low volume of vessel traffic through
the bridges thereby increasing efficiency of operations. The proposed
change would allow the bridges to operate in a manner that would align
the two operating schedules so the bridge owner would be able to use
the same bridge crew personnel to operate both bridges with little to
no effect on navigation through the bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0562 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email the Coast Guard; Mr. Jim Wetherington telephone
504-671-2128, emails james.r.wetherington@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara
Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec. Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
A. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this proposed 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.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2013-0562), 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://
[[Page 63137]]
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,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0562] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.
2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0562) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
B. Regulatory History and Information
The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge, mile 3.1, has a current operating
schedule under 33 CFR 117.458(b). The bridge shall open on signal;
except that from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at
least four hours notice is given, and the draw need not be opened from
7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) Bridge has a current
operating schedule under 33 CFR 117.458(c). The bridge will open on
signal at all times but is allowed to remain closed from 7 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) (representing the
New Orleans Levee District which is the bridge owner) has requested to
change the notice required for opening the US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge to
two hours notice 24 hours a day; except that the draw need not be
opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday. LDOTD would also like to change the required opening for the
Senator Ted Hickey bridge to on signal from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m., open
on signal if two hours notice is given from 8 p.m. through 8 a.m. and
that the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to
6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
LDOTD initiated this request without prior consultation of waterway
users, but did consult with the Coast Guard Eighth District Coastal
Region Bridge Branch (dpb) in New Orleans for guidance on how to comply
with the requirements of 33 CFR part 117.8. There were no previous
regulatory publications or public notices announcing this proposed
rule. However, the Coast Guard decided that a test deviation would run
in conjunction with the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to ensure
that there were no major concerns on the part of the waterway users.
The test deviation will run for thirty days in the middle of the NPRM
comment period; from fifteen days after the NPRM comment period begins
until fifteen days before it ends. The docket number for the test
deviation is also USCG-2013-0562. Comments are encouraged.
C. Basis and Purpose
LDOTD, on behalf of the Orleans Levee District, has requested to
modify the operating regulations of the U.S. 90 (Danziger) and the
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bridges on the Inner
Harbor Navigational Canal (IHNC) past the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(GIWW). The proposed change would allow LDOTD to operate these two
bridges with the same personnel, thereby increasing the overall
efficiency of operations on these bridges and ultimately reducing
overall operational costs while allowing for improved transit through
these bridges. This section of the IHNC is not on the GIWW and
therefore has far fewer opening requests than the GIWW bridges do. The
Danzinger Bridge averaged nine openings a month, for vessel traffic, in
the last year. The Senator Ted Hickey Bridge averaged 32 openings per
month, for vessel traffic, in the last year. This regulatory change
would allow for a minimal amount of personnel to work this section of
the IHNC while still enabling efficient marine commerce in the area.
These proposed changes would also align the two bridges' operating
regulations to simplify the planning and use of these bridges by the
waterway users.
The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge across the IHNC, mile 3.1, at New
Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana is a vertical lift bridge with a
vertical clearance of 50 feet above Mean High Water (MHW), elevation
5.0 Mean Sea Level (MSL), in the closed-to-navigation position and 120
feet MHW, elevation 5.0 MSL, in the open-to-navigation position. The
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) Bridge across the
IHNC, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana is a bascule
bridge with a vertical clearance of 46 feet above Mean High Water
(MHW), elevation 5.0 Mean Sea Level (MSL), in the closed-to-navigation
position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position.
D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge owner would like to modify the existing regulation under
33 CFR 117.458(b) and (c). The proposed change to 33 CFR 117.458(b)
would allow the bridge to open if two hours notice is given 24 hours a
day; except the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5
p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The proposed change to 33 CFR
117.458(c) would allow the bridge to open on signal from 8 a.m. to 8
p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. if two hours notice is given; except the
bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday. These regulatory changes would allow LDOTD to
improve the systematic efficiency of bridge operations for vessels
using the
[[Page 63138]]
portions of the IHNC that are not associated with the GIWW. The
proposed changes would do this by allowing the bridge operations to be
accomplished with the same personnel and allowing the regulations to
work with one another thereby allowing for faster response times for
openings and more efficient use of the water way and ultimately more
fiscal responsibility on behalf of the owner. There are no alternative
routes in this area. Traffic that does not require an opening may pass
at any time.
E. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
1. 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 Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. This
proposed rule merely modifies a currently existing regulation by
adjusting the required time of notification necessary to request a
bridge opening. If this proposed change is made permanent, mariners
passing through this area will be aware of the notification
requirements and will be able to plan their transits accordingly and
provide the proper notice if necessary.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 Danzinger Bridge with less than two hours notice
24 hours a day and the owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit the Senator Tom Hickey bridge between 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on less
than a two-hour notice.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
proposed rule would create a consistency of operational times as well
as allow for the operation of the bridges on this part of the waterway
as a system rather than as individual bridges as vessel traffic is
relatively low in this general area. By allowing for consistency
between the bridge schedules, this proposed rule change could actually
allow for a better flow of commerce in this area. 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would economically affect it.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 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.
4. 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.).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
7. 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
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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.
11. 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
[[Page 63139]]
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. 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. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this proposed rule. 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
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 117.458 revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.458 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans.
* * * * *
(b) The US 90 (Danzinger) Bridge, mile 3.1, shall open on signal if
at least two hours notice is given; except that the draw need not be
opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
(c) The draw of the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./
Seabrook) Bridge, mile 4.6, shall open on signal from 8 a.m. through 8
p.m. and from 8 p.m. through 8 a.m. if at least two hours notice is
given; except that the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Dated: September 23, 2013.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-24319 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
