Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, New Orleans, LA, 63136-63139 [2013-24319]

Download as PDF 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 Accordingly, the NPRM (70 FR 28489, May 18, 2005) is withdrawn.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: http://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 http:// 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 (http:// www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http:// 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 http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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 (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via http://

[[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 http://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 http://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