41816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

however, that the withdrawal of this 

proposed rule does not preclude it from 

reinstituting rulemaking concerning the 

issues addressed in the proposal at a 

future date. Should a future rulemaking 

ensue, the Department will provide a 

new opportunity for public comment on 

such a proposal. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August 2009. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19801 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0670] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Franklin Canal, Franklin, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

operation of the Chatsworth Road swing 

span bridge across the Franklin Canal, 

mile 4.8, at Franklin, St. Mary Parish, 

Louisiana. The St. Mary Parish 

Government has requested that the 

operating regulation of the Chatsworth 

Road swing span bridge be changed in 

order for the bridge not to have to be 

continuously manned by a draw tender. 

This change would allow the bridge to 

remain unmanned during most of the 

day by requiring a one-hour notice for 

an opening of the draw between 5 a.m. 

and 9 p.m. daily. Currently the bridge 

opens on signal during this time period. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 19, 2009. Requests for public 

meetings must be received by the Coast 

Guard on or before September 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0670 using one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instruction on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Phil Johnson, Bridge 

Administration Branch, Eighth Coast 

Guard District; telephone 504–671– 

2128, e-mail Philip.R.Johnson@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0670), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide the 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:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered as having been 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 e-mail 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0670’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 8c by 11 

inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009– 

0670’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all 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 the 

Privacy Act notice regarding our public 

dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of 

the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one on or before September 3, 2009 

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. 

Background and Purpose 

The St. Mary Parish Government has 

requested that the operating regulation 

of the Chatsworth Road swing span 

bridge, located on the Franklin Canal at 

mile 4.8 in Franklin, St. Mary Parish, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41817 

Louisiana, be changed in order for the 

bridge not to have to be continuously 

manned by a draw tender from 5 a.m. 

to 9 p.m. when the bridge is now 

required to open on signal. Because of 

the relocation of a public boat landing 

downstream of the bridge, vessel traffic 

has become infrequent, and it is no 

longer necessary to have a bridge tender 

continuously man the bridge. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a 

Test Deviation [USCG–2009–0670] has 

been issued to allow the St. Mary Parish 

Government to test the proposed 

schedule and to obtain data and public 

comments. The test period will be in 

effect during the entire Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking comment period. 

The Coast Guard will review the logs of 

the drawbridge and evaluate public 

comments from this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and the above referenced 

Temporary Deviation to determine if a 

change to the permanent special 

drawbridge operating regulation is 

warranted. 

The Test Deviation allows the bridge 

to operate as follows: The Chatsworth 

Road Bridge, mile 4.8 at Franklin, shall 

open on signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if 

at least one hour notice is given. From 

October 1 through January 31 from 9 

p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall be opened 

on signal if at least three hours notice 

is given. From February 1 through 

September 30 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the 

draw shall open on signal if at least 12 

hours notice is given. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The bridge owner has requested a 

change in the operating regulation 

which would require a one-hour notice 

for an opening of the draw from 5 a.m. 

to 9 p.m. daily. Presently, the bridge 

operates as follows: The draw of the 

Chatsworth Road Bridge, mile 4.8 at 

Franklin, shall open on signal from 5 

a.m. to 9 p.m. From October 1 through 

January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the 

draw shall open on signal if at least 

three hours notice is given. From 

February 1 through September 30 from 

9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on 

signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. 

This rule would allow the bridge to 

operate as follows: The draw of the 

Chatsworth Road Bridge, mile 4.8 at 

Franklin, shall open on signal from 5 

a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least one hour notice 

is given. From October 1 through 

January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the 

draw shall be opened on signal if at 

least three hours notice is given. From 

February 1 through September 30 from 

9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on 

signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. 

The proposed rule change to 33 CFR 

117.445 would reduce the burden on the 

bridge owner while maintaining the 

ability to operate the bridge. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. We expect 

the economic impact of this proposed 

rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

The public would need to notify the 

bridge owner of a required opening only 

one hour in advance rather than on 

signal. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: the owners or 

operators of vessels needing to transit 

the bridge with less than a one hour 

advance notice. The requests for bridge 

openings by commercial vessels are 

infrequent and those vessels that do 

require an opening of the draw are 

normally able to schedule operations in 

conjunction with advance requests for 

openings. Vessels patronizing 

commercial facilities upstream of the 

bridge will be easily able to contact the 

bridge tender an hour prior to 

anticipating arrival at the bridge. The 

bridge provides a vertical clearance of 7 

feet above high water. Thus, many small 

commercial or pleasure craft can safely 

transit under the bridge at any time. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Phil 

Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, 

at 504–671–2128. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. § 117.445 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.445 Franklin Canal. 

The draw of the Chatsworth Bridge, 

mile 4.8 at Franklin, shall open on 

signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least 

one hour notice is given. From October 

1 through January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 

a.m., the draw shall be opened on signal 

if at least three hours notice is given. 

From February 1 through September 30 

from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall 

open on signal if at least 12 hours notice 

is given. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Mary E. Landry, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–19825 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0470; FRL–8946–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Motor Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of California on 

June 5, 2009 relating to the State’s basic 

and enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program. EPA is also 

proposing to find, with two exceptions, 

that California’s program meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA regulations for basic and enhanced 

I/M programs. EPA is making the 

proposed approval contingent upon 

California’s submittal of revisions to the 

enhanced program performance 

standard evaluations to address a 

different attainment year for the 

Western Mojave Desert 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and to address 

California’s base-year program 

performance. If the necessary 

information is not provided, then EPA 

is proposing a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of California’s June 

5, 2009 I/M submittal. Under these 

circumstances, EPA is proposing 

approval of all of the submittal, except 

for the enhanced I/M performance 

standard evaluations for which EPA is 

proposing disapproval. The effect of this 

action would be to make the revisions 

federally enforceable as part of the 

California state implementation plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0470, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS