[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48889-48891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23135]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0796]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations of the S213 Bridge, at mile 26.8, across Chester River at 
Chestertown MD. This proposal would allow the bridge to open on signal 
if at least six hours notice is given and would provide for the 
reasonable needs of navigation, due to the anticipated infrequency of 
requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2009-0796 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulation.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 instructions on submitting 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Waverly W. Gregory, Bridge Administrator, Fifth 
Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acfbcddac9dec0d582fb82ebdec9cbc3ded5ecd9dfcfcb82c1c5c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0f7c1d6c5d2ccd98ef78ee7d2c5c7cfd2d9e0d5d3c3c78ecdc9cc">[email protected]</span></a>. 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-2009-0796), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment 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://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast 
Guard when you successfully transmit the 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-2009-0796'' in the ``keyword'' 
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the 
``Actions'' column. If you submit them by mail or 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. We may change this 
proposed rule in view of them.

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-2009-0796'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on 
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an 
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket 
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine 
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and 
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Maryland Department of Transportation-State Highway Administration 
(MDOT) is responsible for the operation of the S213 Bridge, at mile 
26.8, across Chester River at Chestertown MD. MDOT requested advance 
notification for vessel openings year-round due to the anticipated 
infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge.
    The S213 Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to 
vessels of 12 feet, above mean high water.

[[Page 48890]]

    The existing operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.551 
require the draw to open on signal from April 1 through September 30 
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. At all other times, the draw shall open on signal 
if at least six hours notice is given.
    Bridge opening data, supplied by MDOT, revealed a small amount of 
yearly openings of the draw span. In the past five years from 2004 to 
2008, the bridge opened for vessels 42, 38, 54, 34 and 34 times, 
respectively. Due to the anticipated infrequency of requests for vessel 
openings of the drawbridge, MDOT requested to change the current 
operating regulation by requiring the draw of the bridge to open on 
signal if at least six hours notice is given year-round.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.551, by revising the 
paragraph to read that the draw of the S213 Bridge mile 26.8 located in 
Chestertown MD, shall open on signal if at least six hours notice is 
given at all times.
    These changes are proposed due to the anticipated infrequency of 
requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge.

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.
    We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed 
changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the 
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the proposed 
scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays.

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 and operators of vessels 
needing to transit the bridge who cannot clear the bridge at its closed 
position.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because any operator of an 
affected vessel may still transit the bridge if that operator provides 
the necessary notice six hours or more in advance of the scheduled 
transit.
    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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222. 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 effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because

[[Page 48891]]

it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement 
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a 
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment because it simply 
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We 
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a 
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  117.551 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.551  Chester River.

    The draw of the S213 Bridge, mile 26.8, at Chestertown MD shall 
open on signal if at least six hours notice is given.

    Dated: September 3, 2009.
Wayne E. Justice,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-23135 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>