52602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

encompassing the central portion of 

Wells Harbor. 

(b) Anchorage ‘‘B’’. All of the waters 

enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 

43°19′11.1′′ N, longitude 070°33′49.8′′ 

W; thence to latitude 43°19′10.5′′ N, 

longitude 070°33′47.3′′ W; thence to 

latitude 43°19′8.7′′ N, longitude 

070°33′50.6′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°19′8.3′′ N, longitude 070°33′47.3′′ W; 

thence to the point of beginning. This 

area is approximately 25,000 sq. yards, 

encompassing the western portion of 

Wells Harbor. 

(c) Anchorage ‘‘C’’. All of the waters 

enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 

43°19′17.7′′ N, longitude 070°33′34.0′′ 

W; thence to latitude 43°19′18.4′′ N, 

longitude 070°33′32.9′′ W; thence to 

latitude 43°19′13.0′′ N, longitude 

070°33′26.2′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°19′13.8′′ N, longitude 070°33′25.5′′ 

W; thence to the point of beginning. 

This area is approximately 8,200 sq. 

yards, encompassing the eastern portion 

of Wells Harbor. 

(d) Regulations: This area is 

principally for use by yachts and other 

recreational craft. Temporary floats or 

buoys for marking anchors or moorings 

in place are allowed in this area. Fixed 

mooring piles or stakes are not allowed. 

All moorings or anchors shall be placed 

well within the anchorage areas so that 

no portion of the hull or rigging will at 

any time extend outside of the 

anchorage. 

Note: All anchoring in the areas is under 

the supervision of the Wells Harbor Master 

or other such authority as may be designated 

by the authorities of the Town of Wells, 

Maine. All coordinates referenced use datum: 

NAD 83. 

Dated: Aug. 9, 2011. 

Daniel A. Neptun, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21335 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0591] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Anacostia River, Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulations governing the 

operation of the CSX Railroad Vertical 

Lift Bridge across the Anacostia River, 

mile 3.4 at Washington, DC. The 

proposed change will alter the eight 

hour advance notice requirement for a 

bridge opening to a 48 hour advance 

notice requirement for a bridge opening. 

The operating regulation change will 

give more notice for trains and vessels 

to adjust their schedules accordingly to 

ensure safe and efficient transits across 

and through the bridge. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0591 using any 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 four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, 

Coast Guard; telephone 757–398–6629, 

e-mail Lindsey.R.Middleton@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-2011-0591), 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:// 

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 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–2011–0591’’ 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 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. 

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-2011- 

0591’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

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

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52603 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why one would be beneficial. If 

we determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Basis and Purpose 

The CSX Railroad Company has 

requested a change in the operating 

regulation for the CSX Railroad Vertical 

Lift Bridge, across the Anacostia River, 

mile 3.4, at Washington, DC. The change 

will replace the current eight hour 

advance notice requirement for a bridge 

opening to a 48 hour advance notice 

requirement for a bridge opening. The 

bridge is part of a rail line that is used 

for regular passenger service and there 

are 21 train transits a day across this 

bridge. Therefore, it is necessary that 

ample time is given to maintain an 

accurate schedule for trains and vessels 

for a safe and efficient travel across and 

through the bridge. 

The current operating schedule for the 

bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.253(b). 

The regulation was established in 

August 2004 and allows the bridge to be 

operated from a remote location, the 

Benning Yard office. The draw of the 

bridge shall open on signal at all times 

for public vessels of the United States, 

state and local government vessels, 

commercial vessels and any vessels in 

an emergency involving danger to life or 

property; between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m., 

and between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. from 

May 15 through September 30; and 

between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. from May 15 

through September 30 if notice is given 

to the controller no later than 6 p.m. on 

the day for which the opening is 

requested. At all other times the bridge 

will open if at least 8 hours notice is 

given. 

The vertical clearance of the bridge is 

5 feet at Mean High Water in the closed 

position and 29 feet at Mean High Water 

in the open position. There are 21 train 

transits across this bridge every day. 

There have been two bridge openings in 

the past two years for vessels taller than 

five feet. 

We are testing the potential operating 

regulation adjustment for 180 days in 

conjunction with this notice of 

proposed rulemaking to discover any 

impacts on train transit or water 

navigation as a result of the adjustment. 

During the test deviation period a bridge 

opening count has been requested from 

the CSX Railroad Company. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 

CFR 117.253(b) for the CSX Railroad 

Bridge, mile 3.4 at Washington, DC. 

Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) would change to 

state the following: At all other times, if 

at least 48 hours notice is given to the 

controller at the Benning Yard Office. 

The remainder of paragraph (1) and 

paragraphs (2) through (6) would remain 

the same as currently published. 

Vessels that are able to pass through 

the bridge in the closed position may do 

so at any time. There are no alternate 

routes for vessels that cannot pass 

through the bridge in the closed 

position. The Coast Guard will inform 

waterway users through the Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners. 

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. 

The proposed change is expected to 

have only a minimal impact on 

maritime traffic transiting the bridge. 

Mariners can plan their trips in 

accordance with the scheduled advance 

notice requirement for a bridge opening 

to minimize delay. 

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 

through the bridge between October 1 

and May 14 at all times and those 

needing to transit between the hours of 

7 p.m. and 9 a.m. and from 12 p.m. to 

1 p.m. between May 15 and September 

30. 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons: the rule adds 

minimal restrictions to the movement of 

waterway navigation by requiring 

vessels that are not essential public 

vessels, vessels with dangerous 

emergencies, or vessels transiting 

through the bridge at specified excluded 

times to give 48 hours of notice when 

requesting a bridge opening. Vessels 

that can safely transit under the bridge 

in the closed position may do so 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 Lindsey 

Middleton, Bridge Management 

Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, 

(757) 398–6629 or 

Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this proposed rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 (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 rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

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

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.253(b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.253 Anacostia River. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(iv) At all other times, if at least 48 

hours of notice is given to the controller 

at the Benning Yard Office. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 22, 2011. 

William D. Lee, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21457 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0675, FRL–9455–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Kansas 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Kansas on November 9, 2009, that 

addresses Regional Haze for the first 

implementation period. In so doing, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

plan submitted by Kansas satisfies the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act), for states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant 

to those provisions of the CAA that 

obligate the Agency to take action on 

submittals of SIPs. You may submit 

written comments on this proposed rule 

as per the instructions given under the 

section Instructions for Comment 

Submittal. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received via the methods given in the 

Instructions for Comment section on or 

before September 22, 2011. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS