Document ID: USCG-2011-1062-0001
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: NPRM:  Drawbridge Operations: Bear Creek, Dundalk, MD (Federal Register Publication)
Posted Date: 2012-02-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5201-5204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1062]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bear Creek, Dundalk, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing 
the operation of the Baltimore County highway bridge at Wise Avenue 
across Bear Creek, mile 3.4, between Dundalk and Sparrows Point, MD. 
The proposed change will alter the four hour advance notice requirement 
for a bridge opening to a 48-hour advance notice requirement for a 
bridge opening. Due to the lack of openings, it is not necessary to 
have personnel available on a four-hour notice. The operating 
regulation change will allow Baltimore County to more efficiently 
utilize the maintenance personnel who are responsible for the operation 
of the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before April 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-1062 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

[[Page 5202]]

below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Fifth Coast Guard District 
Bridge Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6629, 
email 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-2011-1062), 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 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, 
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-2011-1062'' 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 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.

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-2011-1062'' 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 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

    Baltimore County has requested a change to the operating regulation 
for the bascule Baltimore County highway bridge at Wise Avenue across 
Bear Creek, mile 3.4 between Dundalk and Sparrows Point, MD. This 
change would require the draw to open if at least 48 hours of notice is 
given.
    Draw tender logs provided by the County show that this bridge has 
had fewer than 12 openings every year since 2008. The majority of these 
openings have been to test or maintain the bridge. When a request is 
made, the County contacts the ``on call'' maintenance contractor who 
relays the message to their electrical subcontractor. This 
subcontractor is the person that operates the bridge. The qualified 
subcontractors are normally at other work locations making it 
difficult, logistically, to arrive at the bridge site for an opening 
within the current four hour notice period. This change would allow the 
County to utilize its maintenance personnel more efficiently.
    The current regulation, set out in 33 CFR 117.543(b), requires the 
bridge to open if at least four hours of notice is given. Section 
117.543 was last amended on October 20, 2011, which was to remove a 
bridge operating regulation for a bridge that has been replaced with a 
fixed bridge.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.543(b) for the 
Baltimore County highway bridge, mile 3.4 at Wise Avenue between 
Dundalk and Sparrows Point, MD. This regulation would change to allow 
the bridge to open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given. 
There is no alternate route. The majority of vessels that use this 
waterway are recreational boats that can travel through the bridge 
without requiring a bridge opening; the vertical clearance of the 
bridge in the closed position is 14 feet at mean high water. For those 
vessels, this regulation will not impact their waterway transit because 
they are able to transit through the bridge at any time. There are few 
larger vessels that may require a bridge opening. This regulation 
change should not have an adverse effect on their transit because the 
bridge is able to open if the mariner provides at least 48 hours of 
advance notice.

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, 
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 that Order. The proposed change is expected 
to have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the 
bridge. Most mariners utilizing this waterway

[[Page 5203]]

do not require a bridge opening. The few mariners that may need a 
bridge opening can plan their trips in accordance with the 48-hour 
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 
requiring a bridge opening.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because the rule adds minimal 
restrictions to the movement of navigation by requiring mariners to 
give at least 48 hours of notice when requesting a bridge opening. The 
majority of vessels utilizing this waterway is shorter than 14 feet and 
is able to safely transit under the bridge in the closed position 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 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

[[Page 5204]]

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.  117.543(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.543  Bear Creek

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Baltimore County highway bridge, mile 3.4 at 
Wise Avenue between Dundalk and Sparrows Point, shall open on signal if 
at least 48 hours of notice is given.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-2283 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P