Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC

Federal Register: May 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 95)

Proposed Rules

Page 28069-28071

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr15my08-23

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117

USCG-2008-0302

RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at

Wilmington, NC. This proposal would allow that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0302 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.

Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) 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.

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast

Guard District, at (757) 398-6629. 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. We have an agreement with the

Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management

Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0302), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. 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.

You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under

ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. 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 at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0302) in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the

Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the

DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal

Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 Department of

Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://

DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

Currently, no public meeting is scheduled. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under

ADDRESSES explaining 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 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for the operation of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC. The existing operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.841 which requires the draw to open on signal if at least 24 hour notice is given. In the closed-to-navigation

Page 28070

position, the S117-S133 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 12 feet, above mean high water.

From the 1930s to the 1970s, Smith Creek was the main waterway route for commercial vessel traffic servicing lumber mills and factories along the waterfront in Wilmington NC. There are no longer any commercial interests requiring access upstream. NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation, and it has been more than 35 years since the bridge was actually manned by operators.

Due to the lack of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the past 20 years, NCDOT requested to change the current operating regulations so that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.841 which governs the

S117-S133 Bridge by revising the paragraph to read that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

Regulatory Evaluation

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 NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation and a six- month notification prerequisite for mariners would be required for vessel access.

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 not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation. 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 affect 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

Page 28071

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 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 not likely to 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.

Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text

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. 117.841 to read as follows:

Sec. 117.841 Smith Creek

The draw of the S117-S133 Bridge, mile 1.5 at Wilmington, need not open for the passage of vessels.

Dated: May 5, 2008.

Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard

District.

FR Doc. E8-10801 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P