Proposed Rule2021-15488
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 28, 2021
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal at East Chicago, IN. Indiana Department of Transportation, the owner and operator of the bridge, has requested to stop continual drawtender service to the bridge due to a lack of openings. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40388-40390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2021-0332]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East
Chicago, IN
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal at East Chicago, IN. Indiana Department of Transportation,
the owner and operator of the bridge, has requested to stop continual
drawtender service to the bridge due to a lack of openings. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0332 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 email If you have questions on this proposed rule, call
or email: Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0ac8585cea4ceb38f958c85a095938387ce8d898c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd81a8a8e389e39ea2b8a1a88db8beaeaae3a0a4a1">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 INDOT Indiana
Department of Transportation
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a horizontal
clearance of 68-feet and a vertical clearance of 12-feet in the closed
position with an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. The
Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal
is required to open on signal and there are no previous rulemakings for
this bridge to discuss. The Indiana Harbor Canal is a 3-mile long
commercial waterway that serves several industries near the city of
East Chicago, Indiana including the largest integrated steelmaking
facility in North America and the 1,400 acre Whiting Refinery that
includes the former 1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery at the head
of navigation. The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the
Indiana Harbor Canal is the last drawbridge before the head of
navigation; once the 1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery was torn
down the bridge lost its purpose for regular openings and the waterway
silted in around the bridge preventing vessels from approaching.
Approximately thirty years after the removal of the refinery the USEPA
and USACE partnered to remove polluted sediments form the waterway and
established a contaminated dredge spoils area above the bridge. The EPA
and USACE contracted dredging company is working a few weeks each
season and is the only commercial vessel requesting the bridge to open.
There are no records of recreational vessels using the Indiana Harbor
Canal.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The only vessel that has requested an opening at the Indianapolis
Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal in thirty
years has been the dredging contractor, and their work schedule is
limited to a few weeks a year due to migratory wildlife concerns in the
summer and ice formation in the winter. INDOT has agreed that a
drawtender will be assigned to the bridge to accommodate vessel traffic
if a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
[[Page 40389]]
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. 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.
C. 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.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this proposed rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. If your material cannot be
submitted using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
[[Page 40390]]
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.400 add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.400 Indiana Harbor Canal.
* * * * *
(c). The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, at East Chicago,
shall open on signal if at least twelve hours' notice is given.
M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-15488 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 28, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.