[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov.
    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 Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil.

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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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


