Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broad Creek, Laurel, DE, 5679-5681 [2016-01897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
income, and whether the resident was
elderly or disabled.
HUD is considering revising HUD’s
regulations at 24 CFR 960.261
(Restriction on eviction of families
based on income) in a manner that
would continue to give PHAs discretion
on when to evict or terminate the
tenancies of over-income families but
narrow that discretion by providing
circumstances that would require a PHA
to terminate tenancy or evict an overincome family. Specifically, HUD is
considering whether a family whose
income significantly exceeds the income
limit and has exceeded such limit for a
sustained period of time must be
notified by the PHA that the family will
be evicted or tenancy terminated. HUD
is also considering what a reasonable
period of time to find alternative
housing would be.
HUD is not considering whether to
alter the existing statutorily based
exceptions to eviction or termination of
tenancy related to income limits.
Specifically, a family over the income
limits who has a valid contract for
participation in a Family SelfSufficiency (FSS) program administered
under HUD regulations in 24 CFR part
984 would not be subject to eviction or
termination of tenancy. Additionally, a
PHA may not evict a family over the
income limits if the family is currently
receiving the earned income
disallowance authorized by the 1937
Act (See 42 U.S.C. 1473a(d)) and
implemented through HUD regulations
in 24 CFR 960.255 and 24 CFR
960.261(b).
II. Request for Comments
In a letter provided to PHAs on
September 3, 2015, HUD strongly
recommended that PHAs adopt local
over-income policies while considering
many factors, including, but not limited
to how over-income is defined, income
stability, length of time to provide a
safety net for fluctuating incomes,
preference for return and hardship
policies.2 In anticipation of a proposed
rulemaking, HUD specifically solicits
comment on the following issues:
1. How should HUD define income
that ‘‘significantly’’ exceeds the income
limit for public housing residency?
Should such higher amount be
determined by dollar amount, by a
percentage, or as a function of the
current income limit, and what should
the amount be?
2. Should area cost of living and
family finances be taken into
2 This letter can be found at https://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_
indian_housing/programs/ph.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Feb 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
consideration when determining
whether an individual or family no
longer needs public housing assistance?
Are there limits to the circumstances in
which said data should be requested
and applied in a determination?
3. What period of time in which an
individual or family has had income
that significantly exceeds the income
limits should be determined as
indicative that the individual or family
no longer needs public housing
assistance?
4. How should local housing market
conditions or housing authority wait list
data be considered?
5. What period of time should be
allowed for an individual or family to
find alternative housing?
6. Are there exceptions to eviction or
termination of tenancy that HUD should
consider beyond those listed in HUD’s
regulation in 24 CFR 960.261?
7. Should HUD allow over-income
individuals or families to remain in
public housing, while paying
unsubsidized or fair market, rent? How
would such a provision impact PHA
operations and finances?
8. Should HUD require a local appeals
process for individuals or families
deemed over-income?
9. Where over-income policies have
been implemented, what were the
results to public housing residents and
PHAs? What were the specific positive
and negative impacts?
10. What financial impact would
over-income policies have on PHA
operations, and how can any negative
impacts be mitigated?
11. What are the potential costs and
benefits to public housing residents and
PHAs that could result from the forcible
eviction of public housing tenants?
12. What evidence currently exists in
favor of or against the adoption of this
type of policy?
It is the responsibility of HUD and
PHAs to ensure that public housing
units are available to those who need
HUD assistance. All comments directed
to steps that HUD and PHAs can take to
ensure availability of public housing
units for individuals and families
meeting the income limits are welcome.
Dated: January 25, 2016.
´
Lourdes Castro Ramırez,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2016–01921 Filed 2–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5679
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–1011]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Broad Creek, Laurel, DE
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
change the operating schedule that
governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad
Bridge over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at
Laurel, DE. This proposed rule will
change the current regulation requiring
a four-hour advance notice and allow
the bridge to remain in the closed
position for the passage of vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2015–1011 using Federal eRulemaking
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.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mrs. Jessica Shea,
Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb), at (757)
398–6422, email jessica.c.shea2@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
The current operating schedule for the
bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.233 (a)
issued September 11, 2006. As outlined
in this regulation, the Norfolk Southern
Railroad Bridge shall open on signal if
at least four hours notice is given. The
Fifth Coast Guard District Commander
received a request from the bridge
owner in July 2015 to consider making
a permanent change to the operating
regulation for the Norfolk Southern
Railroad Bridge per 33 CFR 117.8(a).
E:\FR\FM\03FEP1.SGM
03FEP1
5680
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules
This proposed rulemaking aligns the
new schedule with the observed lack of
marine traffic that requires a bridge
opening and the operating regulations
for the Poplar Street and US Highway
13A, which also cross Broad Creek. The
proposed change would amend the
existing regulation to state that the
bridge need not open.
The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge
over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at Laurel,
DE, has a vertical clearance of fourteen
feet above mean high water in the
closed position and is unlimited in the
open position. The charted depth at the
bridge is four feet. The existing structure
is a swing bridge that was authorized in
1910. The structure has been used by
trains since it was completed in 1915;
however, the bridge owner reported that
no openings have been requested since
it was acquired by Norfolk Southern in
1999.
Milford Fertilizer had a dock that was
used by commercial traffic upstream of
the railroad bridge when the existing
structure was issued a bridge permit in
1910. Prior to publishing this NPRM,
the Coast Guard contacted the fertilizer
company to determine if there would be
any impacts to their operations. The
fertilizer plant modified the operations
conducted in this location and has not
used the dock since the 1970s. There is
no record of any other commercial
maritime traffic on Broad Creek, DE.
There are residential docks and
municipal boat ramps downstream of
the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge.
Recreational traffic is present during the
boating season with the peak during the
summer months.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
This NPRM proposes to change the
status of the Norfolk Southern Railroad
Bridge to need not open for the passage
of vessels. In order to align the operating
schedule of the bridge with observed
marine traffic, the proposed change
amends the regulation to state that the
bridge need not open. The lack of
requests from vessels for bridge
openings since 1999 illustrate that the
vessels that use this waterway can safely
navigate while the drawbridge is in the
closed-to-navigation position.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders (E.O.s) related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and
E.O.s and we discuss First Amendment
rights of protestors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Feb 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Based on current maritime traffic, using
Norfolk Southern documentation and
notes in the Coast Guard bridge files,
there will be few, if any, vessels
impacted by this proposed change as
there has not been a requested opening
since 1999.
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, since there have
been no requests for openings since
1999, 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, above. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Government
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 E.O. 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 above.
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
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
E:\FR\FM\03FEP1.SGM
03FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further
review, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this
document, and all public comments, are
in our online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Feb 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
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 § 117.233(a) to read as
follows:
■
§ 117.233
Broad Creek.
(a) The draw of the Norfolk Southern
bridge at mile 8.0, at Laurel, need not
open for the passage of vessels.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–01897 Filed 2–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 150629562–6025–01]
RIN 0648–BF25
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bycatch Management
in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Amendment 110 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP). If approved, Amendment 110
and this proposed rule would improve
the management of Chinook and chum
salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery by creating a
comprehensive salmon bycatch
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5681
avoidance program. This action is
necessary to minimize Chinook and
chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery to the extent practicable
while maintaining the potential for the
full harvest of the pollock total
allowable catch within specified
prohibited species catch limits.
Amendment 110 is intended to promote
the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than March 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0081 of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150081, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of Amendment 110
and the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/
RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action
(collectively the ‘‘Analysis’’) may be
obtained from www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this rule may
be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian,
Records Officer; in person at NMFS
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street,
Room 420A, Juneau, AK; and by email
E:\FR\FM\03FEP1.SGM
03FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5679-5681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-1011]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broad Creek, Laurel, DE
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over Broad Creek, mile
8.0, at Laurel, DE. This proposed rule will change the current
regulation requiring a four-hour advance notice and allow the bridge to
remain in the closed position for the passage of vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1011 using Federal eRulemaking 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 Mrs. Jessica Shea, Fifth Coast Guard District
(dpb), at (757) 398-6422, email jessica.c.shea2@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR
117.233 (a) issued September 11, 2006. As outlined in this regulation,
the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge shall open on signal if at least
four hours notice is given. The Fifth Coast Guard District Commander
received a request from the bridge owner in July 2015 to consider
making a permanent change to the operating regulation for the Norfolk
Southern Railroad Bridge per 33 CFR 117.8(a).
[[Page 5680]]
This proposed rulemaking aligns the new schedule with the observed lack
of marine traffic that requires a bridge opening and the operating
regulations for the Poplar Street and US Highway 13A, which also cross
Broad Creek. The proposed change would amend the existing regulation to
state that the bridge need not open.
The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at
Laurel, DE, has a vertical clearance of fourteen feet above mean high
water in the closed position and is unlimited in the open position. The
charted depth at the bridge is four feet. The existing structure is a
swing bridge that was authorized in 1910. The structure has been used
by trains since it was completed in 1915; however, the bridge owner
reported that no openings have been requested since it was acquired by
Norfolk Southern in 1999.
Milford Fertilizer had a dock that was used by commercial traffic
upstream of the railroad bridge when the existing structure was issued
a bridge permit in 1910. Prior to publishing this NPRM, the Coast Guard
contacted the fertilizer company to determine if there would be any
impacts to their operations. The fertilizer plant modified the
operations conducted in this location and has not used the dock since
the 1970s. There is no record of any other commercial maritime traffic
on Broad Creek, DE. There are residential docks and municipal boat
ramps downstream of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. Recreational
traffic is present during the boating season with the peak during the
summer months.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This NPRM proposes to change the status of the Norfolk Southern
Railroad Bridge to need not open for the passage of vessels. In order
to align the operating schedule of the bridge with observed marine
traffic, the proposed change amends the regulation to state that the
bridge need not open. The lack of requests from vessels for bridge
openings since 1999 illustrate that the vessels that use this waterway
can safely navigate while the drawbridge is in the closed-to-navigation
position.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.s and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Based on current
maritime traffic, using Norfolk Southern documentation and notes in the
Coast Guard bridge files, there will be few, if any, vessels impacted
by this proposed change as there has not been a requested opening since
1999.
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, since
there have been no requests for openings since 1999, 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, above. 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 Government
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 E.O. 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 above.
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 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
[[Page 5681]]
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates
the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this 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 the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this document, and all public comments, are
in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site'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; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 117.233(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.233 Broad Creek.
(a) The draw of the Norfolk Southern bridge at mile 8.0, at Laurel,
need not open for the passage of vessels.
* * * * *
Dated: January 14, 2016.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-01897 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
