Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI, 11118-11120 [2016-04743]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11118
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE FIVE
Forward
masthead light not
in forward quarter
of ship. Annex I,
sec. 3(a)
After
masthead light
less than 1/2
ship’s length aft of
forward
masthead light.
Annex I, sec. 3(a)
Percentage
horizontal
separation
attained
Vessel
Number
Masthead
lights not over all
other lights and
obstructions.
Annex I,
sec. 2(f)
*
*
USS JOHN P MURTHA ............................
*
LPD 26 .............
*
..............................
*
..............................
*
X
*
71
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Approved: January 13, 2016.
A.B. Fischer,
Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy
Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty
and Maritime Law).
Dated: February 17, 2016.
N.A. Hagerty-Ford,
Commander, Judge Advocate General’s Corps,
U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge
Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone (216) 902–
6085, email lee.d.soule@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2016–04547 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
I. Table of Abbreviations
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0934]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is amending
its regulations regarding drawbridge
operations in Saginaw River, Bay City,
MI. In a final rule entitled, ‘‘Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Saginaw River,
Bay City, MI’’ that appeared in the
Federal Register on April 12, 2012, the
Coast Guard revised the drawbridge
opening schedules for the Saginaw
River and inadvertently excluded the
CSX Railroad Bridge and the Grand
Trunk Western Railroad Bridge. This
document amends the regulations by
adding these two bridges back into the
regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective March 3,
2016.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type [USCG–
2015–0934] in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and
click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this final
rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because the
publishing of the original final rule
[Docket No. USCG–2011–1013] omitted
regulatory language that was published
in the previous rulemaking NPRM, but
was inadvertently left out of the final
rule published on April 12, 2012.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to issue a
rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment because the
public was already provided an
opportunity to comment on these
provisions, had no objections during the
previous comment period, and the
operation of the bridges is consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in
less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. The regulation change
has already taken place and the
correction of the regulation will not
affect mariners currently operating on
this waterway. Therefore, a delayed
effective date is unnecessary.
The NPRM for the regulations,
published on December 8, 2011 (76 FR
76637), proposed to revise § 117.647. At
the end of the rule, the following
characters were included in the NPRM:
‘‘* * * * *.’’ These characters
indicated the Coast Guard’s intention to
retain paragraphs (c) and (d) which were
included in the regulations at the time
of the NPRM regarding the CSX Railroad
Bridge located at mile 18.0 over the
Saginaw River and the Grand Trunk
Western Railroad Bridge located at mile
19.2 of the Saginaw River. However, the
final rule, which was published on
April 24, 2012 (77 FR 21864), did not
preserve these paragraphs. The purpose
of this amendment is to ensure that the
regulation accurately reflects the
original intention and inclusion of these
inadvertently omitted paragraphs.
III. Discussion of Final Rule
The purpose of this rule is to correct
33 CFR 117.647 in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
As noted above, this rule restores
language that was previously excluded.
This rule is correcting the regulation in
33 CFR 117.647 by restoring the listing
of drawbridges allowed to remain
closed. The CSX Railroad Bridge located
at mile 18.0 of the Saginaw River and
the Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Bridge located on mile 19.2 of the
Saginaw River will retain their current
operating schedule. This rule will not
affect waterway traffic or land
transportation needs because the status
of the two drawbridges has been in
effect since 1994.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protesters.
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.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Coast Guard does not
consider this rule to be ‘‘significant’’
under that Order because it is an
administrative change that corrects
inadvertently omitted language that is
consistent with the current operation of
the bridges. Therefore, this rule does not
affect the way vessels operate on the
waterway.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 rule will 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 final
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
above. Small businesses may
send comments on the actions of
Federal employees who enforce, or
otherwise determine compliance with,
Federal regulations to the Small
Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the
Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency’s responsiveness to
small business. If you wish to comment
on actions by employees of the Coast
Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–
734–3247). 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.
CONTACT,
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls 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 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 rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.
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 rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11119
F. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 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. This rule
simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This action is 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.
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 117.647, add paragraphs (c) and
(d) to read as follows:
■
§ 117.647
Saginaw River.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The draw of the CSX railroad
bridge, mile 18.0, need not be opened
for the passage of vessels. The owner
shall return the draw to an operable
condition within a reasonable time
when directed by the District
Commander to do so.
(d) The draw of the Grand Trunk
Western railroad bridge, mile 19.2, need
not be opened for the passage of vessels.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11120
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: February 10, 2016.
J.E. Ryan,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard,
Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
DATES:
This rule is effective on April 4,
2016.
The EPA has established
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
0645 for this action. Generally,
documents in the docket for this action
are available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105–3901.
While all documents in the docket are
listed at https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps,
multi-volume reports), and some may
not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4151,
kelly.johnj@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2016–04743 Filed 3–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0645; FRL–9942–17–
Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan
Revisions; Phoenix, Arizona; Second
10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a revision to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision is the second ten-year
maintenance plan for carbon monoxide
(CO) for the Phoenix metropolitan area
in Maricopa County, Arizona. We are
also finding adequate and approving
transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEB) for the year
2025 and beyond. We are taking these
actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63185),
the EPA proposed to approve the
Maricopa Association of Governments’
(MAG) plan titled ‘‘MAG 2013 Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the
Maricopa County Area’’ (hereinafter,
‘‘2013 Maintenance Plan’’) into the
Arizona SIP.
We also proposed to find adequate
and to approve into the SIP the CO
MVEB for the year 2025 and beyond.
We proposed to approve this plan and
the CO MVEB because we determined
that they complied with the relevant
CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the plan
and MVEB and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received no comments.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted.
Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving this plan into the Arizona
SIP. The EPA is also finding adequate
and approving the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the plan (see Table
1) because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
Table 1 shows the approved and
previously approved MVEBs for the
Phoenix CO Maintenance Area.
TABLE 1—APPROVED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS
FOR THE PHOENIX CO MAINTENANCE AREA, IN METRIC TONS PER DAY (MTPD)
Previously
approved
Approved
Year .............................................................................................................................................
2006
2015
2025
CO MVEB ....................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Previously
approved
699.7
662.9
559.4
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:16 Mar 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11118-11120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04743]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0934]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations regarding
drawbridge operations in Saginaw River, Bay City, MI. In a final rule
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City,
MI'' that appeared in the Federal Register on April 12, 2012, the Coast
Guard revised the drawbridge opening schedules for the Saginaw River
and inadvertently excluded the CSX Railroad Bridge and the Grand Trunk
Western Railroad Bridge. This document amends the regulations by adding
these two bridges back into the regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective March 3, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-
2015-0934] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee 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
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the publishing of the original final
rule [Docket No. USCG-2011-1013] omitted regulatory language that was
published in the previous rulemaking NPRM, but was inadvertently left
out of the final rule published on April 12, 2012. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to
comment because the public was already provided an opportunity to
comment on these provisions, had no objections during the previous
comment period, and the operation of the bridges is consistent with
this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The regulation change has already
taken place and the correction of the regulation will not affect
mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed
effective date is unnecessary.
The NPRM for the regulations, published on December 8, 2011 (76 FR
76637), proposed to revise Sec. 117.647. At the end of the rule, the
following characters were included in the NPRM: ``* * * * *.'' These
characters indicated the Coast Guard's intention to retain paragraphs
(c) and (d) which were included in the regulations at the time of the
NPRM regarding the CSX Railroad Bridge located at mile 18.0 over the
Saginaw River and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Bridge located at
mile 19.2 of the Saginaw River. However, the final rule, which was
published on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 21864), did not preserve these
paragraphs. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the
regulation accurately reflects the original intention and inclusion of
these inadvertently omitted paragraphs.
III. Discussion of Final Rule
The purpose of this rule is to correct 33 CFR 117.647 in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
As noted above, this rule restores language that was previously
excluded. This rule is correcting the regulation in 33 CFR 117.647 by
restoring the listing of drawbridges allowed to remain closed. The CSX
Railroad Bridge located at mile 18.0 of the Saginaw River and the Grand
Trunk Western Railroad Bridge located on mile 19.2 of the Saginaw River
will retain their current operating schedule. This rule will not affect
waterway traffic or land transportation needs because the status of the
two drawbridges has been in effect since 1994.
[[Page 11119]]
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be
``significant'' under that Order because it is an administrative change
that corrects inadvertently omitted language that is consistent with
the current operation of the bridges. Therefore, this rule does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.
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 rule
will 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 final rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 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. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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.
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls 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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.
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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this 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
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. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is 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.
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.647, add paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.647 Saginaw River.
* * * * *
(c) The draw of the CSX railroad bridge, mile 18.0, need not be
opened for the passage of vessels. The owner shall return the draw to
an operable condition within a reasonable time when directed by the
District Commander to do so.
(d) The draw of the Grand Trunk Western railroad bridge, mile 19.2,
need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
[[Page 11120]]
Dated: February 10, 2016.
J.E. Ryan,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-04743 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
