Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL, 78952-78954 [2016-27176]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
78952
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
National Environmental Policy Act
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 637
The Department of the Army has
determined that this rule is not covered
under the National Environmental
Policy Act because the rule does not
have a significant impact on the
environment.
Law enforcement, Law enforcement
officers, Law enforcement operations,
Detention operations.
The Department of the Army has
determined that the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply because
the rule does not involve collection of
information from the public.
PART 637—LAW ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
Subpart A—Detention Cell Operations
Sec.
637.1 Objective and policy.
Executive Order 12630 (Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights)
Subpart B—[Reserved]
The Department of the Army has
determined that Executive Order 12630
does not apply because the rule does not
impair private property rights.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review)
Although this rule is not
‘‘economically significant’’ because it
does not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, it has been deemed ‘‘other
significant’’ for raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in these
Executive Orders. For that reason, it has
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risk and Safety Risks)
The Department of the Army has
determined that Executive Order 13045
does not apply because this substantive
action in rulemaking is neither
economically significant nor does the
action concern the environmental health
or safety risks to children.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The Department of the Army has
determined that according to the criteria
defined in Executive Order 13132 this
rule does not apply because it will not
have a substantial 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.
17:02 Nov 09, 2016
For reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Department of the Army
proposes to revise 32 CFR part 637 as
follows:
■
Paperwork Reduction Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Thomas S. Blair,
Chief, Law Enforcement Branch.
Jkt 241001
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 807.
Subpart B—[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2016–27163 Filed 11–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 500–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0523]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice
Creek, Putnam County, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Subpart A—Detention Cell Operations
ACTION:
§ 637.1
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across
the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka,
Putnam County, FL.
This proposed rule would change the
existing open on demand during the day
and 24 hour advance notice for a bridge
opening during the night, to 24 hour
advance notice for an opening at all
times. This proposal is being made due
to the minimal drawbridge openings
requested over the past several years.
This modification would allow the
bridge owner to leave the bridge
unmanned other than when an opening
is requested and it would have little to
no effect on navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
January 9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0523 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:
Objective and policy.
(a) Objective. Every effort will be
taken to ensure that detained personnel
remain in custody only when necessary.
Persons will remain in custody for
minimum periods, under proper
supervision. All persons in custody are
treated in a humane manner and in an
environment which will not impair
their health or subject the detainee to
unreasonable discomfort.
(b) Policy. Military and civilian
personnel apprehended by military
police may be detained in a military
police detention cell (D-cell) only when
necessary to prevent escape or to ensure
safety of the detainee or others.
(1) Detention of civilian personnel not
subject to the UCMJ is authorized only
while the civilian personnel are pending
release to civilian authorities. Detention
of civilian personnel will be done only
in the case of a serious felony and when
the individual is a flight risk, or is a risk
to self or others, and must be approved
by a commissioned officer designated by
the senior commander. In no case will
detention exceed 12 hours.
(2) Male and female personnel will
not be detained in the same cell
simultaneously.
(3) The use of other military service
or civilian detention facilities to detain
personnel in police custody is
authorized. When other military service
facilities are used, the time limitations
and other procedures described above
apply. Only those civilian facilities that
have been evaluated by the U.S. Marshal
Service and deemed appropriate for use
will be utilized.
(4) Juveniles will not be detained in
Army LE D-cells.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with
the Coast Guard; telephone 305–415–
6989, email rodney.j.elkins@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM
10NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
On May 18th, 2015, CSX
Transportation requested the Coast
Guard consider allowing the CSX
Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek to be
converted from a movable bridge to a
fixed bridge. Their request was made
due to the minimal drawbridge
openings requested over the past several
years. The Coast Guard determined that
converting the bridge to a fixed
structure was not reasonable to
navigation, because it would restrict
vessels from using the waterway. CSX
then requested modifying the bridge
operations to 24 hour advance notice at
all times. CSX provided the Coast Guard
a summary of bridge opening logs that
show eight openings in 2015, three
openings in 2014, and three openings in
2013. The data supporting the request
will be included in the electronic docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
The CSX Railroad Bridge across the
Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam
County, FL is a swing bridge. It has a
vertical clearance of 2 feet at mean high
water in the closed position and a
horizontal clearance of 30 feet.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR
117.324, the Rice Creek CSX Railroad
Swing Bridge is required to open on
signal for the passage of vessels from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From 4:01 p.m. to
7:59 a.m., daily, the bridge shall open
with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify
the operating schedule that governs the
CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek,
mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL.
This proposed regulation would
implement a 24 hour advance notice to
CSX for an opening at all times. This
proposed change will still allow vessels
to pass through the bridge while taking
into account the reasonable needs of
other modes of transportation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 also 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.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Nov 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. 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.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the limited impact that it is
anticipated to have on vessel traffic on
Rice Creek as there are infrequent
requests to open the bridge while taking
into account the needs of rail traffic.
The bridge will be able to open with the
requisite amount of advanced notice.
Vessels that can transit under the bridge
without an opening may do so.
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, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78953
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 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 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
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM
10NOP1
78954
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rule 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD 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 notice,
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Nov 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
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. Amend § 117.324 to read as follows:
§ 117.324
Rice Creek.
The CSX Railroad Swing Bridge, mile
0.8, in Putnam County, shall open with
a 24-hour advance notice to CSX at 1–
800–232–0142.
Dated: November 4, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–27176 Filed 11–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other state with regard to the 1997
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and that the EPA therefore will
have no obligation to issue new FIP
requirements for Texas sources to
address transported PM2.5 pollution
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to that
NAAQS. Finally, the proposal includes
a sensitivity analysis showing that the
set of actions the EPA has taken or
expects to take in response to the D.C.
Circuit’s decision, including the
removal of Texas EGUs from the two
CSAPR trading programs as well as the
recent removal of Florida EGUs from
Phase 2 of the CSAPR trading programs
for ozone-season NOX emissions, would
not adversely impact the analytic
demonstration for the Agency’s 2012
determination that CSAPR participation
meets the Regional Haze Rule’s criteria
to qualify as an alternative to the
application of best available retrofit
technology (BART). No changes to the
Regional Haze Rule are proposed as part
of this rulemaking.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0598; FRL–9955–00–
OAR]
Comments must be received on
or before December 12, 2016. To request
a public hearing, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below by
November 17, 2016. The EPA does not
plan to conduct a public hearing unless
requested.
RIN 2060–AT16
ADDRESSES:
DATES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter: Revision of Federal
Implementation Plan Requirements for
Texas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw
the federal implementation plan (FIP)
provisions that require affected
electricity generating units (EGUs) in
Texas to participate in Phase 2 of the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
trading programs for annual emissions
of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). Withdrawal of the FIP
requirements is intended to address a
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) remanding the CSAPR Phase 2
SO2 budget for Texas to the EPA for
reconsideration. The EPA is also
proposing to determine that, following
withdrawal of the FIP requirements,
sources in Texas will not contribute
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2016–0598, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM
10NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78952-78954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27176]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2016-0523]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in
Palatka, Putnam County, FL.
This proposed rule would change the existing open on demand during
the day and 24 hour advance notice for a bridge opening during the
night, to 24 hour advance notice for an opening at all times. This
proposal is being made due to the minimal drawbridge openings requested
over the past several years. This modification would allow the bridge
owner to leave the bridge unmanned other than when an opening is
requested and it would have little to no effect on navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0523 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 Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-
415-6989, email rodney.j.elkins@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
[[Page 78953]]
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
On May 18th, 2015, CSX Transportation requested the Coast Guard
consider allowing the CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek to be
converted from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. Their request was
made due to the minimal drawbridge openings requested over the past
several years. The Coast Guard determined that converting the bridge to
a fixed structure was not reasonable to navigation, because it would
restrict vessels from using the waterway. CSX then requested modifying
the bridge operations to 24 hour advance notice at all times. CSX
provided the Coast Guard a summary of bridge opening logs that show
eight openings in 2015, three openings in 2014, and three openings in
2013. The data supporting the request will be included in the
electronic docket for this proposed rulemaking.
The CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in
Palatka, Putnam County, FL is a swing bridge. It has a vertical
clearance of 2 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a
horizontal clearance of 30 feet.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.324, the Rice Creek CSX
Railroad Swing Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of
vessels from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.,
daily, the bridge shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in
Palatka, Putnam County, FL.
This proposed regulation would implement a 24 hour advance notice
to CSX for an opening at all times. This proposed change will still
allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the
reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.
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 also
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. Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited impact
that it is anticipated to have on vessel traffic on Rice Creek as there
are infrequent requests to open the bridge while taking into account
the needs of rail traffic. The bridge will be able to open with the
requisite amount of advanced notice. Vessels that can transit under the
bridge without an opening may do so.
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, 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 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 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 actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed
[[Page 78954]]
rule 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 notice, 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. Amend Sec. 117.324 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.324 Rice Creek.
The CSX Railroad Swing Bridge, mile 0.8, in Putnam County, shall
open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX at 1-800-232-0142.
Dated: November 4, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-27176 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
