Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR, 85201-85203 [2016-28359]

Download as PDF ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules classified, OGC will work with the party who made the litigation demand and/or the court and DOJ to identify an individual who can provide responsive information or testimony while protecting classified information in accordance with legal requirements, or will move for other appropriate relief as necessary to protect classified information. (h) If any NRO person is sued or summoned in a foreign court, that person shall provide full documentation of the matter securely to the cognizant Commander or Chief of Facility. The Commander or Chief of Facility will immediately email a scanned copy of the service of process to OGC, and shall send the document securely via an information system approved to handle classified information, marking the email to indicate attorney-client privilege protections as applicable. The person sued or summoned will not complete any return of service forms for the foreign court without first obtaining approval from NRO OGC to the cognizant Commander or Chief of Facility in writing, and shall follow instructions from OGC regarding how to complete the return of service form. OGC will coordinate with DOJ to determine whether service is effective and whether the NRO person is entitled to be represented at Government expense. (i) The Commander or Chief of Facility will establish procedures at the NRO facility, including a provision for liaison with local staff judge advocates, if any, to ensure that service of process on persons in their individual capacities is accomplished in accordance with local law, relevant treaties, and Status of Forces Agreements. Such procedures must be approved by the General Counsel. Commanders or Chiefs of Facility will designate a point of contact to conduct liaison with the OGC. (j) Acceptance of service of any summons or complaint by OGC ‘‘on behalf of the organization in official capacity only’’ shall not constitute an official acknowledgement or confirmation by NRO that any individual named in the summons or complaint is, in fact, a current or former employee of NRO. Acceptance of service of process shall not constitute waiver with respect to jurisdiction, propriety or validity of service, improper venue, or any other defense in law or equity available under the laws or rules applicable to the service of process. § 267.6 Fees. (a) Consistent with the guidelines in DoD 7000.14–R, Vol. 11A, Chap. 4, ‘‘User Fees’’ (available at http:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/ documents/fmr/Volume_11a.pdf), NRO may charge reasonable fees, as established by regulation and to the extent not prohibited by law, to parties seeking, by request or demand, official information not otherwise available under the DoD Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Such fees are calculated to reimburse the Government for the expense of providing such information, and may include: (1) The costs of time expended by NRO personnel to process and respond to the request or demand; (2) Attorney time for reviewing the request or demand and any information located in response thereto, and for related legal work in connection with the request or demand; and (3) Expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). (b) [Reserved] Dated: November 18, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2016–28221 Filed 11–23–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2016–0968] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the Oregon State highway bridge across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street (Old Youngs Bay Bridge), mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is proposing to change the operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months while work is performed on the north bascule lift. This change would allow ODOT to operate the double bascule draw in single leaf mode, one lift at a time, and reduce the vertical clearance of the non-operable half of the span by five feet. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 85201 December 27, 2016. The Coast Guard anticipates that this proposed rule will be effective from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 to 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2016–0968 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. 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 Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206–220–7282; email d13-pfd13bridges@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 § Section U.S.C. United States Code ODOT Oregon State Department of Transportation II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis ODOT owns and operates the Old Youngs Bay Bridge, and proposes a temporary change to the existing operating regulation. The Coast Guard approved a temporary rule change authorizing ODOT to operate the Old Youngs Bay Bridge in single leaf mode from May 2016 through October 2016, document citation 81 FR 28018. No negative impacts were observed during that rule change. The subject proposed regulation will allow the drawtender to open half the draw span in single leaf mode, from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 to 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017. ODOT’s proposal would allow the construction workers to utilize a containment system that reduces the non-opening half of the bridge’s vertical clearance by five feet. Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would temporarily amend 33 CFR 117.899 by adding the south lift only to open in single leaf E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1 85202 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules mode, and suspend a full opening. This proposed rule is necessary to accommodate extensive maintenance and restoration efforts on the Old Youngs Bay Bridge. This bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. One half of the double bascule bridge will have a containment system installed on the north half of the span, which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 19 feet above mean high water to 14 feet above mean high water. Adjusting the existing drawbridge regulation will allow construction workers to complete bridge and highway upgrades before winter of 2017, while having minimal impact on maritime navigation, and no alternate routes are on this part of Youngs Bay into Youngs River. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order (s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive order (s), and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A. Regulatory Planning and Review E.O. 12866 and E.O. 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 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 ability for the Old Youngs Bay Bridge to open half the span on signal, and not delay passage of any mariner. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass under the bridge at any time. The north lift vertical clearance will be reduced as explained in paragraph III. No alternate routes are available on this part of Youngs Bay. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 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 E.O. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 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 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 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 http:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http:// 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 http:// 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 http:// 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 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. In § 117.899, from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 through 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017, suspend paragraph (b) and add paragraph (d) to read as follows: ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ■ § 117.899 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR * * * * * (d) The draw of the Oregon State (Old Youngs Bay) Highway Bridge, mile 2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 shall open the south half of the double bascule span on signal for the passage of vessels, if at least one half-hour notice is given to the drawtender, at the Lewis and Clark River Bridge by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from March 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017. At all other times, including all Federal holidays, but Columbus Day, at least a two-hour notice by telephone is required. The opening signal is two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast. Dated: November 16, 2016. Brendan McPherson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–28359 Filed 11–23–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 85203 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0591; FRL–9955–47– Region 10] Air Plan Approval: AK; Permitting Fees Revision Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Alaska (state) Department of Environmental Conservation on February 1, 2016. The revisions implement changes to permit administration and compliance fees based on the state’s fee study results. Changes include: The addition of definitions, restructuring of fee categories, rearranging and renumbering of certain fee rules, and updating cross references to align with the restructured fee rules. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 27, 2016. SUMMARY: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2016–0591 at http:// 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 ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 Randall Ruddick at (206) 553–1999, or ruddick.randall@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. The EPA is approving the State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Dated: November 14, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2016–28276 Filed 11–23–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85201-85203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28359]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0968]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that 
governs the Oregon State highway bridge across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth 
Street (Old Youngs Bay Bridge), mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR. The Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) is proposing to change the 
operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months 
while work is performed on the north bascule lift. This change would 
allow ODOT to operate the double bascule draw in single leaf mode, one 
lift at a time, and reduce the vertical clearance of the non-operable 
half of the span by five feet.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before December 27, 2016. The Coast Guard anticipates that this 
proposed rule will be effective from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 to 5 p.m. 
on October 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0968 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for 
instructions on submitting comments.
    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 Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth 
Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206-220-7282; 
email d13-pf-d13bridges@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
ODOT Oregon State Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    ODOT owns and operates the Old Youngs Bay Bridge, and proposes a 
temporary change to the existing operating regulation. The Coast Guard 
approved a temporary rule change authorizing ODOT to operate the Old 
Youngs Bay Bridge in single leaf mode from May 2016 through October 
2016, document citation 81 FR 28018. No negative impacts were observed 
during that rule change. The subject proposed regulation will allow the 
drawtender to open half the draw span in single leaf mode, from 7 a.m. 
on March 1, 2017 to 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017. ODOT's proposal would 
allow the construction workers to utilize a containment system that 
reduces the non-opening half of the bridge's vertical clearance by five 
feet. Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists of vessels ranging from 
small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and 
commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would temporarily amend 33 CFR 117.899 by adding 
the south lift only to open in single leaf

[[Page 85202]]

mode, and suspend a full opening. This proposed rule is necessary to 
accommodate extensive maintenance and restoration efforts on the Old 
Youngs Bay Bridge. This bridge provides a vertical clearance 
approximately 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-
navigation position. One half of the double bascule bridge will have a 
containment system installed on the north half of the span, which will 
reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 19 feet above mean high 
water to 14 feet above mean high water. Adjusting the existing 
drawbridge regulation will allow construction workers to complete 
bridge and highway upgrades before winter of 2017, while having minimal 
impact on maritime navigation, and no alternate routes are on this part 
of Youngs Bay into Youngs River.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive order (s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes and Executive order (s), and we 
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O. 12866 and E.O. 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 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 ability for the Old 
Youngs Bay Bridge to open half the span on signal, and not delay 
passage of any mariner. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass under 
the bridge at any time. The north lift vertical clearance will be 
reduced as explained in paragraph III. No alternate routes are 
available on this part of Youngs Bay.

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 E.O. 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 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 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

[[Page 85203]]

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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://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 http://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 http://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. In Sec.  117.899, from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 through 5 p.m. on 
October 31, 2017, suspend paragraph (b) and add paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  117.899  Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the Oregon State (Old Youngs Bay) Highway Bridge, 
mile 2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, shall open the south 
half of the double bascule span on signal for the passage of vessels, 
if at least one half-hour notice is given to the drawtender, at the 
Lewis and Clark River Bridge by marine radio, telephone, or other 
suitable means from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from March 1, 2017 to October 31, 
2017. At all other times, including all Federal holidays, but Columbus 
Day, at least a two-hour notice by telephone is required. The opening 
signal is two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast.

    Dated: November 16, 2016.
Brendan McPherson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-28359 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P