Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, Green Bay, WI, 17979-17981 [2019-08495]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 82 / Monday, April 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Applicability
As discussed above, these special
conditions are applicable to Boeing
Model 787 series airplanes. Should
Boeing apply at a later date for a change
to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as
well.
Conclusion
This action affects only one novel or
unusual design feature on one model
series of airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority Citation
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701, 44702, 44704.
The Proposed Special Conditions
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing
Model 787 series airplanes.
In addition to the requirements of
§ 25.562, passenger seats incorporating
inertia locking device (ILD)s must meet
the following:
1. Level of Protection Provided by
ILD—It must be demonstrated by test
that the seats and attachments, when
subject to the emergency-landing
dynamic conditions specified in
§ 25.562, and with one ILD not
deployed, do not experience structural
failure that could result in:
a. Separation of the seat from the
airplane floor.
b. Separation of any part of the seat
that could form a hazard to the seat
occupant or any other airplane
occupant.
c. Failure of the occupant restraint or
any other condition that could result in
the occupant separating from the seat.
2. Protection Provided Below and
Above the ILD Actuation Condition—If
step-change effects on occupant
protection exist for impacts below and
above that at which the ILD deploys,
tests must be performed to demonstrate
that the occupant is shown to be
protected at any condition at which the
ILD does or does not deploy, up to the
maximum severity pulse specified by
§ 25.562. Test conditions must take into
account any necessary tolerances for
deployment.
3. Protection Over a Range of Crash
Pulse Vectors—The ILD must be shown
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
to function as intended for all test
vectors specified in § 25.562.
4. Protection During Secondary
Impacts—The ILD activation setting
must be demonstrated to maximize the
probability of the protection being
available when needed, considering a
secondary impact that is above the
severity at which the device is intended
to deploy up to the impact loading
required by § 25.562.
5. Protection of Occupants other than
50th Percentile—Protection of
occupants for a range of stature from a
two-year-old child to a ninety-five
percentile male must be shown.
6. Inadvertent Operation—It must be
shown that any inadvertent operation of
the ILD does not affect the performance
of the device during a subsequent
emergency landing.
7. Installation Protection—It must be
shown that the ILD installation is
protected from contamination and
interference from foreign objects.
8. Reliability—The performance of the
ILD must not be altered by the effects of
wear, manufacturing tolerances, aging/
drying of lubricants, and corrosion.
9. Maintenance and Functional
Checks—The design, installation and
operation of the ILD must be such that
it is possible to functionally check the
device in place. Additionally, a
functional check method and a
maintenance check interval must be
included in the seat installer’s
instructions for continued airworthiness
(ICA) document.
10. Release Function—If a means
exists to release an inadvertently
activated ILD, the release means must
not introduce additional hidden failures
that would prevent the ILD from
functioning properly.
Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
April 10, 2019.
Paul Siegmund,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–08613 Filed 4–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2019–0178]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox
River, Green Bay, WI
PO 00000
Coast Guard, DHS.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to
authorize the Main Street Bridge, mile
1.58, the Walnut Street Bridge, mile
1.81, and the Tilleman Memorial Bridge,
mile 2.27, all over the Fox River at
Green Bay, WI to operate remotely. The
request was made by WISDOT to
operate all three bridges from the
Walnut Street Bridge. This proposed
rule will test the remote operations with
tenders onsite, and will not change the
operating schedule of the bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
October 28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2019–0178 using Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule,
Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone 216–
902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@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
HDCCTV High Definition Closed Circuit
Television
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of
1985
IRCCTV Infrared Closed Circuit Television
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD 85
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PLC Programmable Logic Control
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WI–FI Wireless Fidelity
WISDOT Wisconsin Department of
Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
AGENCY:
ACTION:
17979
Sfmt 4702
Green Bay, Wisconsin, is located in
the eastern portion of the state at the
head or southwest end of Green Bay.
The Bay is oriented northeast-southwest
and is separated from Lake Michigan to
the southeast by the Door Peninsula.
Green Bay Harbor, at the mouth of Fox
River at the south end of Green Bay,
serves the cities of Green Bay, WI, and
De Pere, WI. The major commodities
handled at the port are coal, limestone,
wood pulp, cement, aggregates and
agricultural products. The dredged
E:\FR\FM\29APP1.SGM
29APP1
17980
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 82 / Monday, April 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
entrance channel leads generally
southwest through the shallow water in
the south end of Green Bay for about
11.5 miles to the mouth of Fox River
and thence upstream for about 7.2 miles
to a turning basin at De Pere. There are
three bascule bridges operated by
WISDOT and the City of Green Bay:
Main Street Bridge, mile 1.58, provides
120 feet horizontal and 12 feet vertical
clearance in the closed position; the
Walnut Street Bridge, mile 1.81,
provides 124 feet horizontal and 11 feet
vertical clearance in the closed position;
and the Tilleman Memorial Bridge, mile
2.27, provides 124 feet horizontal and
32 feet vertical clearance in the closed
position.
The Coast Guard is issuing this NPRM
under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Bridge owners are required to provide
necessary drawtenders for the safe and
prompt opening of a bridge and to
respond to visual, sound, or
radiotelephone communications for
openings; unless, authorized by the U.S.
Coast Guard District Commander to
operate remotely.
This proposed rule will allow
WISDOT and the City of Green Bay to
operate all three bridges from the
Walnut Street Bridge while keeping
tenders at the Main Street and Tillman
Memorial Bridge while the public
observes and comments on the remote
operations throughout the summer.
WISDOT stated that their updated
PLC, HDCCT system and updated
communications systems have
improved the safety of bridge
operations. These systems use a
redundant closed band WI–FI network
to communicate between the bridges.
The tenders operating the three bridges
will be City of Green Bay employees
with WISDOT technical assistance.
Three distinct consoles will be used to
control the three bridges from the
Walnut Street Bridge. WISDOT stated
WI–FI security protocols are in place to
prevent unauthorized bridge operations
and there are no physical wires
connecting the control panels to any of
the bridges.
Additional IFCCTV systems are
installed on the bridges to see vessels
during limited visibility and WISDOT
intends to have extra drawtenders
available during heavy weather and
high traffic events. WISDOT installed a
public address system that allows 2-way
voice communication between vessels
and the remote tender and a remotely
operated VHF–FM Marine
Radiotelephone that monitors Channel
16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
This proposed rule will require a
tender to be physically at the bridges to
evaluate the remote operations and to
intervene if there is a failure in the
remote abilities. If remote operations are
approved and there is a discrepancy
with the remote equipment the tender
from Walnut Street can open all three
bridges manually within 30-minutes.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the ability that vessels can
still transit the bridge and the bridge
will continue to open as required in the
current regulation.
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 because the
bridge will continue to open on signal.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\29APP1.SGM
29APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 82 / Monday, April 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
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.
A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not
required for this proposed rule. We seek
any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD 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://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
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, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in this docket and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
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 § 117.1087 by adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The Main Street Bridge, mile 1.58,
the Walnut Street Bridge, mile 1.81, and
the Tilleman Memorial Bridge, mile
2.27, are operated remotely.
*
*
*
*
*
■
Dated: April 23, 2019.
N.A. Bartolotta,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2019–08495 Filed 4–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2019–0213]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Burke Lakefront
Airport, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH
ACTION:
PO 00000
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a security zone for navigable
waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. This
security zone is necessary to protect the
public and surrounding waterways from
terrorist acts, sabotage, or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other
causes of a similar nature. Entry of
vessels or persons into the zone is
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Buffalo or a designated
representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before June 28, 2019.
DATES:
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2019–0213 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email LT Sean
Dolan, 716–843–9322, email D09–SMB–
SECBuffalo-WWM@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
AGENCY:
17981
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
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
Previously COTP Buffalo has had to
implement emergent security zones
around Burke Lakefront Airport,
Cleveland, OH whenever Senior
Government Officials or foreign
dignitaries utilized the airport for travel
into and out of Cleveland, OH. The
COTP Buffalo has determined that a
security zone is necessary to protect
certain individuals, vessels, the public,
and surrounding waterways from
terrorist acts, sabotage, or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other
causes of a similar nature.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels, the public,
and the navigable waters within the
security zone before, during, and after
the arrival and departure of certain
individuals when notified. The Coast
Guard is proposing this rulemaking
under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
E:\FR\FM\29APP1.SGM
29APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17979-17981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2019-0178]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, Green Bay, WI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to authorize the Main Street Bridge,
mile 1.58, the Walnut Street Bridge, mile 1.81, and the Tilleman
Memorial Bridge, mile 2.27, all over the Fox River at Green Bay, WI to
operate remotely. The request was made by WISDOT to operate all three
bridges from the Walnut Street Bridge. This proposed rule will test the
remote operations with tenders onsite, and will not change the
operating schedule of the bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0178 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. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
HDCCTV High Definition Closed Circuit Television
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
IRCCTV Infrared Closed Circuit Television
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD 85
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PLC Programmable Logic Control
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WI-FI Wireless Fidelity
WISDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
Green Bay, Wisconsin, is located in the eastern portion of the
state at the head or southwest end of Green Bay. The Bay is oriented
northeast-southwest and is separated from Lake Michigan to the
southeast by the Door Peninsula. Green Bay Harbor, at the mouth of Fox
River at the south end of Green Bay, serves the cities of Green Bay,
WI, and De Pere, WI. The major commodities handled at the port are
coal, limestone, wood pulp, cement, aggregates and agricultural
products. The dredged
[[Page 17980]]
entrance channel leads generally southwest through the shallow water in
the south end of Green Bay for about 11.5 miles to the mouth of Fox
River and thence upstream for about 7.2 miles to a turning basin at De
Pere. There are three bascule bridges operated by WISDOT and the City
of Green Bay: Main Street Bridge, mile 1.58, provides 120 feet
horizontal and 12 feet vertical clearance in the closed position; the
Walnut Street Bridge, mile 1.81, provides 124 feet horizontal and 11
feet vertical clearance in the closed position; and the Tilleman
Memorial Bridge, mile 2.27, provides 124 feet horizontal and 32 feet
vertical clearance in the closed position.
The Coast Guard is issuing this NPRM under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Bridge owners are required to provide necessary drawtenders for the
safe and prompt opening of a bridge and to respond to visual, sound, or
radiotelephone communications for openings; unless, authorized by the
U.S. Coast Guard District Commander to operate remotely.
This proposed rule will allow WISDOT and the City of Green Bay to
operate all three bridges from the Walnut Street Bridge while keeping
tenders at the Main Street and Tillman Memorial Bridge while the public
observes and comments on the remote operations throughout the summer.
WISDOT stated that their updated PLC, HDCCT system and updated
communications systems have improved the safety of bridge operations.
These systems use a redundant closed band WI-FI network to communicate
between the bridges. The tenders operating the three bridges will be
City of Green Bay employees with WISDOT technical assistance. Three
distinct consoles will be used to control the three bridges from the
Walnut Street Bridge. WISDOT stated WI-FI security protocols are in
place to prevent unauthorized bridge operations and there are no
physical wires connecting the control panels to any of the bridges.
Additional IFCCTV systems are installed on the bridges to see
vessels during limited visibility and WISDOT intends to have extra
drawtenders available during heavy weather and high traffic events.
WISDOT installed a public address system that allows 2-way voice
communication between vessels and the remote tender and a remotely
operated VHF-FM Marine Radiotelephone that monitors Channel 16.
This proposed rule will require a tender to be physically at the
bridges to evaluate the remote operations and to intervene if there is
a failure in the remote abilities. If remote operations are approved
and there is a discrepancy with the remote equipment the tender from
Walnut Street can open all three bridges manually within 30-minutes.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge and the bridge will continue to
open as required in the current regulation.
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 because
the bridge will continue to open on signal.
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
[[Page 17981]]
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 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.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 117.1087 by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The Main Street Bridge, mile 1.58, the Walnut Street Bridge,
mile 1.81, and the Tilleman Memorial Bridge, mile 2.27, are operated
remotely.
* * * * *
Dated: April 23, 2019.
N.A. Bartolotta,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2019-08495 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P