Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN, 40388-40390 [2021-15488]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40388
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The total comment count reflects
electronic submissions through the
eRulemaking portals at the Office of the
Federal Register and Regulations.gov, as
well as emailed, mailed, and faxed
comments. We did not make 181
comments available. These 181
comments were submitted after the
comment period closed; included
personally identifiable information or
profanity; were unrelated to the
rulemaking subject matter; or were
submitted by individuals commenting
in their capacity as Social Security
Administration (SSA) employees.
The Office of Management and Budget
conducted 11 listening sessions under
the authority of Executive Order (E.O.)
12866 during December 2020 and
January 2021 for interested
stakeholders, many of whom also
provided thoughtful and relevant
comments during the NPRM comment
period. We appreciate all the
commenters who provided thoughtful
feedback on their analysis of, and
concerns about, the proposed rule.
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule
After considering the submitted
comments and further feedback
provided in the listening sessions, we
are withdrawing the proposed rule,
Rules Regarding the Frequency and
Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews
(84 FR 63588, November 18, 2019) (RIN
0960–AI27). We noted our intent to
withdraw the proposed rule in our
Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.4
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security
Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security
Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental
Security Income).
List of Subjects
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and
procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-age, Survivors and Disability
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social security.
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and
procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social security,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
The Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, Kilolo
Kijakazi, having reviewed and approved
this document, is delegating the
4 Our Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions is available on Reginfo.gov
and can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/eAgendaMain.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
authority to electronically sign this
document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the
primary Federal Register Liaison for
SSA, for purposes of publication in the
Federal Register.
Faye I. Lipsky,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation
and Congressional Affairs, Social Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021–15896 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2021–0332]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the Indianapolis Boulevard
Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal at East Chicago, IN.
Indiana Department of Transportation,
the owner and operator of the bridge,
has requested to stop continual
drawtender service to the bridge due to
a lack of openings. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
September 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2021–0332 using Federal e-Rulemaking
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 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:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security FR
Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of
1985 INDOT Indiana Department of
Transportation
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section USACE United States Army Corps
of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge,
mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal
is a double leaf bascule bridge that
provides a horizontal clearance of 68feet and a vertical clearance of 12-feet in
the closed position with an unlimited
vertical clearance in the open position.
The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge,
mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal
is required to open on signal and there
are no previous rulemakings for this
bridge to discuss. The Indiana Harbor
Canal is a 3-mile long commercial
waterway that serves several industries
near the city of East Chicago, Indiana
including the largest integrated
steelmaking facility in North America
and the 1,400 acre Whiting Refinery that
includes the former 1889 Standard Oil
of Indiana refinery at the head of
navigation. The Indianapolis Boulevard
Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal is the last drawbridge
before the head of navigation; once the
1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery
was torn down the bridge lost its
purpose for regular openings and the
waterway silted in around the bridge
preventing vessels from approaching.
Approximately thirty years after the
removal of the refinery the USEPA and
USACE partnered to remove polluted
sediments form the waterway and
established a contaminated dredge
spoils area above the bridge. The EPA
and USACE contracted dredging
company is working a few weeks each
season and is the only commercial
vessel requesting the bridge to open.
There are no records of recreational
vessels using the Indiana Harbor Canal.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The only vessel that has requested an
opening at the Indianapolis Boulevard
Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal in thirty years has been
the dredging contractor, and their work
schedule is limited to a few weeks a
year due to migratory wildlife concerns
in the summer and ice formation in the
winter. INDOT has agreed that a
drawtender will be assigned to the
bridge to accommodate vessel traffic if
a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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.
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).
This regulatory action determination
is based on the ability that vessels can
still transit the bridge given advanced
notice.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. 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
Governments
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.
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,
Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40389
Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table3–1 of the U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental
Consideration nor a Memorandum for
the Record are 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
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
40390
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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;
DHS Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 117.400 add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
Indiana Harbor Canal.
*
*
*
*
*
(c). The Indianapolis Boulevard
Bridge, mile 2.59, at East Chicago, shall
open on signal if at least twelve hours’
notice is given.
M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021–15488 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2021–0531]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Monongahela River Mile
96.0 to Mile 97.0, Maidsville, WV
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone for
mile 96.0 to mile 97.0 of the
Monongahela River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of the
life on these navigable water near
Maidsville, WV during a pipe and
diffuser underwater installation from
August 23, 2021 through August 25,
2021. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from
entering the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email MST3
Matthew Izso, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
412–221–0807, email Matthew.R.Izso@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
§ 117.400
Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated
representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2021–0531 using the Federal Decision
Making 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.
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
On July 6, 2021, the Brayman
Construction Corporation notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting
an underwater pipe and diffuser
installation for Longview Power from 6
a.m. to 9 p.m. on August 23, 2021
through August 25, 2021. The
installation will take place at mile 96.5
on the Monongahela River near
Maidsville, WV. Hazards associated
with proposed operations present a
hazard to navigation. The COTP
Pittsburgh has determined that potential
hazards associated with the installation
work would be a safety concern for
anyone transiting the river.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters before, during, and
after the scheduled installation activity.
The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP Pittsburgh is proposing to
establish a safety zone from 6 a.m. to 9
p.m. on August 23, 2021 through August
25, 2021. The safety zone would cover
all navigable waters from mile 96.0 to
mile 97.0 on the Monongahela River
near Maidsville, WV. The duration of
the zone is intended to ensure the safety
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled
intallation project. No vessel or person
would be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated
representative. The regulatory text we
are proposing appears at the end of this
document.
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 a number of 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.
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).
This regulatory action determination
is based on the size, location, and
duration of the safety zone. The safety
zone will impact a 1-mile stretch of the
Monongahela River for 3 days.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rulemaking would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 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 safety
zone 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
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40388-40390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2021-0332]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East
Chicago, IN
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal at East Chicago, IN. Indiana Department of Transportation,
the owner and operator of the bridge, has requested to stop continual
drawtender service to the bridge due to a lack of openings. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0332 using Federal e-Rulemaking 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 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
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 INDOT Indiana
Department of Transportation
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a horizontal
clearance of 68-feet and a vertical clearance of 12-feet in the closed
position with an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. The
Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal
is required to open on signal and there are no previous rulemakings for
this bridge to discuss. The Indiana Harbor Canal is a 3-mile long
commercial waterway that serves several industries near the city of
East Chicago, Indiana including the largest integrated steelmaking
facility in North America and the 1,400 acre Whiting Refinery that
includes the former 1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery at the head
of navigation. The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the
Indiana Harbor Canal is the last drawbridge before the head of
navigation; once the 1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery was torn
down the bridge lost its purpose for regular openings and the waterway
silted in around the bridge preventing vessels from approaching.
Approximately thirty years after the removal of the refinery the USEPA
and USACE partnered to remove polluted sediments form the waterway and
established a contaminated dredge spoils area above the bridge. The EPA
and USACE contracted dredging company is working a few weeks each
season and is the only commercial vessel requesting the bridge to open.
There are no records of recreational vessels using the Indiana Harbor
Canal.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The only vessel that has requested an opening at the Indianapolis
Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal in thirty
years has been the dredging contractor, and their work schedule is
limited to a few weeks a year due to migratory wildlife concerns in the
summer and ice formation in the winter. INDOT has agreed that a
drawtender will be assigned to the bridge to accommodate vessel traffic
if a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
[[Page 40389]]
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. 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).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.
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
section. 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 Governments
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.
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, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are 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
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
[[Page 40390]]
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; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.400 add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.400 Indiana Harbor Canal.
* * * * *
(c). The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, at East Chicago,
shall open on signal if at least twelve hours' notice is given.
M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-15488 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
