Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN, 40388-40390 [2021-15488]

Download as PDF 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