Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, at Jupiter, FL, 72415-72417 [2023-23259]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
for the same harm that is the subject of
the medical malpractice claim. DoD has
the burden to establish the applicability
and amount of any offsets.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Present value of future payments
and benefits. In determining offsets
under this section from economic
damages, DoD will use the present value
of future payments and benefits. * * *
(d) Information considered. * * *
Claimants must provide information not
available to DoD, but requested by DoD,
for the purpose of determining offsets.
(e) Benefits and payments that may be
considered as potential offsets. The
general rule is that potential damages
calculated under this part may be offset
only by DoD or VA payments and
benefits that are primarily funded by
Government appropriations. Potential
damages calculated under this part are
not offset by U.S. Government payments
and benefits that are substantially
funded by the military member. The
following examples are provided for
illustrative purposes only, are not allinclusive, and are subject to adjustment
as appropriate.
(1) The following DoD and VA
payments and benefits are primarily
funded from Government
appropriations and will be offset:
(i) Disability retired pay in the case of
retirement due to the disability caused
by the alleged medical malpractice.
(ii) Disability severance pay in the
case of non-retirement disability
separation caused by the alleged
medical malpractice.
(iii) Incapacitation pay.
(iv) Involuntary and voluntary
separation pays and incentives.
(v) Death gratuity.
(vi) Housing allowance continuation.
(vii) Survivor Benefit Plan.
(vii) VA disability compensation, to
include Special Monthly Compensation,
attributable to the disability resulting
from the malpractice.
(ix) VA Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation, attributable to the
disability resulting from the
malpractice.
(x) Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance.
(xi) Special Compensation for
Assistance with Activities of Daily
Living.
(xii) Program of Comprehensive
Assistance for Family Caregivers.
(xiii) Fry Scholarship.
(xiv) TRICARE coverage, including
TRICARE-for-Life, for a disability
retiree, family, or survivors. Future
TRICARE coverage is part of the
Government’s compensation package for
a disability retiree or survivor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
(2) The following U.S. Government
payments and benefits are substantially
funded by the military members or are
otherwise generally not eligible for
consideration as potential offsets:
(i) Servicemembers Group Life
Insurance.
(ii) Traumatic Servicemembers Group
Life Insurance.
(iii) Social Security disability benefits.
(iv) Social Security survivor benefits.
(v) Prior Government contributions to
a Thrift Savings Plan.
(vi) Commissary, exchange, and
morale, welfare, and recreation facility
access.
(vii) Value of legal assistance and
other services provided by DoD.
(viii) Medical care provided while in
active service or in an active status prior
to death, retirement, or separation.
Dated: October 12, 2023.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2023–23013 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2023–0652]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, at
Jupiter, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily modify the operating
schedule that governs the Indiantown
Road Bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), mile
1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida. This action is
necessary to alleviate vehicle traffic
congestion on the Indiantown Road
Bridge caused by the replacement and
closure of a nearby bridge. Once
construction of the nearby bridge has
been completed, the Indiantown Road
Drawbridge will return to normally
scheduled operations. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 20, 2023.
The Coast Guard anticipates that this
proposed rule will be effective from
12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023,
through 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72415
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2023–0652 using Federal Decision
Making 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.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Leonard Newsom,
Seventh District Bridge Branch, Coast
Guard; telephone (305) 415–6946, email
Leonard.D.Newsom@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
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
FDOT Florida Department of
Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
Indiantown Road Bridge across the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW),
mile 1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida, is a
double-leaf bascule bridge with 35 feet
of vertical clearance in the closed
position. The normal operating schedule
for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR
117.261(q). Navigation on the waterway
consists of recreational and commercial
mariners.
The bridge owner, Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT), requested the
Coast Guard consider allowing this
change during the replacement and
closure of a nearby bridge. The closing
of the nearby bridge has resulted in
significant increase in vehicle traffic
congestion of the area. The only
alternate route for land traffic to access
the mainland is via the Donald Ross
Bridge approximately 4.5 miles south of
the Indiantown Road Bridge. This
proposed temporary rule will reduce the
number of drawbridge openings which
will subsequently allow local vehicle
traffic to flow with reduced obstructions
and delays.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed temporary rule will
allow the drawbridge to remain closed
to navigation during weekday vehicle
commuting hours. Under this proposed
temporary rule, the drawbridge would
remain closed to vessel traffic daily
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
72416
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6
p.m. At all other times the bridge would
open on the hour and half hour. Vessels
that can pass beneath the bridge without
an opening may do so at any time.
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 proposed rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review). 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 fact that vessels can still
transit the bridge at designated times
throughout the day, and vessels that can
transit under the bridge without an
opening may do so at any time. This
proposed temporary rule will further
meet the reasonable needs of navigation
while taking into consideration the
reasonable needs of vehicular traffic.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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, Table 3–1 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 rule. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
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.
Submitting comments. We encourage
you to submit comments through the
Federal Decision Making Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. To do so,
go to https://www.regulations.gov, type
USCG–2023–0652 in the search box and
click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this
document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the
Comment option. 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.
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Viewing material in docket. To view
documents mentioned in this proposed
rule as being available in the docket,
find the docket as described in the
previous paragraph, and then select
‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the
Document Type column. Public
comments will also be placed in our
online docket and can be viewed by
following instructions on the https://
www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted, or a temporary
final rule is published of any posting or
updates to the docket.
We review all comments received, but
we will only post comments that
address the topic of the proposed rule.
We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments
that we receive.
Personal information. We accept
anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov 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).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
DHS Delegation No. 00170.1. Revision No.
01.3.
2. Stay § 117.261(q) from 12:01 a.m.
on December 30, 2023, through 11:59
p.m. on August 31, 2025.
■ 3. Add temporary § 117.261(p) from
12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023,
through 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025,
to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
■
§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
from St. Marys River to Key Largo.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Indiantown Road Bridge, mile
1006.2, at Jupiter. The draw shall open
on the hour and half hour except that
the draw need not open daily from 7
a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
Dated: October 13, 2023.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard Seventh District.
[FR Doc. 2023–23259 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 23–336; RM–11967; DA 23–
936; FR ID 177970]
Television Broadcasting Services
Wittenberg and Shawano, Wisconsin
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Video Division, Media
Bureau (Bureau) has before it a petition
for rulemaking filed by TV–49, Inc.
(Petitioner or TV–49), the permittee of
an unbuilt television station on channel
31 allotted to Wittenberg, Wisconsin.
TV–49 requests an amendment of the
Table of TV Allotments to delete
channel 31 at Wittenberg and substitute
channel 31 at Shawano, Wisconsin,
consistent with the technical parameters
set forth in the Petition, as amended.
The Petitioner further requests
modification of its construction permit
to specify Shawano as its community of
license.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before November 20, 2023 and reply
comments on or before December 4,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
Matthew S. Delnero, Esq., Covington &
Burling, LLP, 850 Tenth Street NW,
Washington, DC 20001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202)
418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media
Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission has stated that it will apply
the modification procedure in section
1.420(i) of the rules, which provides
that the Commission may, in connection
with a rulemaking proceeding to amend
the Table of TV Allotments, modify a
station’s license or construction permit
to specify a new community of license
without affording other interested
parties an opportunity to file competing
expressions of interest, where the new
allotment will be mutually exclusive
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72417
with a station’s existing allotment. The
Technical Exhibit submitted with the
Amended Petition demonstrates that the
proposed allotment of channel 31 at
Shawano is mutually exclusive with the
current allotment at Wittenberg, and is
otherwise in compliance with all of our
technical rules. The Petitioner also
emphasizes that Wittenberg will not
lose any existing service because as a
permittee, TV–49 has not commenced
operations in Wittenberg, and thus no
viewers have come to rely on any
existing service, a factor the
Commission has found to be mitigating
in the context of whether it would
remove the sole channel allotted to a
community. Moreover, the Petitioner
states that the communities are only
thirty miles apart and Wittenberg will
still be within the noise limited contour
of the channel 31 facility constructed at
Shawano. The Petitioner further asserts
that providing Shawano, the county seat
of Shawano County and a community
that is nine times larger than
Wittenberg, with its first local television
service is the type of rare circumstance
which justifies a waiver of the general
prohibition on the removal of a
community’s sole first local service.
According to the Petitioner, Shawano’s
Census 2020 population is 9,243 people,
while Wittenberg’s Census 2020
population is 1,015. Shawano is
governed by a mayor and six
alderpersons, who collectively comprise
its Common Council. The Shawano
school district operates five public
schools, there are also three religiouslyaffiliated private schools in Shawano,
and Northeast Wisconsin Technical
College also operates a Regional
Learning Campus in Shawano. Shawano
also provides a number of municipal
services through the Shawano-Bonduel
Municipal Court, the Shawano
Department of Public Works, the
Shawano Police Department, and the
Shawano Municipal Utilities. Petitioner
states that given the foregoing, it is clear
that Shawano has the population and
public services indicative of a
community deserving of its own
television station. Moreover, the
Petitioner asserts that six licensed full
power television stations currently
provide noise-limited service to all of
Wittenberg and the Petitioner
demonstrates that once the Station
commences operations it will also
provide noise-limited service to
Wittenberg.
This is a synopsis of the
Commission’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 23–336;
RM–11967; DA 23–936, adopted
October 6, 2023, and released October 6,
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72415-72417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23259]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0652]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
at Jupiter, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the operating
schedule that governs the Indiantown Road Bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), mile 1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida. This
action is necessary to alleviate vehicle traffic congestion on the
Indiantown Road Bridge caused by the replacement and closure of a
nearby bridge. Once construction of the nearby bridge has been
completed, the Indiantown Road Drawbridge will return to normally
scheduled operations. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 20, 2023.
The Coast Guard anticipates that this proposed rule will be
effective from 12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023, through 11:59 p.m. on
August 31, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0652 using Federal Decision Making 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. Leonard Newsom, Seventh District Bridge Branch,
Coast Guard; telephone (305) 415-6946, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
Indiantown Road Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AICW), mile 1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida, is a double-leaf bascule
bridge with 35 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position. The
normal operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR
117.261(q). Navigation on the waterway consists of recreational and
commercial mariners.
The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT),
requested the Coast Guard consider allowing this change during the
replacement and closure of a nearby bridge. The closing of the nearby
bridge has resulted in significant increase in vehicle traffic
congestion of the area. The only alternate route for land traffic to
access the mainland is via the Donald Ross Bridge approximately 4.5
miles south of the Indiantown Road Bridge. This proposed temporary rule
will reduce the number of drawbridge openings which will subsequently
allow local vehicle traffic to flow with reduced obstructions and
delays.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed temporary rule will allow the drawbridge to remain
closed to navigation during weekday vehicle commuting hours. Under this
proposed temporary rule, the drawbridge would remain closed to vessel
traffic daily
[[Page 72416]]
from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. At all other times the
bridge would open on the hour and half hour. Vessels that can pass
beneath the bridge without an opening may do so at any time.
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.
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 proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). 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 fact that
vessels can still transit the bridge at designated times throughout the
day, and vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening
may do so at any time. This proposed temporary rule will further meet
the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into consideration the
reasonable needs of vehicular traffic.
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 proposed 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 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, Table 3-1 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 rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
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.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0652 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. 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.
[[Page 72417]]
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a
temporary final rule is published of any posting or updates to the
docket.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov 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).
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.
00170.1. Revision No. 01.3.
0
2. Stay Sec. 117.261(q) from 12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023, through
11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025.
0
3. Add temporary Sec. 117.261(p) from 12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023,
through 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025, to read as follows:
Sec. 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to
Key Largo.
* * * * *
(p) Indiantown Road Bridge, mile 1006.2, at Jupiter. The draw shall
open on the hour and half hour except that the draw need not open daily
from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
* * * * *
Dated: October 13, 2023.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh
District.
[FR Doc. 2023-23259 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
