Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI, 86301-86303 [2023-27385]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
86301
TABLE 1 TO § 100.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING MARINE EVENTS—Continued
Date
Event/sponsor
Ohio Valley location
80. 1 Day—One weekend in September.
81. 2 Days—One of the last three
weekends in September.
82. 1 Day—Third Sunday in September.
83. 1 Day in September ....................
Parkesburg Paddle Fest ...................
Parkersburg, WV .............
Madison Vintage Thunder .................
Madison, IN .....................
Team Rocket Tri Club/Swim Hobbs
Island.
Knoxville Open Water Swimmers/
Bridges to Bluffs.
Adventure Crew/Great Ohio River
Swim.
Ohio River Open Water Swim ..........
Huntsville, AL ..................
Captain Quarters Regatta .................
Louisville, KY ...................
Owensboro Air Show ........................
Owensboro, KY ...............
Ohio River, Mile 754.0–760.0 (Kentucky).
World Triathlon Corporation/
IRONMAN Chattanooga.
New Martinsville Records and Regatta Challenge Committee.
Chattanooga, TN .............
Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–467.5
(Tennessee).
Ohio River, Mile 128–129 (West Virginia).
Three Rivers Rowing Association/
Head of the Ohio Regatta.
Chattajack .........................................
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Cumberland River Compact/Cumberland River Dragon Boat Festival.
Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the Suck
Nashville, TN ...................
Chattanooga, TN .............
95. 1 Day in October .........................
Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga
Head Race.
Shoals Scholar Dollar .......................
96. 2 Days in October .......................
Music City Head Race ......................
Nashville, TN ...................
97. 2 Days—First or second week of
October.
98. 2 Days—in October .....................
Head of the Ohio Rowing Race ........
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Secret City Head Race Regatta.
Head of the Hooch Regatta ..............
Oak Ridge, TN ................
Charleston Lighted Boat Parade .......
Charleston, WV ...............
84. 1 Day—Last Sunday in August or
Second Sunday in September.
85. 1 Day—One of the last two
weekends in September.
86. 2 Days—One of the last three
weekends in September or the first
weekend in October.
87. 3 Days—One of the last three
weekends in September or one of
the first two weekends in October.
88. 1 Day in September ....................
89. 3 Days—Last weekend of September and/or first weekend in October.
90. 2 Days—First weekend of October.
91. 1 Day in October .........................
92. 1 Day in October .........................
93. 1 Day in October .........................
94. 1 Day in October .........................
99. 3 Days—a weekend in November.
100. 1 Day—Second weekend in December.
Dated: December 6, 2023.
H.R. Mattern,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2023–27306 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Cincinnati, OH .................
Prospect, KY ...................
New Martinsville, WV ......
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Allegheny River mile 0.0–5.0 (Pennsylvania).
Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.5
(Tennessee).
Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.1
(Tennessee).
Chattanooga, TN .............
Chattanooga, TN .............
Tennessee River, Miles 443–455
(Tennessee).
Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0
(Tennessee).
Tennessee River 255–257 (Alabama).
Cumberland River 190–195 (Tennessee).
Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–3.0 (Pennsylvania).
Clinch River, Mile 46.0–54.0 (Tennessee).
Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0
(Tennessee).
Kanawha River, Mile 54.3–60.3
(West Virginia).
Florence, AL ....................
Chattanooga, TN .............
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
the bridge. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
February 12, 2024.
DATES:
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2023–0912 using Federal DecisionMaking 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:
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily modify the operating
schedule that governs the Independence
Bridge, mile 3.88, over the Saginaw
River to allow contractors to rehabilitate
SUMMARY:
16:10 Dec 12, 2023
Ohio River, Mile 184.3–188 (West
Virginia).
Ohio River, Mile 556.5–559.5 (Indiana).
Tennessee River, Mile 332.3–338.0
(Alabama).
Tennessee River, Mile 641.0–648.0
(Tennessee).
Ohio River, Mile 468.8–471.2 (Ohio
and Kentucky).
Ohio River, Mile 587.0–591.0 (Kentucky).
Ohio River, Mile 594.0–598.0 (Kentucky).
Knoxville, TN ...................
[Docket No. USCG–2023–0912]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Regulated area
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule,
Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
86302
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Coast Guard District; telephone 216–
902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum of
1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
The Saginaw River is a 22.4-mile-long
river in that is a popular recreational
and an important shipping route for
mid-Michigan and the Great Lakes in
general. The Independence Bridge, mile
3.88, is one of sixteen bridges that cross
the Saginaw River in the Bay City
Metropolitan Area. Out of the sixteen
bridges only four are bascule bridges,
two are owned by the State of Michigan
and two have been recently leased by
the city of Bay City to United Bridge
Partners, a private company that intends
to rehabilitate the two bridges and
charge vehicles tolls to cross the
bridges.
The proposal to lease the bridges and
charge tolls has created the need for
several public meetings and has flooded
the local area news media with stories
concerning the progress of the
rehabilitation and administration
regarding the Independence Bridge.
United Bridge Partners has
established a physical customer service
office within Bay City and a twentyfour-hour call line residents and
mariners can call to receive information
concerning the bridge operations and
proposed construction schedule. United
Bridge Partner, the City of Bay City,
along with their chosen contractor held
a public meeting on August 15, 2023,
along with many media interviews prior
to the public meeting. Most of the
questions from the public were
regarding the pass ability of vehicles
and tolls associated with the new bridge
ownership rather than the impacts the
maintenance would have on the marine
community.
On November 13, 2023,
representatives from Congressman Dan
Kildee, Senator Gary Peters,
Congressman John Moolenaar, and
Senator Debbie Stabenow’s offices along
with the U.S. Coast Guard and nineteen
area stakeholders had a meeting to
discuss the proposed rehabilitation
project’s effects on vessel traffic. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Dec 12, 2023
Jkt 262001
thirty people in attendance proposed
the conditions in this proposed rule.
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88,
is a double leaf bascule bridge that
crosses the Saginaw River and provides
a horizontal clearance of 150 feet and a
vertical clearance of 22 feet above LWD
in the closed position and an unlimited
clearance in the open position. The
bridge allows vehicles and pedestrians
to cross the river near the north end of
the City of Bay City. The Independence
Bridge, mile 3.88, is regulated under 33
CFR 117.647 and is allowed to open
twice hourly in the summer and from
January 1 through March 31 will open
if a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
The reason for this proposed rule will
be to allow the bridge to be secured to
masted navigation from December 1
through March 31 and then through the
summer require a 2-hour advance notice
for openings to accommodate the
rehabilitation of the bridge.
Granit Construction, the official
contractor for the bridge owner has
made this request for a temporary
change in the bridge schedule to allow
for the rehabilitation of structural,
electrical, and mechanical components
of the bridge during the winter when
accumulation of ice makes navigating
the river difficult.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88,
is near the mouth of the river and there
are no alternative routes for vessels. The
December 1 to March 31 dates have
been identified by local stake holders
and dock owners as the best time to
secure the bridge to masted navigation
for the rehabilitation project. Because
the new bridge owner intends to charge
tolls on the bridge that once was free to
cross has caused several people to be
concerned about any bridge project in
the area.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 ability that vessels can
still transit the bridge given advanced
notice and that the repair winter work
will be done at a time of year when
vessel traffic is at its lowest.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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).
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Dec 12, 2023
Jkt 262001
86303
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
proposed rule. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
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–2023–0912 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.
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 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
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3.
2. [From the date of publication in the
Federal Register], through 11:59 p.m. on
March 31, 2025, § 117.647(e) is
temporarily added to read as follows:
■
§ 117.647
Saginaw River.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The draw of the Independence
Bridge, mile 3.88, over the Saginaw
River, will require a 2-hour advance
notice of arrival to be given to move
barges away from the draw to allow
vessels to pass through the bridge from
April 24, 2024, through November 30,
2024, and the bridge need not open for
the passage of vessels from December 1,
2024, through March 31, 2025.
Jonathan Hickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023–27385 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0367; FRL–11573–
01–R4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama;
Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), via a letter dated
February 2, 2021. The SIP revision
includes the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86301-86303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27385]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0912]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the operating
schedule that governs the Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, over the
Saginaw River to allow contractors to rehabilitate the bridge. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0912 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. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth
[[Page 86302]]
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
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
The Saginaw River is a 22.4-mile-long river in that is a popular
recreational and an important shipping route for mid-Michigan and the
Great Lakes in general. The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is one of
sixteen bridges that cross the Saginaw River in the Bay City
Metropolitan Area. Out of the sixteen bridges only four are bascule
bridges, two are owned by the State of Michigan and two have been
recently leased by the city of Bay City to United Bridge Partners, a
private company that intends to rehabilitate the two bridges and charge
vehicles tolls to cross the bridges.
The proposal to lease the bridges and charge tolls has created the
need for several public meetings and has flooded the local area news
media with stories concerning the progress of the rehabilitation and
administration regarding the Independence Bridge.
United Bridge Partners has established a physical customer service
office within Bay City and a twenty-four-hour call line residents and
mariners can call to receive information concerning the bridge
operations and proposed construction schedule. United Bridge Partner,
the City of Bay City, along with their chosen contractor held a public
meeting on August 15, 2023, along with many media interviews prior to
the public meeting. Most of the questions from the public were
regarding the pass ability of vehicles and tolls associated with the
new bridge ownership rather than the impacts the maintenance would have
on the marine community.
On November 13, 2023, representatives from Congressman Dan Kildee,
Senator Gary Peters, Congressman John Moolenaar, and Senator Debbie
Stabenow's offices along with the U.S. Coast Guard and nineteen area
stakeholders had a meeting to discuss the proposed rehabilitation
project's effects on vessel traffic. The thirty people in attendance
proposed the conditions in this proposed rule.
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is a double leaf bascule bridge
that crosses the Saginaw River and provides a horizontal clearance of
150 feet and a vertical clearance of 22 feet above LWD in the closed
position and an unlimited clearance in the open position. The bridge
allows vehicles and pedestrians to cross the river near the north end
of the City of Bay City. The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is
regulated under 33 CFR 117.647 and is allowed to open twice hourly in
the summer and from January 1 through March 31 will open if a 12-hour
advance notice is provided.
The reason for this proposed rule will be to allow the bridge to be
secured to masted navigation from December 1 through March 31 and then
through the summer require a 2-hour advance notice for openings to
accommodate the rehabilitation of the bridge.
Granit Construction, the official contractor for the bridge owner
has made this request for a temporary change in the bridge schedule to
allow for the rehabilitation of structural, electrical, and mechanical
components of the bridge during the winter when accumulation of ice
makes navigating the river difficult.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is near the mouth of the river
and there are no alternative routes for vessels. The December 1 to
March 31 dates have been identified by local stake holders and dock
owners as the best time to secure the bridge to masted navigation for
the rehabilitation project. Because the new bridge owner intends to
charge tolls on the bridge that once was free to cross has caused
several people to be concerned about any bridge project in the area.
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 ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice and that the
repair winter work will be done at a time of year when vessel traffic
is at its lowest.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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).
[[Page 86303]]
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, 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 proposed 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-2023-0912 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.
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
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. [From the date of publication in the Federal Register], through
11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2025, Sec. 117.647(e) is temporarily added to
read as follows:
Sec. 117.647 Saginaw River.
* * * * *
(e) The draw of the Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, over the
Saginaw River, will require a 2-hour advance notice of arrival to be
given to move barges away from the draw to allow vessels to pass
through the bridge from April 24, 2024, through November 30, 2024, and
the bridge need not open for the passage of vessels from December 1,
2024, through March 31, 2025.
Jonathan Hickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-27385 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P