Quiero saber acerca de...

48924

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
comments. The vast majority of comments supported the proposed regulation change. The Coast Guard concluded that there was sufficient information to change the regulation to allow the draw to not open to vessels on Mondays through Fridays from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and that the draw need only open on the hour from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
The Coast Guard issued a final rule on this change on November 26, 2018 in 83
FR 53810.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule On April 23, 2021 the Town of Madisonville requested that the operating schedule on the SR 23
drawbridge be changed to relieve vehicle congestion during peak, afternoon weekday traffic and to alleviate safety concerns. In the April 23, 2021 letter the Town of Madisonville cited information and documentation from parish and local law enforcement and fire protection agencies identifying safety and fire protection concerns with the traffic congestion and bridge openings every 30 minutes during the day. They requested that the drawbridge regulation be changed to close the bridge to vessel traffic from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday Friday and open the bridge on signal on the hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. 7 days a week. This requested change would effectively close the bridge to vessels for a 4 hour period in afternoons Monday Friday: 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
There appears to be sufficient information to change the regulations to open the bridge 7 days a week on the hour with the exception of morning and afternoon vehicle rush hours on Monday through Friday. On Monday through Friday there is sufficient information to close the bridge to vessels for 2 hour windows in the morning and afternoon.
Additionally the bridge is required to open for emergencies according to 33
CFR 117.31.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

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. Additionally those vessels with a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above mean high water may transit the bridge at any time, and the bridge will open in case of emergency at any time.
B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601612, 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.
605b 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 213a of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Pub. L. 104121, 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. 35013520..

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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. 15311538 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 02301, 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 NEPA42 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
E:FRFM01SEP1.SGM

01SEP1