Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules notification requirement for an opening from three hours to 24 hours at the Houlihan Bridge. The proposed change is due to a decrease in requested openings and would allow bridge maintenance crews to be on-site for openings to address any unforeseen issues. The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge, located approximately six miles upstream, will be changed to a 24 hour advance notice for an opening as it currently operates the same as the Houlihan Bridge. The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge owner, CSX
Transportation, is in support of the proposed change. Additionally, the name and geographic location of the bridges will be updated.
The Houlihan Bridge US 17 Bridge across the Savannah River, mile 21.6, at Savannah, Georgia is a swing bridge with a vertical clearance of seven feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between the fender system. The operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.371a.
The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Savannah River, mile 27.4, near Hardeeville, South Carolina is a single-leaf bascule bridge with a vertical clearance of seven feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between the fender system. The operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33
CFR 117.371b.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed change would allow the bridges to open with a 24 hour advance notice to the bridge owner as designated in the regulation. The proposed change will improve the response time maintenance crews if unforeseen issues occur while operating the Houlihan Bridge and allow the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge to operate the same schedule due to the proximity of the bridges.
This proposed change would still allow vessels that can transit under the bridges, without an opening, to do so at any time while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:43 Feb 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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 and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice. Vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so 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 Public Law 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
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

11479

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..
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 NEPA 42 U.S.C. 4321
4370f. The Coast Guard has determined
E:FRFM25FEP1.SGM

25FEP1