Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules request was made by the bridge owner.
The bridge will continue to open on signal.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 6, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG
20200033 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http www.regulations.gov.
See the Public Participation and Request for Comments portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.
DATES:

If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216
9026085, email Lee.D.Soule@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
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis Rainy River and Rainy Lake serve as the border between the United States of America and Canada. This bridge is a single leaf, bascule type railroad bridge that provides a horizontal clearance of 125 feet. The water level on Rainy Lake and under the bridge is controlled by a hydro-electric dam facility at International Falls, Minnesota, thus charted datum is based on the water level surface of Rainy Lake when the gauge at Fort Frances, Canada reads 1107.0 feet resulting in a variable vertical clearance of 6 to 10 feet in the closed position. The railroad bridge carries significant train traffic across the international border. Rainer, Minnesota is a customs port-of-entry.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule On April 8, 2020, we published a Temporary Deviation with request for comments in FR 202006822 and we did not receive any comments.
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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:56 May 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

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.
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 proposed rule intends to allow the bridge to be operated remotely. All other conditions in 33 CFR 117.664
shall remain.
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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

23881

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..
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 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:FRFM05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1