48940 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is re-opening 

the comment period to solicit additional 

comments concerning its Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, published in 

April 2017 that proposes to change the 

regulation governing Mathers Bridge 

across the Banana River, mile 0.5, in 

Indian Harbour Beach, FL. The Coast 

Guard District Seven Bridge Office 

received a request from the City of 

Indian Harbour Beach, Florida 

requesting to re-open the comment 

period in order to allow members of the 

public to comment that did not have 

awareness of the initial notice and 

comment period. 

DATES: Comments and relate material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2017–0060 using Federal eRulemaking 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email LT Allen Storm with 

Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville 

Waterways; telephone 904–714–7616, 

email Allan.H.Storm@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Purpose 

On April 24, 2017, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled, ‘‘Banana River, Indian Harbour 

Beach, FL’’ in the Federal Register (82 

FR 18877). The original comment period 

closed on June 23, 2017. The NPRM 

proposed the initial change to the 

regulation governing the Mathers Bridge 

across the Banana River, mile 0.5, in 

Indian Harbour Beach, FL and contains 

useful background and analysis related 

to the initial proposed change. The 

public is encouraged to review the 

NPRM. 

The City of Indian Harbour Beach 

notified the Seventh Coast Guard 

District Bridge Office they were 

unaware of the proposed regulation 

change as it impacts their residents. 

Reopening the comment period and 

providing notification of this action to 

the local media should accomplish the 

goal intended, which is to reach a 

broader range of waterway and highway 

users. 

II. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

Public participation is essential to 

effective rulemaking, and consideration 

of all comments and material received 

during the comment period will be 

made. 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. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, 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. 

This notice, re-opening the comment 

period, ensures notice and opportunity 

to comment on the NPRM before making 

the proposed changes final. This notice 

is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1223 and 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Peter J. Brown, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22937 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2017–0161] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the SR 401 Drawbridge, mile 5.5 

at Port Canaveral, Florida. This 

modified regulation is necessary to 

reduce vehicular traffic congestion and 

to ensure the safety of the roadways 

while passengers are transiting to and 

from Cruise Terminal 10, which is used 

by Norwegian Cruise Line at Port 

Canaveral. Since the homeporting of the 

cruise ship Norwegian Epic in the Port 

of Canaveral, traffic back-ups have been 

caused by the drawbridge openings. 

This modified regulation allows the 

bridge not to open to navigation during 

typical cruise-ship passenger loading 

and unloading times on Saturdays and 

Sundays. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2017–0161 using Federal eRulemaking 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence 

of the Coast Guard Bridge Branch; 

telephone 305–415–6946, email 

Eddie.H.Lawrence@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

On April 25, 2017, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation with request for 

comments in the Federal Register (82 

FR 18989). One comment was received. 

The existing regulation as published 

at 33 CFR 117.273 states: (b) The 

drawspan of the SR401 Drawbridge, 

mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, must open on 

signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8 

a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday 

through Friday except Federal holidays, 

the drawspan need not be opened for 

the passage of vessels. From 10 p.m. to 

6 a.m. the drawspan must open on 

signal if at least three hours notice is 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48941 

given. The drawspan must open as soon 

as possible for the passage of public 

vessels of the United States and tugs 

with tows. 

Under the current temporary 

deviation, the bridge remains in the 

closed-to-navigation position from 11 

a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and 

Sundays. The Canaveral Port Authority 

has requested this deviation. The bridge 

logs from November 2016 indicate that, 

at most, an average of nine vessels per 

month may be affected by establishing 

this three hour bridge closure on 

Saturdays and Sundays. The majority of 

the opening requests were either at the 

beginning or end of this closure period; 

therefore, if these mariners adjust their 

transits slightly there should be a 

negligible overall effect. 

The comment that was received stated 

that allowing this bridge to be closed for 

three hours during the weekends is 

unreasonable to vessel traffic as it limits 

the times the bridge will be available for 

use by the maritime community. The 

commenter also stated that the bridge 

should be allowed to open at least once 

an hour and that there was very little 

vehicle traffic during the third hour. 

The Coast Guard agrees. For this reason, 

the Coast Guard will continue to 

evaluate the impact to mariners 

navigating this area during the closure 

periods and has pubished this NPRM to 

allow for additional comments. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This modified regulation is necessary 

to reduce vehicular traffic congestion 

and to ensure the safety of the roadways 

while passengers are transiting to and 

from Cruise Terminal 10, which is used 

by Norwegian Cruise Line at Port 

Canaveral. Since the arrival of the cruise 

ship Norwegian Epic to the Port of 

Canaveral, massive traffic back-ups have 

been caused by the drawbridge 

openings. 

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. 

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 before and after 

the proposed periods. Vessels that can 

pass under the bridge in the closed 

position may continue to do so. 

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 

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, above. 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 

Government 

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 above. 

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 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48942 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

review, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration and a 

Memorandum for the Record not 

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. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

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. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacynotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, 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. 

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; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.273, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.273 Canaveral Barge Canal, 

Canaveral, FL. 

* * * * * 

(b) The drawspan of the SR401 

Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, 

must open on signal; except that, from 

6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 

p.m. Monday through Friday except 

Federal holidays, the drawspan need 

not be opened for the passage of vessels. 

On Saturday and Sunday, this bridge 

will be allowed to remain closed to 

navigation from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. each 

day. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the 

drawspan must open on signal if at least 

three hours notice is given. The 

drawspan must open as soon as possible 

for the passage of public vessels of the 

United States and tugs with tows. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Peter J. Brown, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22939 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2017–0340; FRL–9969–72– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Revision of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; State of New 

York; Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a 

source-specific revision to the New York 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

SIP revision establishes Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) emission 

limits for sulfur dioxide that are 

identical to those set by the EPA’s 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, which was promulgated in an 

action taken on August 28, 2012. The 

EPA proposes to find that the SIP 

revision fulfills the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule for the Roseton Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2. In conjunction 

with this proposed approval, we 

propose to withdraw those portions of 

the FIP that address BART for the 

Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 

2. 

DATES: Comment must be received on or 

before November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2017–0340), to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene B. Nielson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New 

York 10007–1866 at 212–637–3586 or 

by email at nielson.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background information for 

this proposal? 

A. SIP and FIP Background 

B. Regional Haze Background 

C. EPA Action on New York’s Regional 

Haze Submittals 

III. What is included in the NYSDEC SIP 

proposal? 

IV. What is the EPA analysis of NYSDEC’s 

submittal? 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS