[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7842-7844]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03904]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0857]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Johns River, Putnam County,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad Bridge across the St. Johns
River, mile 94.5, at Satsuma, Putnam County, FL. The proposed
rulemaking would allow the bridge to be remotely monitored and operated
from the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Ortega River (McGirts Creek)
located at mile 1.1 on the Ortega River. The proposed rule would also
allow the draw to remain in the full, open position unless a train is
in the circuit.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0857 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 Emily T. Sysko, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The bridge owner, CSX Transportation, requested the Coast Guard
consider allowing remote operation of the Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad
Bridge across the St. Johns River, mile 94.5, at Satsuma, Putnam
County, Florida. On April 27, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice
of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation with request for
comments in the Federal Register (82 FR 08886) to test proposed
changes. No comments were received during the test period.
    The Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad Bridge across the St. Johns River is
a bascule bridge. The bridge is currently manned and maintained in the
open position. It has a vertical clearance of 7 feet at mean high water
in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this NPRM under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Buffalo Bluff CSX Railroad Bridge across St. Johns River,
mile 94.5, at Satsuma, Putnam County, FL. The bridge is currently
manned and maintained in the open position.
    This proposed rule would allow the bridge to be remotely monitored
and operated. Visual monitoring of the waterway shall be maintained
with the use of cameras and the detection of vessels under the span
shall be accomplished with detection sensors. Marine radio
communication shall be maintained with mariners near the bridge for the
safety of navigation. The remote tender may also be contacted via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The span is normally in the fully open
position and will display green lights to indicate that the span is
fully open. When a train approaches, the remote tender shall monitor
for vessels approaching the bridge. The remote tender shall warn
approaching vessels via marine radio, channel 9 VHF of a bridge
lowering. Provided the sensors do not detect a vessel under the span,
the tender shall initiate the span lowering sequence, which includes
the sounding of a horn and the displaying of red lights. The span will
remain in the down position for a minimum of eight minutes or for the
entire time the approach track circuit is occupied. After the train has
cleared the bridge track circuit, the span shall open and the green
lights will be displayed. This proposed rule would allow vessels to
pass through the bridge 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 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.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The draw will remain open

for vessel traffic except when trains are passing; and (2) vessels that
can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so at anytime.

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.
    We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on 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 review
under paragraph L 49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 01.
    A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are 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 website'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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.325 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.325   St. Johns River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draw for the Buffalo Bluff CSX automated Railroad Bridge,
St. Johns River, mile 94.5 at Satsuma, Putnam County, FL shall operate
as follows:
    (1) The bridge is not tendered locally, but will be operated and
monitored by a remote tender;
    (2) The bridge shall have local and mechanical override
capabilities over the remote operation;
    (3) Marine radio communication shall be maintained with mariners
near the bridge for the safety of navigation. Visual monitoring of the
waterway shall be maintained with the use of cameras and the detection
of vessels under the span shall be accomplished with detection sensors;
    (4) The span is normally in the fully open position and will
display green lights to indicate that the span is fully open;
    (5) When a train approaches, the remote tender shall monitor for
vessels approaching the bridge. The remote tender shall warn
approaching vessels via marine radio, channel 9 VHF of a bridge
lowering. The remote tender may also be contacted via telephone at
(386) 649-8538;
    (6) Provided the sensors do not detect a vessel under the span, the
tender shall initiate the span lowering sequence, which includes the
sounding of a horn and the displaying of red lights. The span will
remain in the down position for a minimum of eight minutes or for the
entire time the approach track circuit is occupied; and
    (7) After the train has cleared the bridge track circuit, the span
shall open and the green lights will be displayed.

    Dated: February 20, 2019.
Peter J. Brown,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2019-03904 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8302]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3339]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 13F, SEC File No. 270-22, OMB Control No. 3235-0006.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 13(f) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \2\ (the
``Exchange Act'') empowers the Commission to: (1) Adopt rules that
create a reporting and disclosure system to collect specific
information; and (2) disseminate such information to the public. Rule
13f-1 \3\ under the Exchange Act requires institutional investment
managers that exercise investment discretion over accounts that have in
the aggregate a fair market value of at least $100,000,000 of certain
U.S. exchange-traded equity securities, as set forth in rule 13f-1(c),
to file quarterly reports with the Commission on Form 13F.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(f).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.13f-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 249.325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collection requirements apply to institutional
investment managers that meet the $100 million reporting threshold.
Section 13(f)(6) of the Exchange Act defines an ``institutional
investment manager'' as any person, other than a natural person,
investing in or buying and selling securities for its own account, and
any person exercising investment discretion with respect to the account
of any other person. Rule 13f-1(b) under the Exchange Act defines
``investment discretion'' for purposes of Form 13F reporting.
    The reporting system required by Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act
is intended, among other things, to create in the Commission a central
repository of historical and current data about the investment
activities of institutional investment managers, and to improve the
body of factual data available to regulators and the public.
    The Commission staff estimates that 4,286 respondents make
approximately 17,144 responses under the rule each year. The staff
estimates that on average, Form 13F filers spend 98.8 hours/year to
prepare and submit the report. In addition, the staff estimates that
171 respondents file approximately 684 amendments each year. The staff
estimates that on average, Form 13F filers spend 4 hours/year to
prepare and submit amendments to Form 13F. The total annual burden of
the rule's requirements for all respondents therefore is estimated to
be 424,141 hours ((4,286 filers x 98.8 hours) + (171 filers x 4
hours)).
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 8, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3339 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1721]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-49]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-54-000; Docket No. CP06-55-000]

Broadwater Energy LLC; Broadwater Pipeline LLC; Notice of
Interagency Meeting on the Proposed Broadwater LNG Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement

January 9, 2007.
    On January 16, 2007, in response to a request from Connecticut
State Senator Leonard A. Fasano, Chairman, Connecticut LNG Task Force,
the staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) will conduct a meeting
with Connecticut state agencies and officials regarding the proposal to
construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and
natural gas pipeline (referred to as the Broadwater LNG Project). The
meeting location and time are as follows: Town Hall, Mayor's Conference
Room, 250 East Main Street, East Haven, Connecticut 06512, 203-468-
3204, 2 p.m. (EST).
    For additional information, contact the Commission's Office of
External Affairs at 866-208-FERC (3372).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-444 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38926-38928]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15767]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0248]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from
mile marker 190.5 to 191.5 of the Cumberland River. The safety zone is
needed to protect life and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by Music City Grand Prix fireworks display. This rule
prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 7,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0248 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Third Class Benjamin Gardner and Marine
Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
was notified of the event without ample time for the NPRM process. We
must establish this safety zone by August 7, 2021, and lack sufficient
time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those
comments before issuing this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to ensure the safety of the participants and vessels during
the Music City Grand Prix Fireworks Display on August 7, 2021.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The

Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the Music City Grand Prix Fireworks
Display on August 7, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a
1.0 mile radius of the fireworks barge. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while the Music City Grand Prix Fireworks
display is occurring.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the Cumberland
River, starting at mile marker 190.5 and ending at 191.5, extending
from bank to bank within the river. The safety zone will be enforced
from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 7, 2021. The duration of the zone
is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
in these navigable waters while the Music City Grand Prix Fireworks
Display is taking place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of 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 rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Cumberland River before or after
the time of the events on each day. Moreover, the Coast Guard would
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 rule involves a
safety zone lasting 1.5 hours spread over the course of 1 day that
would prohibit entry within 1 mile of the fireworks barge. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0248 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0248   Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Cumberland River from mile marker 190.5 to mile marker
191.5
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 9 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on August 7, 2021.

    Dated: July 14, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-15767 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P