[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57450-57454]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2012-0066]

State Rail Plan Guidance

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final State Rail Plan Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is publishing this notice to announce the availability of
final State Rail Plan Guidance. The purpose of FRA's final State Rail
Plan Guidance is to describe the processes for the development,
submission, and acceptance of State rail plans. State rail plans are
documents that are required under Section 303 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Section 303 of PRIIA
provides for enhanced State involvement in rail policy, planning, and
development efforts, including requiring States to develop FRA-accepted
State rail plans in order to be eligible for the capital grants
authorized in the Act and available under the High-Speed Intercity
Passenger Rail program. This guidance provides an explanation of the
process to be followed in developing State rail plans, FRA's process
for reviewing and accepting State rail plans, a standardized format,
and a list of the minimum content requirements for State rail plans.
The State Rail Plan Guidance is available on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0511.

DATES: The final State Rail Plan Guidance is effective as of the
publication of this notice on September 18, 2013.
    Applicability: Any State rail plan whose development is begun after
publication of this notice must adhere to the standardized format and
minimum content requirements defined within the guidance in order to be
accepted by the FRA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Kyle Gradinger, Transportation Industry Analyst, Office
of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W38-202, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202) 493-6191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final State Rail Plan Guidance was prepared
through a notice and comment process involving publication of draft
guidance announced in the August 28, 2012 issue of the Federal
Register, soliciting public review and comment over the following 90
day period. FRA received 121 individual comments from 55 respondents.
Comments were received from a diverse group comprised of eight (8)
State departments of transportation, one (1) metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), eleven (11) trade organizations, five (5) national
stakeholder organizations, one (1) private individual, and one (1)
public transportation service provider.
    Broad support was offered by commenters for preparing State rail
plans as part of a comprehensive, coordinated planning framework within
and among States, and for addressing passenger and freight needs in an
integrated, coordinated way. Almost unanimous support was offered for
integrating, to the extent possible, preparation of State rail plans
with the statewide/nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation
planning programs required under the Federal-aid Highway and Federal
Transit titles--23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C., respectively.
Similarly, it is within that expanded transportation planning context
of States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) that
commenters proposed engagement of an expansive range of stakeholder
interests in State rail plan development--spanning industry,
government, labor, local communities, and the private sector.
    However, concerns were expressed by commenters for several
procedural aspects of State rail plan preparation, including data
collection and the depth of impact assessment required for the rail
infrastructure, facilities, and service improvements contained in State
rail plans. Other issues raised by commenters included the importance
of involving private rail interests in meaningful ways in State rail
plan development, while respecting the proprietary nature of their
operational and financial records. These comments are grouped and
summarized below by topic with FRA responses.

Coordination With Statewide/Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan
Transportation Planning

    Several comments were received supporting full coordination of
State rail plan development with the statewide/nonmetropolitan and
metropolitan transportation planning programs required under 23 U.S.C.
and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C. Commenters recommended a range of specific
planning work activities and planning products that represent the best
opportunities for coordination with State rail plan development.
Following are the details of comments provided and FRA responses
regarding coordination between State rail plan development and the
transportation planning processes carried out by States and MPOs.
    Several commenters proposed that States prepare State rail plans as
part of metropolitan and statewide/nonmetropolitan transportation
planning processes in order to eliminate duplication of effort.
Particular concern was expressed for not establishing a separate
planning process for State rail plans--apart from those existing
planning processes. It was proposed that States be able to incorporate
visions, plans, and priorities that consider rail as one of many
transportation modes, in a single statewide transportation plan, with
the State rail plan incorporated within the overall plan or as an
addendum. A commenter also requested clarification of the term
``compatible,'' as it was used in the draft guidance to describe the
relationship between the State rail plan and planning processes.
Response: FRA has revised the draft guidance to emphasize the
importance of preparing State rail plans within the policy and
procedural contexts of the multimodal transportation planning processes
conducted by states and MPOs and to integrate the documents as much as
possible. In revising the guidance, FRA was careful not to convey the
MAP-21 financial constraint requirements associated with highway and
transit listings to the rail proposals listed in the State rail plan.
Also, to improve clarity, the term ``compatible'' was replaced with
language calling for state rail plans to be generally consistent with
other planning documents and policies.
    A commenter recommended that the guidance stipulate that State rail
plans should be prepared in coordination with the new freight planning
activities carried out by States in accordance with MAP-21. The
commenter proposed that the guidance direct States to describe how
their State's long-term vision for rail integrates with the State
Freight Plan, as well as the National Freight Policy, the National
Freight Strategic Plan, and the National Export Initiative. Another
commenter recommended that State rail plans include in depth discussion
of the changing freight market. Response: FRA agrees that State rail
plans should be prepared with full understanding of the current and
emerging freight, as well as passenger, markets and has revised the
guidance accordingly. Language also has been added to the guidance
recommending that States coordinate preparation of State freight plans
and State rail plans.
    A commenter proposed closer coordination between FRA and FHWA and
State highway offices, suggesting that States be required to consider
the cross-effects of investment in rail and highway improvements,
including consideration of rail when planning future highway
investments. Another commenter recommends that the guidance
specifically require State rail plans to identify the potential impacts
of individual projects, as well as the combined impact of all projects
in the State rail plan. Specifically, they recommended that local
transit modes be added to the list of ``highway, aviation and maritime
modes'' included in the draft guidance. Response: FRA added ``local
transit'' to the list of modes for which potential impacts of State
rail plan implementation should be analyzed and added emphasis about
the need to assess potential project impacts on an individual, as well
as combined, basis.
    A commenter recommended revising the guidance to promote
consistency between the performance measures used in preparing State
rail plans and those used in the statewide/nonmetropolitan and
metropolitan transportation planning process, including use of easy-to-
read tables. Response: FRA agrees that using consistent performance
measures is preferable and has revised the guidance to include
reference to using performance measures in coordination with those used
in broader transportation planning processes, including promoting
consistency with transit asset management plans required under MAP-21.
    A commenter recommended changing the 5-year state rail plan update
cycle included in the draft guidance to a 4-year cycle, for consistency
with the document update cycles prescribed in MAP-21 for planning
documents. Another commenter proposed annual updates. Response: The 5-
year update provision is set forth in PRIIA and cannot be changed.
However, FRA agrees that the update cycles of State

rail plans should be aligned, to the extent possible, with other
planning documents. Accordingly, the guidance has been revised to
encourage States to update State rail plans on a consistent cycle with
other planning documents, at least every 5 years.
    A commenter suggested that the guidance be revised to allow States
the flexibility to align the planning horizons of State rail plans with
those used in their other planning and programming documents. Response:
FRA has revised the guidance to allow States to use longer horizon time
periods for the Rail Service and Investment Program as long as it
identifies specific projects for the 4-year short-term and 20-year
vision components.
    A commenter recommended adding a requirement that statewide/
nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation planning processes
consider the rail transportation needs of military and federal
facilities where appropriate and where regional transportation has an
impact on ``military readiness.'' Response: FRA has revised the
guidance to require States to identify Strategic Rail Corridor Network
(STRACNET) facilities in the State rail plans. In addition, revisions
also were made to encourage States to include the rail transportation
needs of military and federal facilities in their statewide/
nonmetropolitan planning processes, as well as in development of State
rail plans, as appropriate.
    A commenter recommended that the FRA Regional Manager be included
as a non-voting member on MPO policy boards. Response: While FRA staff
can provide technical assistance to States during State rail plan
development and MPOs have broad latitude to include non-voting members
from Federal and non-Federal agencies, recommending such action is
beyond the scope of PRIIA and this guidance.
    A commenter questioned the focus directed to ``megaregions,'' in
that the concept does not apply to rural States as they seek to
accommodate their product shipment needs, as well as serving as
through-movement ``bridge states'' for transporting goods to market.
Response: FRA has revised the guidance to reference rail service needs
within and between mega-regions, as well as to passenger service and
freight movement needs in all other appropriate sections of the
country.

Public and Stakeholder Involvement

    Several comments were received that recommended linking public
involvement processes during State rail plan development with the
statewide/nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation planning
programs required under 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C. Following
are the detailed comments provided and FRA responses regarding
coordination of public and stakeholder involvement between State rail
plan development and the transportation planning processes carried out
by States and MPOs.
    Commenters recommended that the guidance explicitly require that
draft State rail plans be presented for public comment for at least 30
days prior to being submitted to the FRA for acceptance, as well as
identify milestones and minimum standards for stakeholder and public
involvement that emphasize collaborative partnerships. Response: The
guidance has been revised to encourage States to conduct stakeholder
involvement in full coordination with, or incorporated within, the
public involvement activities conducted by States and MPOs in their
respective transportation planning processes. Federal requirements for
transportation planning (23 CFR part 450) call for those public
involvement processes to be developed by State and local officials, not
the Federal government, and to be prepared in collaboration with the
public and stakeholders. The agreed upon public involvement processes
must then be documented and periodically evaluated for effectiveness.
    Several commenters called for greater clarity of the role of
freight rail, noting the unique position, perspectives, and interests
of privately owned freight rail lines--as owners, operators, investors,
and private sector partners in rail development. Comments particularly
focused on the need for States to respect the proprietary nature of
inventory and operations data held by private freight rail operators
and to protect the confidentiality of such data if obtained for use in
State rail plan development. Concern was expressed for including
privately funded rail improvements in the State rail plan, as privately
funded improvements typically are not included in the plans of States
and MPOs. Response: FRA recognizes limitations to imposing requirements
on and requesting data from private operators and the guidance has been
revised to stress the importance of obtaining private freight rail
perspectives in State rail plan development while respecting their
private business status and the proprietary nature of their market and
operating data. Language requesting States to include privately funded
rail facility improvements in State and MPO plans, TIPs, and STIPs was
retained for information and coordination purposes.
    Several commenters noted how rail unions both influence, and are
influenced by, the contents of State rail plans, and recommended that
those organizations be explicitly mentioned among the stakeholder
interests. Response: FRA has added ``Rail Labor Organizations'' to the
list of stakeholder interests for which an opportunity to contribute to
and comment on the development of the State rail plan should be
provided.
    A commenter recommended including MPOs among the list of
stakeholders with whom State rail plan development should be
coordinated. Response: FRA has added focus on engaging MPOs in the
development of State rail plans in the revised guidance.

Content and Format of State Rail Plans

    Several comments were received recommending a relaxation of the
level of detail required of the proposed improvements in the 20-year
State rail plan, as well as potential sources of funding and analysis
of impacts. Other topics were proposed for more detailed discussion,
including the role and planning implication of public-private
partnerships, integrated planning for passenger and freight rail, and
reference to Service Development Plans (SDPs) in the State rail plan
documents.
    A commenter suggested requiring less detailed information on
commuter rail activities because the State rail plan qualifies States
to receive grants for high-speed rail only. Response: Operational
information about all relevant services, including intercity and
commuter rail, is needed for coordinated planning. Such information
should be readily available from the public operators of commuter rail.
Accordingly, the guidance was not changed.
    A commenter expressed concern for requiring inclusion of a detailed
list of rail capital projects in the State rail plan due to the cost
and administrative burden, as well as the separate MAP-21 requirements
for highway and transit project listings in the STIP. Several other
commenters questioned the need to identify the distribution of benefits
from rail service implementation to regions. Response: PRIIA requires
State rail plans to include a list of proposed rail improvements, as
well as an analysis of the distribution of benefits to regions.
Accordingly, FRA has not modified those provisions in the guidance.
However, inclusion of rail improvements in the TIPs/STIPs prepared by
MPOs and States, while encouraged by the guidance, is not

required. The guidance has been revised to clarify that inclusion of
rail improvements in TIPs/STIPs is for information and coordination
purposes only.
    Several commenters expressed concern for the level and detail of
analysis of rail's impact on the range of factors published in the
guidance, including congestion mitigation, safety, economic
development, air quality, land use, and energy use. A commenter
proposed that the impact analyses for the 20-year plan be conducted on
a corridor-basis, rather than at the project level. Another commenter
expressed concern that specific financing strategies and the level of
detail requested for data associated with the passenger and freight
rail proposals are too detailed for projects in the early stages of
planning over a 20-year period. Response: FRA agrees that the
descriptive detail of individual rail proposals and discussion of their
potential impacts should be most detailed for the immediate 4-year
phase of the Rail Service Investment Program, with a more aggregate,
general description of impacts and financial information that is
``reasonably expected'' for the outer years of the full 20-year plan.
The guidance was revised accordingly, with distinction between the
information that is expected of the 4-year phase vs. the outer years of
the 20-year plan.
    A commenter proposed expanding the discussion of public private
partnerships (PPP) to include a fuller description of the concept,
benefits, and supportive planning techniques associated with PPPs.
Response: Text regarding the value of PPPs in rail development and
operation has been added.
    A commenter noted that planning for passenger and freight rail
needs to take place in a coordinated, non-competitive fashion. It was
recommended that narrative be added to the guidance to describe the
shared rail synergies and win-win solutions that are possible with
passenger and freight coordination. Response: FRA supports coordinated
and integrated rail planning and operation across passenger and freight
markets and has revised the guidance in several sections accordingly.
    A commenter suggested that States be required to include discussion
of SDPs in State rail plans. Response: While an SDP is a vital plan for
passenger rail corridor investment, the time horizon of each SDP may
not always fit within every State's long-range rail improvement
framework. States may optionally choose to include discussion of SDPs
where they exist.

Procedures for Preparing and Submitting State Rail Plans

    Several comments were received regarding the administrative
preparation of State rail plans, as well as review and acceptance by
FRA. Some commenters proposed increasing the frequency of State rail
plan updates and lengthening the planning horizon. Other commenters
requested clarification of when and how FRA would review the draft
documents.
    A commenter sought clarification of the eligibility of States to
receive funding under Section 301, 302, and 501 of PRIIA if their State
rail plans were under development at the time of publication of final
State Rail Plan Guidance. Another commenter requested clarification of
FRA's timetable for reviewing and accepting State rail plans if a
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) should happen to be issued for
capital grants under Sections 301, 302, and 501 prior to ``acceptance''
of the plan by FRA. Response: The guidance has been revised to clarify
that State rail plans that were in preparation prior to issuance of
this final guidance, and that substantially meet the requirements of
PRIIA, will be deemed by FRA to meet program and project eligibility
requirements for grants authorized under Sections 301, 302, and 501 of
PRIIA. The guidance has been revised to add that a State rail plan for
which contractor assistance had reached the ``notice-to-proceed'' stage
will be considered ``underway.'' Also, FRA will exercise due diligence
in reviewing as-yet-unapproved State rail plans in a timely manner when
any future funding NOFAs may be issued.
    A commenter questioned the need for States to establish two
separate authorities and asked if a single authority could serve both
purposes. Response: PRIIA calls for States to designate the two
authorities noted above; however the guidance was revised to indicate
that the same State entity can serve both purposes.
    A commenter suggested that the guidance outline a clear process and
timeline for FRA review and acceptance of draft and final State rail
plans, as well as a process for submitting amended State rail plans.
Response: The published draft guidance described a formal process for
State rail plan submittal to FRA and notification of receipt by FRA,
upon which FRA has committed to a 90-day review and acceptance
schedule. Language has been added clarifying that updates of State rail
plans may be submitted at any time the State deems necessary, for which
FRA would follow the process described for all plan submissions--
regardless of their frequency or what triggered the update.
    A commenter noted potentially conflicting statements in the
guidance regarding submission of State rail plans in draft form to FRA
vs. transmittal of the final draft. Response: The guidance was
clarified to describe how States are encouraged to submit preliminary
drafts of their State rail plans to FRA for review and comment prior to
formal submission of the final draft plan.

Data Requirements for State Rail Plans

    Most commenters expressed concern for the amount of data collection
and analysis required in State rail plans--particularly for rail
concepts that were more than 20 years in the future. Commenters
expressed concern for the availability of data, particularly for
privately owned/operated services. Special attention was proposed for
collecting information around stations and intermodal transfer points.
    A commenter noted that data was not available for all of the
metrics contained in Section 207 of PRIIA and that States should be
responsible only for accessing information that is actually available.
Two other commenters proposed that FRA assemble the required data
inventories and provide them to the States as a cost-saving measure and
to ensure consistency. Response: FRA has revised the guidance to
indicate that only available data should be required for inclusion in
State rail plans. The suggestion that FRA compile the necessary data
resources will be taken under advisement and considered, subject to
resource availability at the Federal level.
    A commenter noted that the effort entailed in compiling demographic
data for all station areas could be excessive. Four other commenters
expressed concern that assembling detailed information on station
facility improvements and area land use plans would be excessive and
possibly duplicative of local plans, necessitating the provision of
more detailed guidance on the methodologies and data inputs. Response:
The guidance has been revised to remove the request for detailed
demographic data and instead promotes close integration of State rail
plan development within the statewide/nonmetropolitan transportation
planning process, which could provide ready access to land use data for
entire study areas, corridors, and station-specific information. FRA
also agrees with the concern about collecting information on
improvements to non-major station facilities and has revised

the presentation of that information at a summary or program level.
However, station information for major passenger and freight intermodal
connections and facilities is an explicit provision in PRIIA, and
remains a part of the guidance. Lastly, the guidance was revised to
call for ``a summary level of discussion'' on land use impacts.
    A commenter expressed concern for reporting station-to-station
intrastate ridership for any but the top ten city pairs, proposing that
States simply report boardings and alightings. Response: A
comprehensive profile of current usage is a critical component to
preparation of a credible State rail plan, and limiting ridership flows
to the top city pairs will not provide useful information on growth
trends in small and mid-sized markets. Therefore, no change has been
made.
    Several commenters proposed not collecting information on the
owner/operator status of rail lines, citing the difficulty, expense,
and inconsistency with PRIIA. Response: Owner/operator status of rail
lines as a key element of the inventory of the existing rail services
and facilities within the State, which is an explicit requirement of
PRIIA. The guidance has been revised to identify the availability of
the data in GIS format from the National Transportation Atlas Database
(NTAD), which is maintained online by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. In addition, information on publicly funded commuter
rail operations should be available through the MPO if in an urbanized
area or State if in a non-urbanized area.
    A commenter regarded ``railway assets currently out of service or
rail banked'' as abandoned and expressed concern for the burden of
assembling an inventory of those lines. Response: Rail-banked and out
of service rail lines have not been formally abandoned and therefore
remain important rail facilities to be inventoried.
    A commenter recommended adding a section on passenger station needs
and plans. Response: FRA agrees that station planning, including
consideration of usage, station area development and interfaces with
other modes, is important and the topic has been added to the guidance.
    A commenter suggested that evaluation of passenger rail projects
for impact on livability, land use, and walkability would be too
detailed for a statewide level document describing projects at the
systems planning stage of development. Response: FRA has revised the
guidance to call for analysis of land use impacts only for those
projects that have reached the environmental analysis phase, with a
summary discussion of land use impacts required elsewhere.
    A commenter requested that FRA provide benefit-cost formulas for
use by States. Response: Currently, FRA does not have specific guidance
on benefit-cost analyses but may be able to provide technical
assistance upon request. However, the DOT Office of Inspector General
recently released a report highlighting best practices in conducting
rail benefits assessments, available at: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/OIG-HSR-Best-Practice-Public-Benefits-Report.pdf.
Additionally, benefit-cost guidance used for the TIGER grant program
can be used to structure a rail analysis: http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/TIGER%202013%20NOFA_BCA%20Guidance_0.pdf.
    A commenter requested more information on the list of performance
measures proposed in Appendix 1 for possible inclusion in Section 2.1.
Response: The guidance was not revised because the measures were listed
as optional information items offered for consideration, subject to
their availability.
    A commenter suggested that ridership information may not be
available from more than 5 years prior and proposed modifying the
request to apply to only the previous five years. Another commenter
noted that passenger train miles (adjusted for cancellations/
terminations) is typically available only from Amtrak. Another
commenter proposed that passenger mile data be provided on a route
basis. Response: FRA has revised the guidance to request data only for
only the past 5 years, with States encouraged to use data from earlier
years if they have it. The guidance also was revised to advise that
``general estimates'' of passenger mile data are acceptable for state-
supported services, with route-level data acceptable for long-distance
trains.
    A commenter expressed concern for the lack of intercity rail mode
share data, as required by the draft guidance for State rail plans.
Response: FRA has revised the guidance to require inclusion of mode
share data only if it is available, or able to be calculated, through
the use of existing information.
    A commenter suggested that commuter rail mode share be calculated
as commuter rail trips per total public transit trips. Response: FRA
has retained the definition given in the draft guidance in order to
provide a consistent measurement standard for all State rail plans.
Individual States may optionally choose additional measures and
alternative definitions of mode share if they wish.

Availability of Final Guidance

    Notice is hereby given that FRA has released final State Rail Plan
Guidance, which is available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0511. The
purpose of FRA's final State Rail Plan Guidance is to describe the
processes for the development, submission, and acceptance of State rail
plans. State rail plans are documents that are required under Section
303 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-22679 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36171-36174]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1079]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring
Safety Zones Update

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with requests for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending and updating its annual and
recurring safety zones that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Upper
Mississippi River area of responsibility (AOR). This regulation informs
the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety
measures through establishing a safety zone. Through this interim rule
the current list of recurring safety zones is updated with revisions,
additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place; and
we are requesting comments on additional changes necessary to update
the permanent list of recurring safety zones in Sector Upper
Mississippi River's AOR. When these safety zones are enforced, vessel
traffic is restricted from specified areas. Additionally, this one
rulemaking project serves to provide notice of the known recurring
safety zones throughout the year.

DATES: This rule is effective June 11, 2016. Comments and related
material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 27,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1079 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AOR Area of Responsibility
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
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

    On April 8, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River
Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update (81 FR 20592). There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period
that ended May 9, 2016, we received information from event sponsors
providing updated locations for 2 of the events listed in the NPRM.
Therefore, we are requesting comments through this interim rule related
to these two location changes before issuing a final rule. These
changes are discussed further below.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Though we are not
providing a full 30 day notice period, the Coast Guard did provide
notice and opportunity to comment through the NPRM process and is now
providing five days notice before the first updated recurring safety
zone enforcement is required the weekend of June 11-12. It is
impracticable to provide a full 30-days notice because this rule must
be effective June 11, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has
determined that potential hazards associated with the recurring events
will cause safety concerns. The purpose of this rule is to ensure
safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zones, before,
during, and after the scheduled events.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Interim Rule

    As noted above, during the comment period for our NPRM that
published April 8, 2016, we received information from event sponsors
updating the location for two events. This information lead to the need
to propose changes to the location details for two of the recurring
safety zones listed in the NPRM. Therefore, there are two new proposed
changes to the regulatory text of this rule that are different from the
proposed rule in the NPRM. The first corrects the location of event
number 14; Prairie du Chien Area Chamber Fireworks, taking place
annually on one day during the second weekend of July. The location
listed in the proposed rule was Upper Mississippi River mile marker
633.8 to 634.2; the correct location for this event is Upper
Mississippi River mile marker 635.2 to 635.7. The second corrects the
location of event number 31; Hermann 4th of July event taking place one
day over the 4th of July weekend. The location listed in the proposed
rule was Missouri River mile marker 99.0 to 98.0; the correct location
for this event is Missouri River mile marker 97.0 to 98.0.
    All other changes, removals, and additions proposed under the NPRM
remain the same as listed in the proposed rule. This interim rule
establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and
through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other
persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain
events taking place in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. This
interim rule amends, updates, and replaces Table 2 in 33 CFR 165.801,
and requests comments on two additional changes as discussed above
before issuing a final rule. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zones without first 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.

    This rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas
under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. The
effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because
these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the
public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the
Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able
to plan operations around the safety zones in advance. Deviation from
the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested
from the COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative
and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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
contact 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. If
you believe this 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. 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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 establishing safety zones limiting access to certain area
under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 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, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this interim rule or the preceding NPRM as
being available in the 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 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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.801 by revising Table 2 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.801  Annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth
Coast Guard District requiring safety zones.

* * * * *

           Table 2 of Sec.   165.801--Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Sector Upper
               Date                        Sponsor/name           Mississippi River           Safety zone
                                                                       location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1 day--4th weekend of July.....  Marketing Minneapolis LLC/  Minneapolis, MN......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Target Aquatennial                                 mile marker 853.2 to
                                     Fireworks.                                         854.2.
2. 1 day--4th of July weekend.....  Radio Dubuque/Radio         Dubuque, IA..........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Dubuque Fireworks and Air                          mile marker 581.0 to
                                     show.                                              583.0.
3. 1 day--2nd weekend of June.....  City of Champlin/Father     Champlin, MN.........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Hennepin Fireworks                                 mile marker 870.5 to
                                     Display.                                           872.0.
4. 1 day--4th of July weekend.....  Downtown Main Street/       Red Wing, MN.........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Mississippi Alumination.                           mile marker 790.8 to
                                                                                791.2.
5. 1 day--4th of July weekend.....  Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
                                     4th of July Fireworks.      MO.                    marker 025.8 to 026.2.
6. 1 day--1st weekend of September  Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
                                     Labor Day Fireworks.        MO.                    marker 025.8 to 026.2.
7. 1 day--Last Sunday in May......  Tan-Tar-A Resort/Tan-Tar-A  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
                                     Memorial Day fireworks.     MO.                    marker 025.8 to 026.2.
8. 1 day--4th of July weekend.....  Lake City Chamber of        Lake City, MN........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Commerce/Lake City 4th of                          mile marker 772.4 to
                                     July Fireworks.                                    772.8.
9. 1 day--4th of July weekend.....  Greater Muscatine Chamber   Muscatine, IA........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     of Commerce/Muscatine 4th                          mile marker 455.0 to
                                     of July.                                           456.0.
10. 1 day--Last weekend in June/    Friends of the River        Kansas City, KS......  Missouri River mile
 First weekend in July.              Kansas City/KC Riverfest.                          marker 364.8 to 365.2.
11. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Louisiana Chamber of        Louisiana, MO........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Commerce/Louisiana July                            mile marker 282.0 to
                                     4th Fireworks.                                     283.0.
12. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Guttenberg Development and  Guttenberg, IA.......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Tourism/Stars and Stripes                          mile marker 615.0 to
                                     River Day.                                         615.5.
13. 4 days--1st or 2nd week of      Riverfest, Inc./La Crosse   La Crosse, WI........  Upper Mississippi River
 July.                               Riverfest.                                         mile marker 697.5 to
                                                                                698.5 (Wisconsin).
14. 1 day--2nd weekend in July....  Prairie du Chien Area       Prairie du Chien, WI.  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Chamber of Commerce/                               mile marker 635.2 to
                                     Prairie du Chien Area                              635.7.
                                     Chamber Fireworks.
15. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  JMP Radio/Red White and     Peoria, IL...........  Illinois River mile
                                     Boom Peoria.                                       marker 162.5 to 162.1.
16. 1 day--Last weekend in June/    Hudson Boosters/Hudson      Hudson, WI...........  St. Croix River mile
 First weekend in July.              Booster Days.                                      marker 016.8 to 017.2.
17. 2 days--4th of July weekend...  City of St. Charles/St.     St. Charles, MO......  Missouri River mile
                                     Charles Riverfest.                                 marker 028.2 to 028.8.
18. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Minneapolis Park and        Minneapolis, MN......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Recreation Board/Red,                              mile marker 853.5 to
                                     White, and Boom                                    854.5.
                                     Minneapolis.
19. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Davenport One Chamber/Red   Davenport, IA........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     White and Boom.                                    mile marker 482.0 to
                                                                                482.7.
20. 2 days--3rd weekend of July...  Amelia Earhart Festival     Kansas City, KS......  Missouri River mile
                                     Committee/Amelia Earhart                           marker 422.0 to 424.5.
                                     Festival.
21. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Alton Exposition            Alton, IL............  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Commission/Mississippi                             mile marker 202.5 to
                                     Fireworks Festival.                                203.0.
22. 1 day--3rd Sunday in June.....  Burlington Steamboat Days/  Burlington, IA.......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Burlington Steamboat Days.                         mile marker 403.5 to
                                                                                404.5.
23. 1 day--Last Sunday in May.....  Lodge of the Four Seasons/  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
                                     Lodge of the Four Seasons   MO.                    marker 013.8 to 014.2.
                                     Memorial Day Fireworks.
24. 1 day--First weekend of         Lodge of the Four Seasons/  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
 September.                          Labor Day Fireworks.        MO.                    marker 013.8 to 014.2.
25. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Lodge of the Four Seasons/  Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
                                     Lodge of the Four Seasons   MO.                    marker 013.8 to 014.2.
                                     4th of July.
26. 2 days--3rd weekend in July...  Hasting Riverboat Days/     Hasting, MN..........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Rivertown Days.                                    mile marker 813.7 to
                                                                                815.2.

27. 1 day--Sunday of Father's Day   Winona Steamboat Days/      Winona, MN...........  Upper Mississippi River
 weekend.                            Winona Steamboat Days                              mile marker 725.4 to
                                     Fireworks.                                         725.7.
28. 3 days--4th of July weekend...  Fair of St. Louis/Fair St.  St. Louis, MO........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Louis.                                             mile marker 179.2 to
                                                                                180.0.
29. 1 day--Last weekend in June/    Bellevue Heritage Days/     Bellevue, IA.........  Upper Mississippi River
 First weekend in July.              Bellevue Heritage Days.                            mile marker 556.0 to
                                                                                556.5.
30. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Main Street Parkway         Parkville, MO........  Missouri River mile
                                     Association/Parkville 4th                          marker 378.0 to 377.5.
                                     of July Fireworks.
31. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Hermann Chamber of          Hermann, MO..........  Missouri River mile
                                     Commerce/Hermann 4th of                            marker 097.0 to 098.0
                                     July.                                              (Missouri).
32. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Grafton Chamber of          Grafton, IL..........  Illinois River mile
                                     Commerce/Grafton Chamber                           marker 001.5 to 000.5
                                     4th of July Fireworks.                             (Illinois).
33. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  Salute to America           Jefferson City, MO...  Missouri River mile
                                     Foundation, Inc./Salute                            marker 143.5 to 143.0
                                     to America.                                        (Missouri).
34. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  McGregor/Marquette Chamber  McGregor, IA.........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Commerce/Independence Day                          mile marker 635.7 to
                                     Celebration.                                       634.2.
35. 2 days--2nd weekend in August.  Tug Committee/Great River   Port Byron, IL.......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Tug.                                               mile marker 497.2 to
                                                                                497.6 (Illinois).
36. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  City of Stillwater/St.      Stillwater, MN.......  St. Croix River mile
                                     Croix Events/Stillwater                            marker 022.9 to 023.5
                                     4th of July.                                       (Minnesota).
37. 2 days--3rd weekend of          Riverside Chamber of        Riverside, MO........  Missouri River mile
 September.                          Commerce/Riverfest.                                marker 371.8 to 372.2.
38. 4 days--3rd week of July......  St. Croix Events/           Stillwater, MN.......  St. Croix River mile
                                     Lumberjack Days.                                   marker 022.9 to 023.5
                                                                                (Minnesota).
39. 2 days--Weekend that precedes   Lake of the Ozarks          Lake of the Ozarks,    Lake of the Ozarks mile
 Labor Day Weekend.                  Shootout, Inc./Lake of      MO.                    marker 032.5 to 034.5.
                                     the Ozarks Shootout.
40. 2 days--1st weekend of          City of Keithsburg/         Keithsburg, IL.......  Upper Mississippi River
 September.                          Keithsburg Fireworks                               mile marker 427.5 to
                                     Display.                                           427.3.
41. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  City of East Moline/City    East Moline, IA......  Upper Mississippi River
                                     of East Moline Fireworks.                          mile marker 490.2 to
                                                                                489.8.
42. 2nd Weekend in August.........  Lansing Lion's Club/        Lansing, IA..........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Lansing Fish Days                                  mile marker 662.8-663.9.
                                     Fireworks.
43. 3rd Weekend in August.........  River Action/Floatzilla...  Rock Island, Illinois  Upper Mississippi River
                                                                                mile marker 479.0-486.0.
44. 1 day--Weekend before           Main Street Parkway         Parkville, MO........  Missouri River mile
 Thanksgiving.                       Association/Parkville                              marker 377.5 to 378.0.
                                     Christmas on the River.
45. 2 days--A weekend in September  St. Louis Drag Boat         New Athens, IL.......  Kaskaskia River mile
                                     Association/New Athens                             marker 119.7 to 120.3.
                                     Drag Boat Race.
46. 1 day--4th of July weekend....  City of Marquette/          Marquette, IA........  Upper Mississippi River
                                     Marquette Independence                             mile marker 634.2 to
                                     Day Celebration.                                   635.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 26, 2016.
M.L. Malloy,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-13239 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P