Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Perth Amboy, New Jersey, 45419-45421 [2015-18772]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45419
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
10. Protection of Children
13. Technical Standards
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
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.
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
14. 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
(NEPA) (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
establishment of marine event special
local regulations on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay. This rule 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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233
2. In § 100.1101, in Table 1 to
§ 100.1101, suspend item ‘‘15’’ and add
temporary item ‘‘19’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 100.1101 Southern California Annual
Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of
the Port Zone.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 TO § 100.110
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
19. San Diego Maritime Museum Tall Ship Festival of Sail
Sponsor ....................................................
Event Description .....................................
Date .........................................................
Location ...................................................
Regulated Area ........................................
Dated: July 16, 2015.
J.S. Spaner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2015–18764 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
San Diego Maritime Museum.
Tall ship festival.
September 4 through September 7, 2015.
San Diego Bay, CA.
The waters of San Diego Bay Harbor.
The Coast Guard is removing
the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the drawbridges at State
Street Bridge, mile 0.5, and the Railroad
Bridge, mile 0.6, across Woodbridge
Creek at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The
State Street Bridge was replaced with a
fixed bridge in 1992. The Railroad
Bridge was converted to a fixed bridge
in 1970. The operating regulation is no
longer applicable or necessary.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
This rule is effective July 30,
2015.
33 CFR Part 117
The docket for this final
rule, [USCG–2015–0374] is available at
https://www.regulations.gov. Type the
docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box
and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated
with this final rule. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West
ADDRESSES:
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0374]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Jul 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch, telephone 212–514–4336, email
joe.m.arca@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Regulatory History and Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final
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
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
45420
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because the State
Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge,
that once required draw operations in
33 CFR 117.761, were replaced by fixed
bridges in 1992 and 1970, respectively.
Therefore, the regulation is no longer
applicable and shall be removed. It is
unnecessary to publish an NPRM
because this regulatory action does not
place any restrictions on mariners but
rather removes a restriction that has no
further use or value.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective in less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. The bridges have been a fixed
bridge for 23 and 45 years, respectively,
and this rule merely requires an
administrative change to the Federal
Register, in order to omit a regulatory
requirement that is no longer applicable
or necessary. The modifications have
already taken place and the removal of
these regulations will not affect
mariners currently operating on this
waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective
date is unnecessary.
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Basis and Purpose
The State Street Bridge across
Woodbridge Creek, mile 0.5, was
removed and replaced in 1992 with a
fixed bridge. The Railroad Bridge, mile
0.6, was converted to a fixed bridge in
1970. It has come to the attention of the
Coast Guard that the governing
regulation for these drawbridges were
not removed subsequent to the
replacement and conversion of these
bridges. The elimination of these
drawbridges necessitates the removal of
the drawbridge operation regulation, 33
CFR 117.761, pertaining to the former
drawbridges.
The purpose of this rule is to remove
the paragraph of 33 CFR 117.761 that
refers to the State Street Bridge and the
Railroad Bridge at mile 0.5 and mile 0.6,
respectively, from the Code of Federal
Regulations because it governs bridges
that no longer open.
C. Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the
regulation in 33 CFR 117.761 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory
burden related to the draw operations
for these bridges that are no longer
drawbridges. The change removes the
section 117.761 of the regulation which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Jul 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
governs the State Street Bridge and the
Railroad Bridge. This Final Rule seeks
to update the Code of Federal
Regulations by removing language that
governs the operation of the State Street
Bridge and the Railroad Bridge, which
are in fact no longer drawbridges. This
change does not affect waterway or land
traffic.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive
orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The
Office of Management and Budget has
not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard does not consider
this rule to be ‘‘significant’’ under that
Order because it is an administrative
change and does not affect the way
vessels operate on the waterway.
2. Impact on Small Entities
4. Federalism
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 does not have
implications for federalism.
5. 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.
6. 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 expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
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.
This rule will have no effect on small
entities since these drawbridges have
been replaced, converted with fixed
bridges and the regulation governing
draw operations for these bridges is no
longer applicable. There is no new
restriction or regulation being imposed
by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
7. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
3. Collection of Information
10. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
9. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
11. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
13. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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 the
removal of a drawbridge operation
regulation that is no longer necessary.
This rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (32) (e), of
the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 117.761
■
[Removed]
2. Remove § 117.761.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–18772 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Jul 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 75
Final Waiver and Extension of the
Project Period; National Interpreter
Education Center for the Training of
Interpreters for Individuals Who Are
Deaf or Hard of Hearing and
Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind
[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.160B]
Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA), Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final waiver and extension of
the project period.
AGENCY:
The Secretary waives the
requirements that generally prohibit
project periods exceeding five years and
extensions of project periods involving
the obligation of additional Federal
funds for a 60-month project initially
funded in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The
Secretary also extends the project period
for this project for one year. This waiver
and extension enables the currently
funded National Interpreter Education
Center for the training of interpreters for
individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing and individuals who are deafblind (National Center) to receive
funding through September 30, 2016.
DATES: The extension of the project
period and waiver are effective July 30,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 5027, Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–
2800. Telephone: (202) 245–6103 or by
email: Kristen.Rhinehart@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf or a text telephone,
call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free,
at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
17, 2015, the Department published a
notice in the Federal Register (80 FR
21196) proposing an extension of
project period and a waiver of 34 CFR
75.250 and 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2)
(proposed waiver and extension) in
order to—
(1) Enable the Secretary to provide
additional funds to the National Center
for an additional 12-month period, from
September 30, 2015, through September
30, 2016; and
(2) Invite comments on the proposed
waiver and extension.
There are no substantive differences
between the proposed waiver and
extension and this final waiver and
extension.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45421
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the proposed waiver and
extension, one party submitted
comments.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments received in
response to the proposed waiver and
extension and of any changes in the
waiver and extension since publication
of the proposed waiver and extension
follows.
Comment: One commenter supported
extending the National Center’s project
period for one year to avoid the loss of
the invaluable assistance provided to
the Regional Centers and the deaf
consumers whom they support.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support.
Changes: None.
Final Waiver and Extension
In the proposed waiver and extension,
we discuss the background and
purposes of the National Center and our
reasons for proposing the waiver and
extension. For the reasons discussed
there, we conclude that it would be
contrary to the public interest to have a
lapse in the provision of the training
currently provided by the National
Center. Allowing funding to lapse before
a new interpreter education delivery
system can be implemented would leave
individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing and individuals who are deafblind without necessary supports in the
event that critical needs arise.
The Secretary waives the
requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which
prohibit project periods exceeding five
years, and the requirements in 34 CFR
75.261(c)(2), which limit the extension
of a project period if the extension
involves the obligation of additional
Federal funds. This will allow the
current National Center to request and
continue to receive Federal funding
through September 30, 2016. With this
waiver and extension of the project
period, the National Center will be
required to develop a plan to
demonstrate how it will continue to
carry out activities during the year of
the continuation award consistent with
the scope, goals, and objectives of the
grantee’s application as approved in the
2010 competition. This plan must be
submitted to RSA for review and
approval by September 1, 2015.
Waiver of Delayed Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
requires that a substantive rule must be
published at least 30 days before its
effective date, except as otherwise
provided for good cause (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3)). We have not made any
substantive changes to the proposed
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45419-45421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0374]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Perth Amboy, New Jersey
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the drawbridges at State Street Bridge, mile 0.5, and
the Railroad Bridge, mile 0.6, across Woodbridge Creek at Perth Amboy,
New Jersey. The State Street Bridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in
1992. The Railroad Bridge was converted to a fixed bridge in 1970. The
operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective July 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2015-0374] is
available at https://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this final rule. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, telephone 212-514-4336, email
joe.m.arca@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Regulatory History and Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final 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
[[Page 45420]]
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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule
because the State Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge, that once
required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.761, were replaced by fixed
bridges in 1992 and 1970, respectively. Therefore, the regulation is no
longer applicable and shall be removed. It is unnecessary to publish an
NPRM because this regulatory action does not place any restrictions on
mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or
value.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The bridges have been a fixed
bridge for 23 and 45 years, respectively, and this rule merely requires
an administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a
regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The
modifications have already taken place and the removal of these
regulations will not affect mariners currently operating on this
waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
B. Basis and Purpose
The State Street Bridge across Woodbridge Creek, mile 0.5, was
removed and replaced in 1992 with a fixed bridge. The Railroad Bridge,
mile 0.6, was converted to a fixed bridge in 1970. It has come to the
attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for these
drawbridges were not removed subsequent to the replacement and
conversion of these bridges. The elimination of these drawbridges
necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR
117.761, pertaining to the former drawbridges.
The purpose of this rule is to remove the paragraph of 33 CFR
117.761 that refers to the State Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge
at mile 0.5 and mile 0.6, respectively, from the Code of Federal
Regulations because it governs bridges that no longer open.
C. Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.761 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for these bridges that are no longer drawbridges. The change
removes the section 117.761 of the regulation which governs the State
Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update
the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that governs the
operation of the State Street Bridge and the Railroad Bridge, which are
in fact no longer drawbridges. This change does not affect waterway or
land traffic.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.
2. 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.
This rule will have no effect on small entities since these
drawbridges have been replaced, converted with fixed bridges and the
regulation governing draw operations for these bridges is no longer
applicable. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by
this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
3. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
4. Federalism
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 does not have implications for federalism.
5. 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.
6. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.
7. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
8. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
9. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
10. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
[[Page 45421]]
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.
11. Energy Effects
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
13. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded
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 the removal of a drawbridge operation
regulation that is no longer necessary. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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.
Sec. 117.761 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 117.761.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-18772 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
