Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI, 17324-17326 [2015-07318]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
17324
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
group’s limitations period to May 30 of Year
7 (by operation of sections 6213(a) and
6503(a)) have the derivative effect of
extending the period of limitations on
assessment of U’s transferee liability to May
30 of Year 8. By operation of section 6901(f),
the issuance of the notice of transferee
liability to U and the expiration of the 90-day
period for filing a petition in the Tax Court
have the effect of further extending the
limitations period on assessment of U’s
liability as a transferee by 150 days, from
May 30 of Year 8 to October 27 of Year 8.
Accordingly, the Commissioner may send a
notice of transferee liability to U at any time
on or before May 30 of Year 8 and assess the
unpaid liability against U at any time on or
before October 27 of Year 8. The result would
be the same even if S–1 ceased to exist before
March 1 of Year 5, the date P executed the
waiver.
Example 14. Consent to extend the statute
of limitations for a partnership where a
member of the consolidated group is a
partner of such partnership subject to the
provisions of the Code and the tax matters
partner is not a member of the group. (i)
Facts. P is the common parent and agent for
the P consolidated group consisting of P and
its two subsidiaries, S and S–1. The P group
has a November 30 fiscal year end and P files
consolidated returns for the P group for the
years ending November 30, Year 1 and
November 30, Year 2. S–1 is a partner in the
PRS partnership, which is subject to the
provisions of sections 6221 through 6234.
PRS has a calendar year end and A, an
individual, is the tax matters partner of the
PRS partnership. PRS files a partnership
return for the year ending December 31, Year
1. On January 10, Year 5, A, as the tax
matters partner for the PRS partnership,
executes a consent to extend the period for
assessment of partnership items of PRS for all
partners, and the Commissioner co-executes
the consent on the same day for the year
ending December 31, Year 1.
(ii) Analysis. A’s consent to extend the
statute of limitations for the partnership
items of PRS partnership for the year ending
December 31, Year 1, extends the statute of
limitations with respect to the partnership
items for all members of the P group,
including P, S, and S–1 for the consolidated
return year ending November 30, Year 2. This
is because S–1 is a partner in the PRS
partnership for which A, the tax matters
partner for the PRS partnership, consents,
pursuant to section 6229(b)(1)(B), to extend
the statute of limitations for the year ending
December 31, Year 1. However, under
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, such
agreement with respect to the statute of
limitations for the PRS partnership for the
year ending December 31, Year 1 does not
obviate the need to obtain a consent from P,
the agent for the P consolidated group, to
extend the statute of limitations for the P
consolidated group for the P group’s
consolidated return years ending November
30, Year 1 and November 30, Year 2
regarding any items other than partnership
items or affected items of the PRS
partnership.
Example 15. Contacting subsidiary member
in order to facilitate the conduct of an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
examination, appeal, or settlement where a
member of the consolidated group is a
partner of a partnership subject to the
provisions of the Code. (i) Facts. P is the
common parent and agent for the P
consolidated group consisting of P and its
two subsidiaries, S and S–1. The P group has
a November 30 fiscal year end, and P files
consolidated returns for the P group for the
years ending November 30, Year 1 and
November 30, Year 2. S–1 is a partner in the
PRS partnership, which is subject to the
provisions of sections 6221 through 6234.
PRS has a calendar year end and A, an
individual, is the tax matters partner of the
PRS partnership. PRS files a partnership
return for the year ending December 31, Year
1. The Commissioner, on January 10, Year 4,
in the course of an examination of the PRS
partnership for the year ending December 31,
Year 1, seeks to obtain information in the
course of that examination to resolve the
audit.
(ii) Analysis. Because the direct contact
with a subsidiary member of a consolidated
group that is a partner in a partnership
subject to the provisions under sections 6221
through 6234 may facilitate the conduct of an
examination, appeal, or settlement, the
Commissioner, under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of
this section, may communicate directly with
either S–1, P, or A regarding the PRS
partnership without breaking agency
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
However, if the Commissioner were instead
seeking to execute a settlement agreement
with respect to S–1 as a partner with respect
to its liability as a partner in PRS
partnership, P would need to execute such
settlement agreement for all members of the
group including the partner subsidiary.
(h) Cross-reference. For further rules
applicable to groups that include
insolvent financial institutions, see
§ 301.6402–7 of this chapter.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Effective/applicability date—(1) In
general. The rules of this section apply
to consolidated return years beginning
on or after April 1, 2015. For prior years
beginning before June 28, 2002, see
§ 1.1502–77A. For prior years beginning
on or after June 28, 2002, and before
April 1, 2015, see § 1.1502–77B.
(2) Application of this section to prior
years. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1)
of this section, an agent may apply the
rules of paragraph (c)(7) of this section
to resign as agent for a completed year
that began before April 1, 2015.
§ 1.1502–78
Par. 6. Section 1.1502–78 is amended
as follows:
■ 1. Paragraph (a) is amended by
removing every occurrence of the
language ‘‘(or substitute agent
designated under § 1.1502–77(d) for the
carryback year)’’ and adding ‘‘(or the
agent determined under § 1.1502–77(c)
or § 1.1502–77B(d) for the carryback
year)’’ in its place.
Frm 00018
PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
UNDER THE PAPERWORK
REDUCTION ACT
Par. 7. The authority citation for part
602 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Par. 8. In § 602.101, revise paragraph
(b) by adding an entry in numerical
order to the table to read as follows:
■
§ 602.101
*
OMB Control numbers.
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
CFR part or section where
identified and described
*
*
*
1.1502–77B ..........................
*
*
*
Current OMB
control No.
*
*
1545–1699
*
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: February 23, 2015.
Mark D. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2015–07182 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Amended]
■
PO 00000
2. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by
removing the language ‘‘(or substitute
agent designated under § 1.1502–77(d)
for the carryback year)’’ and adding ‘‘(or
the agent determined under § 1.1502–
77(c) or § 1.1502–77B(d) for the
carryback year)’’ in its place.
■ 3. Paragraph (c) is amended by
removing each occurrence of the
language ‘‘1966’’ and adding ‘‘2003’’ in
its place; removing the language ‘‘1967’’
and adding ‘‘2004’’ in its place;
removing each occurrence of the
language ‘‘1968’’ and adding ‘‘2005’’ in
its place; and removing each occurrence
of the language ‘‘1969’’ and adding
‘‘2006’’ in its place.
■
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0082]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The Coast Guard is removing
the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the S64 drawbridge across
Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, at
Ontonagon, Ontonagon County,
Michigan. The drawbridge was replaced
with a fixed bridge in 2006 and the
operating regulation is no longer
applicable or necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1,
2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this final
rule, [USCG–2015–0082] 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. Lee Soule, Bridge
Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone (216) 902–
6085, email lee.d.soule@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
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
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 S64
drawbridge, that once required draw
operations in 33 CFR 117.639, was
replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006.
Therefore, the regulation is no longer
applicable and shall be removed from
publication. It is unnecessary to publish
an NPRM because this regulatory action
does not purport to 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
days after publication in the Federal
Register. The bridge has been a fixed
bridge for 9 years 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
modification has already taken place
and the removal of the regulation will
not affect mariners currently operating
on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed
effective date is unnecessary.
B. Basis and Purpose
The S64 drawbridge across the
Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, was removed
and replaced with a fixed bridge in
2006. It has come to the attention of the
Coast Guard that the governing
regulation for this drawbridge was never
removed subsequent to the removal of
the drawbridge and completion of the
fixed bridge that replaced it. The
elimination of this drawbridge
necessitates the removal of the
drawbridge operation regulation, 33
CFR 117.639,that pertained to the
former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove
33 CFR 117.639 from the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) since it
governs a bridge that is no longer able
to be opened.
C. Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the
regulation in 33 CFR 117.639 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory
burden related to the draw operations
for this bridge that is no longer a
drawbridge. The change removes the
regulation governing the S64
drawbridge since the bridge has been
replaced with a fixed bridge. This Final
Rule seeks to update the CFR by
removing language that governs the
operation of the S64 drawbridge, which
in fact is no longer a drawbridge. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17325
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.
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.
This rule will have no effect on small
entities since this drawbridge has been
replaced with a fixed bridge and the
regulation governing draw operations
for this bridge 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.
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
17326
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 an 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,
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.
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
removing drawbridge operating
regulations. 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.
amendments regarding AIS. In that rule
there is an error in the definition of
Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) User and
one in the AIS applicability regulation.
This rule corrects those errors.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo,
Office of Navigation Systems (CG–NAV–
2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–
1563, email Jorge.Arroyo@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Viewing Documents Associated With
This Rule
To view the final rule published on
January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other
documents in the docket for this
rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number, USCG–2005–
21869, in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Open Docket
Folder’’ in the first item listed. Use the
following link to go directly to the
docket: www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869.
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.
§ 117.639
■
[Removed]
2. Remove § 117.639.
Dated: March 19, 2015.
F. M. Midgette,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard,
Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–07318 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 161 and 164
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
[Docket No. USCG–2005–21869]
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
AGENCY:
13. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Mar 31, 2015
Jkt 235001
RIN 1625–AA99
Vessel Requirements for Notices of
Arrival and Departure, and Automatic
Identification System
ACTION:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting amendments.
The Coast Guard published a
final rule in the Federal Register on
January 30, 2015, to expand the
applicability of notice of arrival and
automatic identification system (AIS)
requirements and make related
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Background
On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard
published a final rule to expand the
applicability of notice of arrival and
automatic identification system (AIS)
requirements and make related
amendments regarding AIS. 80 FR 5282.
We have identified two errors in this
correction document.
In the final rule, we revised the
definition of ‘‘VTS User’’ (Vessel Traffic
Service User) in 33 CFR 161.2. 80 FR
5334. Paragraph (3) of that definition
should only have included vessels
required to install and use a Coast
Guard type-approved AIS, instead the
definition included all vessels equipped
with a Coast Guard type-approved AIS
whether it is required or not. The
definition published in the final rule is
inconsistent with the discussion in the
preambles of both the NPRM and final
rule which encourage all vessel owners
to use AIS. 73 FR 76295, 76301,
December 16, 2008; and 80 FR 5311,
Jan. 30, 2015. The definition of ‘‘VTS
User’’ in the final rule is also
inconsistent with our authority to
impose VTS User requirements.
Also in the final rule at paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of 33 CFR 164.46, we omitted
the word ‘‘self-propelled’’ when
describing vessels certificated to carry
more than 150 passengers that are
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17324-17326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07318]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0082]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17325]]
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the S64 drawbridge across Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, at
Ontonagon, Ontonagon County, Michigan. The drawbridge was replaced with
a fixed bridge in 2006 and the operating regulation is no longer
applicable or necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2015-0082] 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. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone (216) 902-6085, email lee.d.soule@uscg.mil.
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call 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 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 S64 drawbridge, that once
required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.639, was replaced with a fixed
bridge in 2006. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and
shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM
because this regulatory action does not purport to 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 bridge has been a fixed bridge
for 9 years 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 modification has already taken
place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners
currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective
date is unnecessary.
B. Basis and Purpose
The S64 drawbridge across the Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, was
removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. It has come to the
attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this
drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the removal of the
drawbridge and completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. The
elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the
drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.639,that pertained to the
former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.639 from the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) since it governs a bridge that is no
longer able to be opened.
C. Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.639 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change
removes the regulation governing the S64 drawbridge since the bridge
has been replaced with a fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update
the CFR by removing language that governs the operation of the S64
drawbridge, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge. 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. 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.
This rule will have no effect on small entities since this
drawbridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge and the regulation
governing draw operations for this bridge 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.
[[Page 17326]]
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 an 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,
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 removing drawbridge operating
regulations. 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. 117.639 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 117.639.
Dated: March 19, 2015.
F. M. Midgette,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-07318 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
