Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI, 17324-17326 [2015-07318]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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