Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wolf River, Winneconne, WI, 65298-65300 [2019-25616]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65298
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
130. These regulations are effective
January 27, 2020. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
Issued: November 21, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
Note: Appendix A will not be
published in the Federal Register.
Appendix A—List of Commenters
Short name
Commenter
APPA ...............................................
AMP ................................................
Avista ..............................................
DEMEC ...........................................
EEI ..................................................
Eversource ......................................
FirstEnergy ......................................
American Public Power Association.
American Municipal Power, Inc.
Avista Corporation.
Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc.
Edison Electric Institute.
Eversource Energy Service Company.
FirstEnergy Service Company filing on behalf of its affiliates American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, West Penn
Power Company, the Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, and Trans-Allegheny
Interstate Line Company.
Electricity Consumers Resource Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, and the American
Chemistry Council.
Ameren Services Company, as agent for Union Electric Company and Ameren Illinois Company; American
Transmission Company LLC; Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; City Water, Light & Power
(Springfield, IL); Cleco Power LLC; Cooperative Energy; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Duke Energy
Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; East Texas Electric Cooperative; Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Entergy Mississippi, Inc.; Entergy New Orleans, LLC; Entergy Texas,
Inc.; Great River Energy; Indiana Municipal Power Agency; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; International Transmission Company; ITC Midwest LLC; Lafayette Utilities System; Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC; MidAmerican Energy Company; Minnesota Power (and its subsidiary Superior
Water, L&P); Missouri River Energy Services; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Northern Indiana Public
Service Company LLC; Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, and Northern States
Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc.; Northwestern Wisconsin
Electric Company; Otter Tail Power Company; Prairie Power Inc.; Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company; Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.; and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
The Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, CA.
Transmission Access Policy Study Group.
Xcel Energy Services Inc., on behalf of the Xcel Energy Operating Companies including Northern States
Power Company; Northern States Power Company; Public Service Company of Colorado; and Southwestern Public Service Company.
Industrial Customers .......................
MISO Transmission Owners ...........
NRECA ............................................
PSEG ..............................................
Six Cities .........................................
TAPS ...............................................
Xcel .................................................
[FR Doc. 2019–25724 Filed 11–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2019–0823]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Wolf River, Winneconne, WI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is removing
the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the Winneconne Highway
Bridge, mile 2.4, at Winneconne, WI.
The drawbridge was replaced with a
fixed bridge through the Coast Guard
Bridge Permitting and Public Notice
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:24 Nov 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
Process in 2018 and the operating
regulation is no longer applicable or
necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective November
27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Type USCG–
2019–0823 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and
click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations [Delete/add
any Abbreviations not Used/Used in
This Document]
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
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 because on
December 13, 2016, we published
PUBLIC NOTICE 09–04–16 and mailed
out an availability of public notice
addressed to all adjacent ZIP codes and
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
interested parties as part of the bridge
permit public notice and comment
process. The comment process was open
for 30-days. We did not receive any
negative comments on this rule.
We are issuing this rule 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
fixed bridge is inplace and the
drawbridge has been removed to the
satisfaction of the District Commander.
This is an administrative action to
update the CFR.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
Winneconne Highway Bridge, mile
2.4, at Winneconne, WI was a vertical
lift drawbridge that provided 23 feet
vertical clearance in the open position.
The new Fixed Bridge provides the
same 23 feet vertical clearance the
drawbridge provided.
IV. Discussion of Final Rule
The Coast Guard is removing the
operational schedule of the former
drawbridge because it has been replaced
by a new fixed bridge that allow vessels
to pass under the bridge without the
need to wait for an opening.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protesters.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This rule has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action was supported
by a public notice process and the
public was given the opportunity to
participate in the planning of the bridge
replacement. We are now updating the
CFR to reflect the current condition of
the waterway.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:24 Nov 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. The term
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
This regulatory action determination is
based on the ability that vessels can still
transit the bridge and that the public
was engaged in this decision through
the Coast Guard Bridge Permit process
and public notice procedures. The Coast
Guard received no comments from the
Small Business Administration durring
the bridge permitting process. The Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above this final
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this rule. If the rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65299
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Government
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
The public was engaged in this
decision through the Coast Guard Bridge
Permit process and public notice
procedures.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01, U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). We
have made a determination 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 is removing the
operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This action is categorically
excluded from further review, under
paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3–1
of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
65300
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Neither a Record of Environmental
Consideration nor a Memorandum for
the Record are required for this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
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.
§ 117.1107
[Amended]
2. In § 117.1107, remove paragraph
(a), and remove the paragraph (b)
designation.
■
Dated: November 19, 2019.
D.L. Cottrell,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019–25616 Filed 11–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2019–OPEPD–0019]
RIN 1875–AA12
Final Priority for Discretionary Grant
Programs
Department of Education.
Final priority.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Secretary of Education
announces a priority for discretionary
grant programs that supports alignment
between the Department of Education’s
(the Department’s) discretionary grant
investments and the Administration’s
Opportunity Zones initiative, which
aims to spur economic development and
job creation in distressed communities.
DATES: This priority is effective
December 27, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allison Holte, U.S. Department of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:24 Nov 26, 2019
Jkt 250001
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 4W211, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205–7726.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–
3.
We published a notice of proposed
priority in the Federal Register on July
29, 2019 (84 FR 36504) (NPP). The NPP
contained background information and
our reasons for proposing the priority.
There are no differences between the
proposed priority and the final priority.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 11 parties
submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address
comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments
Comment: Two commenters
expressed general support for the
priority, and shared information about
the needs of specific Qualified
Opportunity Zones. A third commenter
expressed support and recommended
that we revise the language to prioritize
applicants who propose to strengthen
the workforce talent pipeline within the
Qualified Opportunity Zone, promote
partnerships with other local
stakeholders, and build capacity among
local leaders and practitioners.
Discussion: We appreciate these
comments and encourage all eligible
organizations—located in or serving a
Qualified Opportunity Zone—to apply
for grants under competitions that use
this priority in the future. This
document does not solicit grants.
In addition, we appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion to revise the
priority to include a focus on specific
policy goals. We agree that the
commenter’s suggested policies are
important but decline to revise this
priority to include them. Our intent for
this priority is to drive grant funds
toward Qualified Opportunity Zones
and to encourage applicants to think
creatively about how to make use of
Qualified Opportunity Funds, where
possible, to support their proposed
projects. The goals and content of an
applicant’s proposed project will
depend in large part on the statute and
regulations governing the grant program
to which it is applying, as well as any
of the Secretary’s Supplemental
Priorities (83 FR 9096) we may choose
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to include in the grant competition. For
that reason, including additional
requirements in this priority is neither
necessary nor appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters raised
concerns about how the Department
would practically apply the priority in
a grant competition. One commenter
cautioned the Department not to require
applicants to be physically located in a
Qualified Opportunity Zone, because
many organizations provide services in
a Qualified Opportunity Zone but have
offices in a nearby community. Another
commenter expressed concern that the
priority would not require applicants to
explain the work they propose to do in
a Qualified Opportunity Zone, where
they would conduct their work, or why.
A third commenter expressed general
support for the broad Opportunity
Zones initiative but urged the
Department to exercise caution when
determining whether to use the priority
as an absolute, competitive preference,
or invitational priority. The commenter
recommended specifically that we not
use the priority as an absolute priority,
and only use it as a competitive
preference priority after very careful
consideration of its potential impact.
Discussion: The priority’s flexible
structure is specifically designed to
allow the Department to address, in the
broader context of specific discretionary
grant competitions in which the priority
may be used, each of the concerns
raised by the commenters. In particular,
the Department may choose to use all or
a subset of the provisions contained in
the priority in any discretionary grant
competition. For example, the
Department may choose not to use
paragraph (b) (for applicants that can
demonstrate that they are physically
located in a Qualified Opportunity
Zone) in a grant competition if we
determine that physical co-location of
an applicant within a Qualified
Opportunity Zone is not necessary for
achieving the goals of that competition.
In addition, while each of the
subparts do not specifically require
applicants to explain the work they
propose to do, and paragraph (b) does
not specifically require applicants to tell
us where they will conduct their
projects, we remind commenters that
this priority will be used in the context
of our discretionary grant programs. The
activities an applicant proposes to carry
out, either directly or through a contract
or subgrant, in response to this priority
would still be limited to those permitted
by that grant program’s statute and
regulations. In addition to any
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements, we include in each notice
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65298-65300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25616]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2019-0823]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wolf River, Winneconne, WI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the Winneconne Highway Bridge, mile 2.4, at Winneconne,
WI. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge through the Coast
Guard Bridge Permitting and Public Notice Process in 2018 and the
operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective November 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2019-0823 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.
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 [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations [Delete/add any Abbreviations not Used/Used
in This Document]
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
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 because on December 13, 2016, we
published PUBLIC NOTICE 09-04-16 and mailed out an availability of
public notice addressed to all adjacent ZIP codes and
[[Page 65299]]
interested parties as part of the bridge permit public notice and
comment process. The comment process was open for 30-days. We did not
receive any negative comments on this rule.
We are issuing this rule 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 fixed
bridge is inplace and the drawbridge has been removed to the
satisfaction of the District Commander. This is an administrative
action to update the CFR.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
Winneconne Highway Bridge, mile 2.4, at Winneconne, WI was a
vertical lift drawbridge that provided 23 feet vertical clearance in
the open position. The new Fixed Bridge provides the same 23 feet
vertical clearance the drawbridge provided.
IV. Discussion of Final Rule
The Coast Guard is removing the operational schedule of the former
drawbridge because it has been replaced by a new fixed bridge that
allow vessels to pass under the bridge without the need to wait for an
opening.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action was supported by a public notice process and
the public was given the opportunity to participate in the planning of
the bridge replacement. We are now updating the CFR to reflect the
current condition of the waterway.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability
that vessels can still transit the bridge and that the public was
engaged in this decision through the Coast Guard Bridge Permit process
and public notice procedures. The Coast Guard received no comments from
the Small Business Administration durring the bridge permitting
process. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The public was engaged in this decision through the Coast Guard
Bridge Permit process and public notice procedures.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures (series) which guide the Coast Guard
in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have made a determination 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 is removing the operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review,
under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
[[Page 65300]]
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
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. 117.1107 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 117.1107, remove paragraph (a), and remove the paragraph
(b) designation.
Dated: November 19, 2019.
D.L. Cottrell,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-25616 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
