Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wolf River, Winneconne, WI, 65298-65300 [2019-25616]

Download as PDF 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 Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Federal Register.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 http:// 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 http://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