Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Middle River, Near Discovery Bay, CA, 44494-44496 [2020-15385]

Download as PDF 44494 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and Professional Skills Needed to Comply The proposed amendments would repeal the Rule and would therefore not impose any recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements on any entities. Instead, the proposed repeal would eliminate the Rule’s disclosure and other compliance obligations for all small entities subject to the Rule. By direction of the Commission. April J. Tabor, Secretary. E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules The Commission has not identified any federal statutes, rules, or policies that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with proposed repeal of the Rule. [Docket No. USCG–2020–0137] F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Amendments The Commission is not aware of any significant alternatives that would further minimize the impact on small entities of the proposed repeal, but solicits comments on this approach. ACTION: VII. Paperwork Reduction Act The existing Rule contains various ‘‘collection of information’’ (e.g., disclosure) requirements for which the Commission has obtained OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has approved the Rule’s existing information collection requirements through May 31, 2021 (OMB Control No. 3084–013).112 The proposed rule contains no collections of information under the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Accordingly, there is no paperwork burden associated with the proposed rule. As discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on repealing the Rule and it is the Commission’s intention to rescind the associated information collection in connection with the proposed repeal. Accordingly, repeal of the Rule would eliminate the burdens imposed by the Rule’s disclosure requirements on manufacturers or importers of textile apparel. Proposed Regulatory Language jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS PART 423—[REMOVED] For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Commission proposes to remove 16 CFR part 423. 112 See 83 FR 15144 (Apr. 9, 2018). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Jul 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 BILLING CODE 6750–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Middle River, Near Discovery Bay, CA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the Woodward Island Bridge across Middle River, mile 11.8, near Discovery Bay, CA. The proposed operating schedule change will require the removable span to open for vessels engaged in emergency levee repairs. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 21, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2020–0137 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. SUMMARY: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510–437–3516, email Carl.T.Hausner@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423 Clothing, Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices. ■ [FR Doc. 2020–13919 Filed 7–22–20; 8:45 am] II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis On September 20, 2017 the U.S. Coast Guard issued San Joaquin County a permit to construct the new removable span Woodward Island Bridge across PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Middle River, mile 11.8, near Discovery Bay, CA. Construction was completed on January 23, 2020. The new bridge provides 30 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position, unlimited vertical clearance when the span is removed, and 83 feet of horizontal clearance, dolphin to dolphin, measured normal to the centerline of the channel. The opening requirement for the newly constructed Woodward Island Bridge over Middle River is currently governed by 33 CFR 117.5, which requires prompt and full opening for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given. A three-year navigational analysis of that portion of Middle River was conducted between 2000 and 2003. The results of the analysis indicated the newly constructed bridge would meet the reasonable needs of recreational vessels that normally use the waterway. Vessels which cannot transit the bridge in the closed position have an alternate route to reach the opposite side of the bridge. The Woodward Island Bridge was designed with a removable span to allow emergency vessels engaged in levee repair to request an opening when necessary. Since most recreational vessels can transit the new Woodward Island Bridge and there is an alternate route around the bridge, there is no need for an ‘‘open on demand’’ regulation as prescribed in 33 CFR 117.5. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the Woodward Island Bridge across Middle River, mile 11.8, near Discovery Bay, CA. This proposed rule change would implement regulations for the bridge to only open for vessels engaged in emergency levee repairs. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. 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 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 determination is based on the ability of vessels to still transit underneath the bridge while the removable span is in place. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. 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 proposed 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 section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Jul 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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 proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 44495 L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 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. V. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https:// www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website’s instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1 44496 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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; DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 117.171 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: ■ § 117.171 Middle River. * * * * * (c) The removable span of the Woodward Island Bridge, mile 11.8 near Discovery Bay, shall be removed as soon as possible upon notification by the District Commander that an emergency exists which requires its removal. (d) The California Route 4 Bridge, mile 15.1, between Victoria Island and Drexler Tract need not open for the passage of vessels. Dated: July 9, 2020. Joseph R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2020–15385 Filed 7–22–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0127; FRL–10012– 23–Region 9] Air Plan Approval; California; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: ACTION: Proposed rule. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the surface coating operations of plastic parts and products. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ‘‘Act’’) and we are proposing to approve a negative declaration for a subcategory of a control techniques guidelines (CTG) source in the SMAQMD. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 24, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0127 at https:// www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary SUMMARY: submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule and negative declaration did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule and negative declaration? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule? II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule and the negative declaration? B. Do the submissions meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule and negative declaration did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule and the negative declaration addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Local agency Rule No. Rule title SMAQMD ....... SMAQMD ....... 468 ........................ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products .............................................. Negative Declaration for ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, September 2008 (Pleasure Craft Coating Portion Only) (‘‘Pleasure Craft Coating Neg Dec’’). On August 23, 2018, the EPA determined that the submittal for SMAQMD Rule 468 and the Pleasure Craft Coating Neg Dec met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Jul 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 Adopted 03/22/2018 03/22/2018 Submitted 05/23/2018 6/11/2018 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.1 B. Are there other versions of this rule and negative declaration? 1 Letter from Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, stating fulfillment of completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, dated August 23, 2018. There are no previous versions of Rule 468 in the SIP. There are no previous versions of the Pleasure Craft Neg Dec in the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP for the 1997, 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44494-44496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15385]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0137]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Middle River, Near Discovery 
Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that 
governs the Woodward Island Bridge across Middle River, mile 11.8, near 
Discovery Bay, CA. The proposed operating schedule change will require 
the removable span to open for vessels engaged in emergency levee 
repairs. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before October 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0137 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
proposed rulemaking, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge 
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On September 20, 2017 the U.S. Coast Guard issued San Joaquin 
County a permit to construct the new removable span Woodward Island 
Bridge across Middle River, mile 11.8, near Discovery Bay, CA. 
Construction was completed on January 23, 2020. The new bridge provides 
30 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position, 
unlimited vertical clearance when the span is removed, and 83 feet of 
horizontal clearance, dolphin to dolphin, measured normal to the 
centerline of the channel. The opening requirement for the newly 
constructed Woodward Island Bridge over Middle River is currently 
governed by 33 CFR 117.5, which requires prompt and full opening for 
the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given.
    A three-year navigational analysis of that portion of Middle River 
was conducted between 2000 and 2003. The results of the analysis 
indicated the newly constructed bridge would meet the reasonable needs 
of recreational vessels that normally use the waterway. Vessels which 
cannot transit the bridge in the closed position have an alternate 
route to reach the opposite side of the bridge.
    The Woodward Island Bridge was designed with a removable span to 
allow emergency vessels engaged in levee repair to request an opening 
when necessary. Since most recreational vessels can transit the new 
Woodward Island Bridge and there is an alternate route around the 
bridge, there is no need for an ``open on demand'' regulation as 
prescribed in 33 CFR 117.5.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that 
governs the Woodward Island Bridge across Middle River, mile 11.8, near 
Discovery Bay, CA. This proposed rule change would implement 
regulations for the bridge to only open for vessels engaged in 
emergency levee repairs. The regulatory text we are proposing appears 
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss 
First Amendment rights of protestors.

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

[[Page 44495]]

budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 
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 determination is based on the ability of 
vessels to still transit underneath the bridge while the removable span 
is in place.

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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact 
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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 
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments) because it would 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. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule will not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast 
Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions 
that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 
the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating 
regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 
categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49 of 
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum 
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and 
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System 
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's 
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up 
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a 
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.


[[Page 44496]]


    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 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; DHS Delegation No. 
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.171 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.171   Middle River.

* * * * *
    (c) The removable span of the Woodward Island Bridge, mile 11.8 
near Discovery Bay, shall be removed as soon as possible upon 
notification by the District Commander that an emergency exists which 
requires its removal.
    (d) The California Route 4 Bridge, mile 15.1, between Victoria 
Island and Drexler Tract need not open for the passage of vessels.

    Dated: July 9, 2020.
Joseph R. Buzzella,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2020-15385 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.