Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 70591 

§ 68.55(b)(3). If the Attorney General 

enters an order that modifies or vacates 

either the Chief Administrative Hearing 

Officer’s or the Administrative Law 

Judge’s order, the Attorney General’s 

order is the final agency order. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 68.52 by revising 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 68.52 Final order of the Administrative 

Law Judge. 

* * * * * 

(g) Final agency order. In a case 

arising under section 274A, 274B, or 

274C of the INA, the Administrative 

Law Judge’s order becomes the final 

agency order sixty (60) days after the 

date of entry of the Administrative Law 

Judge’s order, unless: 

(1) In a case arising under section 

274A or 274C of the INA, the Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer 

modifies, vacates, or remands the 

Administrative Law Judge’s final order 

pursuant to § 68.54; or 

(2) In a case arising under section 

274A, 274B, or 274C of the INA, the 

order is referred to the Attorney General 

pursuant to § 68.55. 

■ 4. Amend § 68.55 by revising the 

section heading, paragraph (a), and the 

first sentence of paragraph (c) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 68.55 Referral of cases arising under 

section 274A, 274B, or 274C to the Attorney 

General for review. 

(a) Referral of cases by direction of the 

Attorney General. The Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer shall 

promptly refer to the Attorney General 

for review any final order in cases 

arising under section 274A, 274B, or 

274C of the INA if the Attorney General 

so directs the Chief Administrative 

Hearing Officer. For cases arising under 

section 274A and 274C, the Attorney 

General may so direct the Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer within 

no more than thirty (30) days of the 

entry of a final order by the Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer 

modifying or vacating an Administrative 

Law Judge’s final order, or within no 

more than sixty (60) days of the entry 

of an Administrative Law Judge’s final 

order, if the Chief Administrative 

Hearing Officer does not modify or 

vacate the Administrative Law Judge’s 

final order. For cases arising under 

section 274B, the Attorney General may 

so direct the Chief Administrative 

Hearing Officer within no more than 

sixty (60) days of the entry of a final 

order by the Administrative Law Judge. 

When a final order is referred to the 

Attorney General in accordance with 

this paragraph (a), the Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer shall 

give the Administrative Law Judge and 

all parties a copy of the referral. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * When a final order of an 

Administrative Law Judge or the Chief 

Administrative Hearing Officer is 

referred to the Attorney General 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, 

or a referral is accepted in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 

Attorney General shall review the final 

order in accordance with the provisions 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 68.56 by revising the first 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 68.56 Judicial review of a final agency 

order in cases arising under section 274A 

or 274C. 

In cases arising under section 274A or 

274C of the INA, a person or entity 

adversely affected by a final agency 

order issued under § 68.52(c) or (e), 

§ 68.54(e), or § 68.55(d) may file, within 

forty-five (45) days after the date of the 

final agency order, a petition in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit for review of the 

final agency order. * * * 

■ 6. Revise § 68.57 to read as follows: 

§ 68.57 Judicial review of a final agency 

order in cases arising under section 274B. 

In cases arising under section 274B of 

the INA, any person aggrieved by a final 

agency order issued under § 68.52(d) or 

§ 68.55(d) may, within sixty (60) days 

after entry of the order, seek review of 

the final agency order in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the circuit in 

which the violation is alleged to have 

occurred or in which the employer 

resides or transacts business. If a final 

agency order is not appealed, the 

Special Counsel (or, if the Special 

Counsel fails to act, the person filing the 

charge, other than the Department of 

Homeland Security) may file a petition 

in the United States District Court for 

the district in which the violation that 

is the subject of the final agency order 

is alleged to have occurred, or in which 

the respondent resides or transacts 

business, requesting that the order be 

enforced. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22206 Filed 10–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2023–0113] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Cheboygan River at Cheboygan, MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is altering 

the operating schedule that governs the 

US 23 Highway Bridge, mile 0.92, across 

the Cheboygan River—Part of the Inland 

Route, at Cheboygan, Michigan. The 

Cheboygan County Road Commission 

requested we extend the winter advance 

notice for the bridge. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

13, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov. Type the docket 

number USCG–2023–0113 in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. In 

the Document Type column, select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Ninth Coast 

Guard District; telephone 216–902– 

6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 

1985 

MDNR Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources 

MDOT Michigan Department of 

Transportation 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On April 5, 2023, the Coast Guard 

published an NPRM titled Drawbridge 

Operation Regulation; Cheboygan River 

at Cheboygan, MI in the Federal 

Register (88 FR 20082) and posted it on 

Regulations.gov for 60-days to seek your 

comments on whether the Coast Guard 

should consider modifying the current 

operating schedule to the US 23 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
70592 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Highway Bridge, mile 0.92, across the 

Cheboygan River—Part of the Inland 

Route. No comments were received 

during the NPRM. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. 

The Cheboygan County Road 

Commission requested we extend the 

winter advance notice for the bridge due 

to ice coverage which continues beyond 

the period requiring advance notice as 

set forth in the prior rule. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

The Coast Guard provided a comment 

period of 60 days and no comments 

were received. 

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. 

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. 

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). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the ability that vessels can 

still transit the bridge given advanced 

notice. 

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 received no comments 

from the Small Business Administration 

on this rule. 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 V. A above, this rule 

will 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 section. 

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. 

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, 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 (NEPA) (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 rule 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges and is 

categorically excluded from further 

review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 

3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 

No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.627 to read as follows: 

§ 117.627 Cheboygan River 

The draw of the US 23 highway 

bridge, mile 0.9 at Cheboygan shall 

operate as follows: 

(a) From May 1 through November 

31— 

(1) Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 

11 p.m., the draw need only open from 

three minutes before to three minutes 

after the quarter-hour and three-quarter 

hour. 

(2) Between the hours of 11 p.m. and 

7 a.m., no drawtender is required to be 

at the bridge and the bridge need not 

open unless a request to open the draw 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 70593 

is given at least 2-hours in advance of 

a vessels intended time of passage 

through the draw. 

(b) From December 1 through April 

31, no drawtender is required to be at 

the bridge and the bridge need not open 

unless a request to open the draw is 

given at least 12-hours in advance of a 

vessels intended time of passage 

through the draw. 

(c) At all times, the draw shall open 

as soon as possible for the passage of 

vessels if carrying public safety or 

public utility vehicles and persons to or 

from the island. 

(d) The owner of the bridge shall 

provide and keep in good legible 

condition two board gauges painted 

white with black figures not less than 

six inches high to indicate the vertical 

clearance under the closed draw at all 

water levels. The gauges shall be placed 

on the bridge so that they are plainly 

visible to operators of vessels 

approaching the bridge either up or 

downstream. 

Jonathan Hickey, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22556 Filed 10–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2023–0838] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Saint Thomas, USVI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

navigable waters within a 0.25 nautical 

miles radius around the Motor Vessel 

(M/V) BONNIE G grounded near the 

coast of Saint Thomas, U.S.V.I. This 

action is necessary to protect personnel, 

vessels, and the marine environment 

from potential hazards created by the 

M/V BONNIE G grounding. Entry of 

vessels or persons into this zone is 

prohibited unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Juan. 

DATES: This temporary final rule is 

effective without actual notice from 

October 12, 2023 through October 20, 

2023. For the purposes of enforcement, 

actual notice will be used from October 

6, 2023 until October 12, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2023– 

0838 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, call 

or email Lieutenant Commander Carlos 

M. Ortega-Perez, Waterways 

Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 787–729–2380, email 

Carlos.M.Ortega-Perez@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary 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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this TFR because doing 

so would be impracticable. The M/V 

BONNIE G grounded near the coast of 

Saint Thomas, U.S.V.I, and immediate 

action is needed to respond to the 

potential safety hazards associated with 

the emergency response and salvage 

operations. It is impracticable to publish 

an NPRM because we must establish 

this safety zone by October 6, 2023. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be impracticable 

because immediate action is needed to 

respond to the potential safety hazards 

associated with the emergency response 

and salvage operations. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The 

Captain of the Port San Juan (COTP) has 

determined that there are potential 

hazards associated with the response 

and salvage operations regarding the M/ 

V BONNIE G grounding. There will be 

a safety concern for anyone within a 

0.25 nautical miles radius around the 

M/V BONNIE G grounded near the coast 

of Saint Thomas, U.S.V.I. This rule is 

needed to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment in the 

navigable waters within the safety zone 

during response and salvage operations. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a safety zone on 

certain waters of the Caribbean Sea off 

the coast of Saint Thomas, U.S.V.I. The 

safety zone will be enforced from 

October 6, 2023 through October 20, 

2023. The safety zone will cover all 

navigable waters within 0.25 nautical 

miles radius of 18°19′27′′ N 64°58′25′′ 

W, the current location of the M/V 

BONNIE G. The duration of the zone is 

intended to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment in these 

navigable waters while the Owning 

company of the vessel completes their 

salvage plan. 

No person or vessel will be permitted 

to enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the safety zone without 

first obtaining permission from the 

COTP or a designated representative. If 

authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the safety 

zone is granted by the COTP or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. The Coast Guard will 

provide notice of the safety zone by 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by 

on-scene designated representatives. 

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 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. 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Accordingly, this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1