[Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18989-18991]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ap05-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-009]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Seventh Coast Guard District
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing drawbridge operation regulations
for seven bascule bridges within the Seventh Coast Guard District. The
seven bascule bridges were removed and the regulations governing their
operation are no longer needed.
DATES: This rule is effective April 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents referred to in this rule are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Seventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida
33131, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is (305) 415-6743. The Seventh District
Bridge Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evelyn Smart, Bridge Branch, at (305)
415-6753.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Good Cause
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Public comment is not
necessary since the purpose of the affected regulations is to regulate
the opening and closing of bridges that have been removed. For the same
reasons under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The State of Florida (Department of Transportation) has removed
five bascule bridges, removing the need for their associated
regulations. The following bridges have been removed:
a. Brooks Memorial (SE 17th Street) bascule span bridge across the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1065.9 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida. (33 CFR 117.261(ii)
[[Page 18990]]
b. MacArthur Causeway bascule span bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.8 at Miami, Miami-Dade County,
Florida. (33 CFR 117.261(oo))
c. Fuller Warren (I10-I-95) bascule span bridge across the St.
Johns River, mile 25.4 at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. (33 CFR
117.325(b))
d. Vilano Beach (State Road A1A) bascule span bridge across the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 778 at Vilano Beach, Duval County,
Florida. (33 CFR 117.261(c))
e. Ringling Causeway (State Road 780) bascule span bridge across
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 73.6 at Sarasota, Sarasota County,
Florida. (33 CFR 117.287(c))
The regulations governing the operation of the above mentioned
bascule bridges are to be removed.
The County of Miami-Dade (Department of Public Works) constructed a
new bascule bridge of modern safe design to replace the then existing
West Venetian Causeway bascule bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 1088.6 at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
previous bascule span bridge was removed and the regulation governing
the operation of that bridge remains in 33 CFR 117.261(nn). The USCG is
removing 33 CFR 117.261(nn) from the Code of Federal Regulations as the
new bascule bridge opens upon signal as provided for in 33 CFR 117.5.
The State of South Carolina (Department of Transportation) has
constructed a new fixed bridge of modern safe design to replace the
then existing Maybank Highway bascule span bridge across the Stono
River, mile 11.0 at Johns Island, Charleston County, South Carolina.
The previous bascule span bridge that serviced the area was removed
even though the regulation governing the operation of that bridge still
remains at 33 CFR 117.937. The USCG is removing 33 CFR 117.937 from the
Code of Federal Regulations since the fixed bridge does not require a
bridge operating regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
This rule removes regulations that are obsolete because the bridges
they govern no longer exist.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will have no impact on any small entities because the
regulations being removed apply to bridges that no longer exist.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
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).
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).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
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 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.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not
[[Page 18991]]
require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction
an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
0
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; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Sec. 117.261 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 117.261, remove and reserve paragraphs (c), (ii), (nn) and
(oo).
Sec. 117.287 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 117.287, remove and reserve paragraph (c).
Sec. 117.325 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 117.325, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate paragraph (c)
as paragraph (b).
Sec. 117.937 [Removed]
0
5. Remove Sec. 117.937.
Dated: March 31, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 05-7325 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P