[Federal Register: April 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20466-20467]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap05-4]
[[Page 20466]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD 11-05-025]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Napa River, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the draw of the Maxwell Highway Bridge, mile 17.6, near
Imola, CA. The drawbridge has been removed from the waterway.
Therefore, the regulation controlling the operation of the drawbridge
is no longer necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective April 20, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of the docket CGD 11-05-025, and are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Eleventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Section, Building 50-3, Coast Guard Island, Alameda,
CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone (510) 437-3516.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
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. The Maxwell Drawbridge has
been removed and replaced by a fixed, high-level bridge. Since the
drawbridge no longer exists, the operating schedule in 33 CFR
117.169(c) is no longer needed and is being removed.
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, because, as explained above, it
eliminates the governing regulation at 33 CFR 117.169(c) for a
drawbridge that has been removed from the waterway.
Background and Purpose
On February 4, 2002 the Coast Guard issued a permit for a fixed,
high-level bridge to replace the Maxwell Highway drawbridge, mile 17.6,
near Imola, CA. Land traffic has been shifted to the replacement bridge
and the drawbridge, governed by 33 CFR 117.169(c), has been removed.
Discussion of Rule
This final rule removes paragraph (c), regarding the Maxwell
Highway Drawbridge, from section 117.169.
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).
A special operating regulation exists for this drawbridge. This
drawbridge has been removed from the waterway, making the regulation
unnecessary. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
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, to remove an obsolete drawbridge regulation, will
have no impact on any small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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 the 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 cause 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
[[Page 20467]]
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 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. Paragraph (32)(e) excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of NEPA.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(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.
0
For the reasons set out 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(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Sec. 117.169 [Amended]
0
2. In section 117.169, remove paragraph (c).
Dated: April 11, 2005.
Kevin J. Eldridge,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 05-7897 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P