[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16294-16296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6876]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2011-0100]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Buffalo Bayou, Mile 4.3,
Houston, Harris County, TX
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the drawbridge across Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3, Houston,
Harris County, Texas. The bridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in
1991 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
DATES: This rule is effective March 23, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0100 and are available by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0100 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground
[[Page 16295]]
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Jim Wetherington, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard;
telephone 504-671-2128, e-mail [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
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 the drawbridge requiring draw
operations in 33 CFR 117.955(b), was removed and replaced with a fixed
span bridge in 1991. The bridge operator and those transiting in the
vicinity of this bridge have not been governed by the draw operations
since the bridge was removed and replaced. Therefore, the regulation is
no longer applicable and should be removed from publication.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date.
This rule removes the draw operations requirements under 33 CFR
117.955(b), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public.
Additionally, 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 bridge has been a fixed bridge
for 20 years and this rule only requires an administrative change to
the Federal Register, omitting a regulatory requirement that is no
longer applicable or necessary.
Basis and Purpose
The drawbridge across Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3, was removed and
replaced with a fixed bridge in 1991. The elimination of this
drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation
regulation pertaining to this drawbridge.
The regulation governing the operation of the bridge is found in 33
CFR 117.955(b). The purpose of this rule is to remove the section of 33
CFR 117.955 (b) that refers to the bridge at mile 4.3, from the Code of
Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to
be opened.
Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence without
publishing an NPRM. The change removes the section of the regulation
governing the bridge since the bridge has been replaced with a fixed
bridge. This change does not affect vessel operators using the
waterway. Thus, it is not necessary to publish an NPRM.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considers whether this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include (1) small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and (2) governmental jurisdictions with populations of less
than 50,000.
Since the drawbridge across the Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3 at Houston,
Texas, has been removed and replaced with a fixed bridge, the
regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer
needed. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this
rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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 (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.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause 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
[[Page 16296]]
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 Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and 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 this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not 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
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.
0
2. Revise Sec. 117.955 (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.955 Buffalo Bayou.
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the Union Pacific Rail Road Bridge, mile 3.1, need
not be opened to the passage of vessels.
Dated: March 10, 2011.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-6876 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P