Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Seventh Coast Guard District, 18989-18991 [05-7325]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18989-18991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7325]


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

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