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

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Oregon: Motor Vehicles Division, 1905 Lana Avenue, NE., Salem, OR 97314, (503) 378–6903. Pennsylvania: Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Transportation and Safety Bldg., Harrisburg, PA 17122, (717) 787–3130. Rhode Island: Department of Motor Vehicles, State Office Building, Providence, RI 02903, (401) 277–6900. South Carolina: Motor Vehicle Division, P.O. Drawer 1498, Columbia, SC 29216, (803) 758–5821. South Dakota: Division of Motor Vehicles, 118 W. Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, (605) 773–3501. Tennessee: Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, 500 Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37242, (615) 741–1786. Texas: Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, 40th and Jackson Avenue, Austin, TX 78779, (512) 475–7686. Utah: Motor Vehicle Division State Fairgrounds, 1095 Motor Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 533–5311. Vermont: Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Montpelier, VT 05603, (802) 828–2014. Virginia: Department of Motor Vehicles, 2300 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23220, (804) 257–1855. Washington: Department of Licensing, Highways-Licenses Building, Olympia, WA 98504, (206) 753–6975. West Virginia: Department of Motor Vehicles, 1800 Washington Street, East, Charleston, WV 25317, (304) 348–2719. Wisconsin: Department of Transportation Reciprocity and Permits, P.O. Box 7908, Madison, WI 53707, (608) 266–2585. Wyoming: Department of Revenue, Policy Division, 122 W. 25th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002, (307) 777– 5273. Guam: Deputy Director, Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, Agana, Guam 96910, (no phone number available). Puerto Rico: Department of Transportation and Public Works, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, P.O. Box 41243, Minillas Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico 00940, (809) 722–2823. [FR Doc. 05–7165 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710–08–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07–05–009] [CGD01–05–032] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English Kills, and Their Tributaries, NY AGENCY: 16:58 Apr 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. ACTION: SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, mile 3.4, across English Kills at New York City, New York. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position from April 27, 2005 through April 29, 2005. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation is effective from April 27, 2005 through April 29, 2005. DATES: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668–7195. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(e). The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate rehabilitation repairs at the bridge. The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform these repairs. Under this temporary deviation the NYCDOT Metropolitan Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position from April 27, 2005 through April 29, 2005. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: April 5, 2005. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 05–7327 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Seventh Coast Guard District Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate jul<14>2003 18989 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. 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: ADDRESSES: 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) E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1 18990 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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). VerDate jul<14>2003 16:58 Apr 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 117 as follows: I PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows: I 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. § 117.261 [Amended] 2. In § 117.261, remove and reserve paragraphs (c), (ii), (nn) and (oo). I VerDate jul<14>2003 16:58 Apr 11, 2005 Jkt 205001 § 117.287 [Amended] 3. In § 117.287, remove and reserve paragraph (c). I § 117.325 [Amended] 4. In § 117.325, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). I § 117.937 I [Removed] 5. Remove § 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [R04–OAR–2004–GA–0002–200504(a); FRL– 7898–5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: Approval of Revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on December 18, 2003. These revisions pertain to rules for Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M). These revisions were the subject of a public hearing held on November 5, 2003, adopted by the Board of Natural Resources on December 3, 2003, and became State effective on December 25, 2003. DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 13, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 12, 2005. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R04–OAR–2004– GA–0002, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Agency Web site: http:// docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA’s PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18991 electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 3. E-mail: martin.scott@epa.gov. 4. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 5. Mail: ‘‘R04–OAR–2004–GA–0002’’, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Scott M. Martin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R04–OAR–2004–GA–0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA RME website and the federal regulations.gov website are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1

Agencies

[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