Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Ouachita River, LA, 59013-59014 [E7-20602]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Federal Register, where practicable. Dated: October 9, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 07–5155 Filed 10–15–07; 4:19 pm] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard For the same reason, 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. Background and Purpose On May 31, 2001 the Coast Guard issued a permit, later amended on March 20, 2006, for a fixed, high-level bridge to replace the U.S. 165 bridge, mile 110.1, on the Ouachita River at Columbia, LA. Land traffic has been shifted to the replacement bridge and the drawbridge, governed by 33 CFR 117.483, has been removed from the waterway. 33 CFR Part 117 Discussion of Rule [CGD08–07–020] This final rule amends 33 CFR 117.483 by removing the regulations covering U.S. 165 bridge, mile 110.1 at Columbia, as that bridge has been removed from the waterway. RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Ouachita River, LA Regulatory Evaluation Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the U.S. 165 bridge, mile 110.1, on the Ouachita River at Columbia, Louisiana. 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 October 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 2.107f, in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103–2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator (314) 269–2378. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES 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 U.S. 165 bridge was removed from the waterway and replaced by a fixed highlevel bridge. Since the drawbridge no longer exists, the operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.483 for this bridge is no longer needed and is being removed. Notice and comment on this action is not necessary, as there is no need for the regulation to exist any longer. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:36 Oct 17, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 was established for the drawbridge. This drawbridge has been removed from the waterway, making the regulation unnecessary. Vessel traffic can continue to pass under the new fixed bridge without interference. Therefore, 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 proposed 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 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59013 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 want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they may 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. E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM 18OCR1 59014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 201 / Thursday, October 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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 require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:36 Oct 17, 2007 Jkt 214001 This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Environment [EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0912; FRL–8483–3] We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this regulation alters the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls within this exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Transportation Conformity 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. I 2. Revise § 117.483 to read as follows: § 117.483 Ouachita River. The draw of the S8 Bridge, mile 57.5, at Harrisonburg, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given. Dated: September 18, 2007. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–20602 Filed 10–17–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Kansas City and St. Louis portions of the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision consists of transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 17, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 19, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2007–0912, by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2007– 0912. 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:// www.regulations.gov, 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 through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http:// E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM 18OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59013-59014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20602]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-07-020]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Ouachita River, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the draw of the U.S. 165 bridge, mile 110.1, on the 
Ouachita River at Columbia, Louisiana. 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 October 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at room 2.107f, in the Robert A. Young Federal 
Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 
Administrator (314) 269-2378.

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 U.S. 165 bridge was 
removed from the waterway and replaced by a fixed high-level bridge. 
Since the drawbridge no longer exists, the operating schedule in 33 CFR 
117.483 for this bridge is no longer needed and is being removed. 
Notice and comment on this action is not necessary, as there is no need 
for the regulation to exist any longer.
    For the same reason, 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.

Background and Purpose

    On May 31, 2001 the Coast Guard issued a permit, later amended on 
March 20, 2006, for a fixed, high-level bridge to replace the U.S. 165 
bridge, mile 110.1, on the Ouachita River at Columbia, LA. Land traffic 
has been shifted to the replacement bridge and the drawbridge, governed 
by 33 CFR 117.483, has been removed from the waterway.

Discussion of Rule

    This final rule amends 33 CFR 117.483 by removing the regulations 
covering U.S. 165 bridge, mile 110.1 at Columbia, as that bridge has 
been removed from the waterway.

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 was established for the drawbridge. 
This drawbridge has been removed from the waterway, making the 
regulation unnecessary. Vessel traffic can continue to pass under the 
new fixed bridge without interference. Therefore, 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 proposed 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 want to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they may 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.

[[Page 59014]]

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 will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
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 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 M16475.1D, 
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 the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). Since this regulation alters the normal operating conditions of 
the drawbridge, it falls within this exclusion. A ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or 
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.


0
2. Revise Sec.  117.483 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.483  Ouachita River.

    The draw of the S8 Bridge, mile 57.5, at Harrisonburg, shall open 
on signal if at least one hour notice is given.

    Dated: September 18, 2007.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-20602 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P