Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sabine River (Old Channel) Behind Orange Harbor Island, Orange, TX, 66046-66047 [E7-23042]

Download as PDF 66046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Millsboro, DE 19966, filed a supplement to NADA 131–675 for use of SAFEGUARD (fenbendazole) 20% Type A medicated article to formulate Type B and Type C medicated horse feeds. The supplemental NADA provides for a revised food safety warning on labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of November 5, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.258 to reflect the approval. Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: I PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. § 558.258 [Amended] 2. In § 558.258, in the table in paragraph (e)(4)(i), in the ‘‘Limitations’’ column, remove ‘‘Do not use in horses intended for food.’’ and add in its place ‘‘Do not use in horses intended for human consumption.’’. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES I Dated: November 16, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7–22987 Filed 11–26–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:41 Nov 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08–07–040] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sabine River (Old Channel) Behind Orange Harbor Island, Orange, TX Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the drawbridge across the Sabine River (Old Channel) behind Orange Harbor Island, mile 9.5, at Orange, Texas. The regulation can be removed because the bridge no longer exists. This rule is effective November 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD08–07– 040 and are available for inspection or copying at Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (504) 671–2128. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504) 671–2128. SUPPLEMENTARY 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. Public comment is not necessary since the bridge that the regulation governed no longer exists. 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. There is no need to delay the implementation of this rule because the bridge it governs has been removed in its entirety. DATES: Background and Purpose The entire drawbridge across the Sabine River (Old Channel) behind Orange Harbor Island, mile 9.5, at Orange, Texas has been removed. Since the bridge has been removed, mariners are no longer required to go around the bridge. The regulation governing the PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 operation of the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.983. The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.983 from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer across the waterway. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 without publishing an NPRM. The change removes the regulation governing the bridge since the bridge has been removed in its entirety. This change does not affect vessel operators using the waterway. Thus, it is not necessary to publish an NPRM. 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. The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ‘‘significant’’ under that Order because it does not affect the way vessels operate on the waterway. 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 bridge has been removed in its entirety, and it will not adversely affect the owners and operators of vessels needing to transit the waterway. 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 can 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 E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:41 Nov 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 66047 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. 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; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. § 117.983 I [Removed] 2. Remove § 117.983. Dated: November 7, 2007. J.H. Korn, Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E7–23042 Filed 11–26–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08–07–043] Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Sabine Lake, near Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, TX Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the State Route 82 (SR 82) swing span bridge across the Sabine Lake at mile 10.0, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation to repair sections of the steel truss members of the drawbridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on Monday, December 3, 2007 until 12 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2007 and from 5 a.m. on Monday, E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM 27NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 27, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66046-66047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23042]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-07-040]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sabine River (Old Channel) 
Behind Orange Harbor Island, Orange, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the drawbridge across the Sabine River (Old Channel) 
behind Orange Harbor Island, mile 9.5, at Orange, Texas. The regulation 
can be removed because the bridge no longer exists.

DATES: This rule is effective November 27, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket CGD08-07-040 and are available for 
inspection or copying at Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 
Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 
Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is (504) 671-2128.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration 
Branch, telephone (504) 671-2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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. 
Public comment is not necessary since the bridge that the regulation 
governed no longer exists.
    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. There is no need to delay the 
implementation of this rule because the bridge it governs has been 
removed in its entirety.

Background and Purpose

    The entire drawbridge across the Sabine River (Old Channel) behind 
Orange Harbor Island, mile 9.5, at Orange, Texas has been removed. 
Since the bridge has been removed, mariners are no longer required to 
go around the bridge. The regulation governing the operation of the 
bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.983. The purpose of this rule is to 
remove 33 CFR 117.983 from the Code of Federal Regulations since it 
governs a bridge that is no longer across the waterway.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 without 
publishing an NPRM. The change removes the regulation governing the 
bridge since the bridge has been removed in its entirety. This change 
does not affect vessel operators using the waterway. Thus, it is not 
necessary to publish an NPRM.

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.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant'' 
under that Order because it does not affect the way vessels operate on 
the waterway.

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 bridge has been removed in its entirety, and it will not adversely 
affect the owners and operators of vessels needing to transit the 
waterway.

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 can 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

[[Page 66047]]

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). The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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 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.


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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


Sec.  117.983  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  117.983.

    Dated: November 7, 2007.
J.H. Korn,
Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E7-23042 Filed 11-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P