Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Plaquemine Brule Bayou, Midland, LA, 51361-51362 [E8-20362]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51361-51362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0850]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Plaquemine Brule Bayou, Midland, 
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the published drawbridge operation 
regulation for the draw of the Union Pacific railroad bridge across 
Plaquemine Brule Bayou, mile 5.1, at Midland, LA. It has been 
determined that this bridge no longer exists. Since the bridge no 
longer exists, the regulation controlling the opening and closing of 
the bridge is no longer necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective September 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0850 and are available online 
at https://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for 
inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility 
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground 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, and the office of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, 
Bridge Administration Branch, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1313, New 
Orleans, LA 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call David M. Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504) 671-
2128. 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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
with respect to this rule because it has been determined that the 
bridge no longer exists and mariners do not have to request an opening 
of the draw.
    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. There is no need to delay the implementation 
of this rule because the bridge it governs is already out of service 
and mariners are no longer required to request an opening.

Background and Purpose

    A recent survey of the waterways within the District has determined 
that the Union Pacific railroad bridge across Plaquemine Brule Bayou, 
mile 5.1, at Midland, no longer exists. It is unclear when the bridge 
was removed from the waterway; however, mariners are no longer 
restricted from passing through the area because of a requirement to 
have the draw of the bridge opened. The regulation governing the 
operation of the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.489(a). The purpose of 
this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.489(a) from the Code of Federal 
Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer in existence.

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 no longer exists. 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 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.

[[Page 51362]]

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This proposed rule will not significantly 
impact any small entities because the bridge no longer exists and no 
longer affects vessel operators that would have required an opening of 
the draw.

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 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 Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 5100.1 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 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 checklist 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; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


0
2. Sec.  117.489 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  117.489  Plaquemine Brule Bayou.

    The draw of the S91 bridge, mile 8.0 at Estherwood, shall open on 
signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least four hours notice is given. 
From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 
hours notice is given.

    Dated: August 25, 2008.
J.H. Korn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E8-20362 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P