Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neuse River, New Bern, NC, 72309-72311 [2011-30188]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72309-72311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0974]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neuse River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the U.S. 17 bridge across Neuse River, mile 33.7 at New 
Bern, NC. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 1999. 
Therefore, the operating regulation pertaining to the U.S. 17 
drawbridge is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective November 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0974 and are available by 
going to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0974 in the 
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also 
available for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Management Specialist, Coast 
Guard; telephone (757) 398-6629, email Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. 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), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
with respect to this rule because the U.S. 17 bridge requiring the draw 
operating regulation at 33 CFR 117.824(a), was removed and replaced 
with a fixed bridge in 1999. The bridge operator and those transiting 
in the vicinity of this bridge have not been subject to the enforcement 
of this regulation since the bridge was removed and replaced with a 
fixed bridge. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and 
shall be removed from publication. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) is unnecessary because the Coast Guard is removing an unneeded 
regulation that has no further practical value and

[[Page 72310]]

governs a drawbridge that no longer exists. It is unnecessary to 
publish an NPRM because operators transiting this portion of the 
waterway are aware that the bridge is now a fixed bridge. Further, it 
is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulation does not 
purport to place any restriction on mariners but rather removes a 
restriction that has no further use or value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not 
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date. 
This rule removes the U.S. 17 draw operation requirements under 33 CFR 
117.824(a), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public. 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. The bridge has been a fixed bridge for twelve 
years and this final rule merely requires an administrative change to 
the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is 
no longer applicable or necessary.

Basis and Purpose

    The drawbridge across Neuse River, mile 33.7, at New Bern, NC was 
removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 1999. It has come to the 
attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for the 
drawbridge, found in 33 CFR 117.824(a), was never removed subsequent to 
the completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. Therefore, this 
regulation seeks to remove the U.S. 17 bridge operating regulation 
which is no longer applicable or necessary due the present bridge being 
a fixed structure.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.824(a) by 
removing the restriction and the regulatory burden related to the draw 
operations for a drawbridge that is no longer in existence. The change 
removes the section of the regulation governing the operation of the 
U.S. 17 bridge since it has been replaced with a fixed bridge. The 
replacement took place in 1999, approximately twelve years ago. This 
Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing 
language that regulates signaling and notice requirements for the 
opening of a bridge that no longer exists. This change does not affect 
waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter 
those portions of 33 CFR 117.824 dealing with the Atlantic and East 
Carolina Railway bridge.

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, as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory 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 is an administrative change and does not 
affect waterway or land traffic.

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.
    Since this drawbridge has been removed and replaced with a fixed 
bridge, the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no 
longer needed. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed 
by this rule therefore, 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.

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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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 cause 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 72311]]

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 023-01 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 this action is one of a category of actions which do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, 
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    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.

    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. Revise Sec.  117.824 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.824  Neuse River.

    The draw of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railway Bridge, mile 
80.0, at Kinston shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is 
given.

    Dated: November 1, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-30188 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P