[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49812-49813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-04-028]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Terrebonne Bayou, Houma, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the draw of the SR 24 bridge across Terrebonne Bayou, 
mile 31.3, at Houma, Louisiana. The existing bridge has been modified 
by permit from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. Since the bridge is 
no longer a movable bridge, the regulation controlling the opening and 
closing of the bridge is no longer necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective August 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents referred to in this rule are available for 
inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, 
Bridge Administration Branch, 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) 589-2965. The 
Eighth District Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public 
docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration 
Branch, at (504) 589-2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Not Publishing an NPRM

    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 good cause 
exists for not publishing an NPRM. Public comment is not necessary 
since the bridge that the regulation governed has been modified from a 
movable bridge to a fixed and does not open for the passage of vessels.

Good Cause for Making Rule Effective in Less Than 30 Days

    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 because this rule removed the regulation used 
for the operation of a movable bridge that has been modified to become 
a fixed bridge. The modification has already taken place and the 
removal of the regulation will not affect mariners.

Background and Purpose

    In 1977, LDOTD requested a change to the operating regulations for 
the SR 24 vertical lift bridge. The request was to change the 
regulations on the bridge that the bridge need not open for the passage 
of vessels due to infrequent openings. The basis of the change is that 
between 1966 and 1977, the bridge only opened four times. The request 
for change was published in the Federal Register and by Public Notice. 
On January 1, 1978, the regulation regarding the bridge was approved so 
that the bridge need not open for the passage of vessels.
    In 1982, LDOTD issued a work order to remove the counterweights, 
all of the overhead structural steel and the operator's house without 
prior notification to the Coast Guard. This type of modification to the 
approved permit plans requires a Coast Guard bridge permit amendment. 
However, as a permit was not requested prior to the modification to the 
bridge, a permit amendment to change the bridge to a fixed bridge was 
applied for and granted after the fact. Since the bridge has been 
modified to a fixed bridge, a special operation regulation for a 
movable bridge is unnecessary.
    This final rule removes the regulation regarding the SR 24 bridge.

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 exists for movable bridges and as 
this bridge has been modified to a fixed bridge, the regulation is 
unnecessary. 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 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. No small 
entities in the area have been affect by the modification of the bridge 
from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge.

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.

[[Page 49813]]

    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 the 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 does not cause 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. Paragraph (32)(e) excludes the 
promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges 
from the environmental documentation requirements of NEPA.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 
Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations 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.  117.505  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  117.505, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraphs (c) and 
(d) and (e) are redesignated as (b) and (c) and (d).

    Dated: July 28, 2004.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-18487 Filed 8-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P