[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20466-20467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7897]



[[Page 20466]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD 11-05-025]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Napa River, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the draw of the Maxwell Highway Bridge, mile 17.6, near 
Imola, CA. 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 April 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of the docket CGD 11-05-025, and are available for 
inspection or copying at the office of the Eleventh Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Section, Building 50-3, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, 
CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge 
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone (510) 437-3516.

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 Maxwell Drawbridge has 
been removed and replaced by a fixed, high-level bridge. Since the 
drawbridge no longer exists, the operating schedule in 33 CFR 
117.169(c) is no longer needed and is being removed.
    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, because, as explained above, it 
eliminates the governing regulation at 33 CFR 117.169(c) for a 
drawbridge that has been removed from the waterway.

Background and Purpose

    On February 4, 2002 the Coast Guard issued a permit for a fixed, 
high-level bridge to replace the Maxwell Highway drawbridge, mile 17.6, 
near Imola, CA. Land traffic has been shifted to the replacement bridge 
and the drawbridge, governed by 33 CFR 117.169(c), has been removed.

Discussion of Rule

    This final rule removes paragraph (c), regarding the Maxwell 
Highway Drawbridge, from section 117.169.

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 this drawbridge. This 
drawbridge has been removed from the waterway, making the regulation 
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, 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 offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could 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 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 would 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

[[Page 20467]]

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.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(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 set out 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; section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.


Sec.  117.169  [Amended]

0
2. In section 117.169, remove paragraph (c).

    Dated: April 11, 2005.
Kevin J. Eldridge,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 05-7897 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P