
[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 52888-52890]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-9]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0814]
RIN 1625-AA09

 
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
(AIWW), Elizabeth River, Southern Branch, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the Jordan (S337) Bridge, at AIWW mile 2.8, across the 
Elizabeth River (Southern Branch) in Chesapeake, VA, because the 
vertical-lift span has been removed.

DATES: This rule is effective October 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0814 and are available by 
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0814 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,

[[Page 52889]]

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 e-mail Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth 
Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 398-6222, e-mail 
Waverly.W.Gregory@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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
with respect to this rule because prior removal of the bridge renders a 
notice and comment period unnecessary.
    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. This rule removes the regulation 
used for the operation of a movable bridge. Since the modification has 
already taken place, the removal of the regulation will not adversely 
affect mariners.

Background and Purpose

    The Jordan (S337) Bridge vertical-lift span at AIWW mile 2.8, 
across the Elizabeth River (Southern Branch) in Chesapeake, VA, was 
removed on May 6, 2009, thereby eliminating the need for 33 CFR 
117.997(b).
    Since the vertical-lift span of the bridge has been removed, a 
special operating regulation for a movable bridge is unnecessary. This 
final rule removes the regulation regarding the Jordan (S337) Bridge.

Discussion of Rule

    This change removes the regulation governing the operation of a 
movable bridge that has been removed.
    This action necessitates redesignating the remaining regulations 
listed in 33 CFR 117.997 as (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) 
for the drawbridges at Norfolk and Western Railroad, Gilmerton (US13/
460), Norfolk Southern 7 Railroad, I-64, Dominion Boulevard 
(US 17), S168, Albemarle & Chesapeake Railroad, and Centerville 
Turnpike (SR170) along the AIWW, South Branch of the Elizabeth River to 
the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal.

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. This rule is not ``significant'' under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). 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 unnecessary. This rule merely removes an 
operating regulation for a movable bridge that has been removed. 
Therefore, the operating regulation is unnecessary and its removal will 
have a de minimis economic impact.

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. Since the bridge is no longer a movable bridge, the 
regulation controlling the opening and closing of the bridge in no 
longer necessary. Hence, this action will have no economic impact on 
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.

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 effect 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, 
eliminates 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the

[[Page 52890]]

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 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 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. Therefore 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.

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.


Sec.  117.997  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  117.997, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate paragraphs 
(c) through (j) as paragraphs (b) through (i).

    Dated: September 29, 2009.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. E9-24830 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
