
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16294-16296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0100]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Buffalo Bayou, Mile 4.3, 
Houston, Harris County, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation 
regulation for the drawbridge across Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3, Houston, 
Harris County, Texas. The bridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 
1991 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective March 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0100 and are available by 
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0100 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

[[Page 16295]]

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 e-mail Mr. Jim Wetherington, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard; 
telephone 504-671-2128, e-mail james.r.wetherington@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 drawbridge requiring draw 
operations in 33 CFR 117.955(b), was removed and replaced with a fixed 
span bridge in 1991. The bridge operator and those transiting in the 
vicinity of this bridge have not been governed by the draw operations 
since the bridge was removed and replaced. Therefore, the regulation is 
no longer applicable and should be removed from publication.
    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 draw operations requirements under 33 CFR 
117.955(b), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public. 
Additionally, 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 20 years and this rule only requires an administrative change to 
the Federal Register, omitting a regulatory requirement that is no 
longer applicable or necessary.

Basis and Purpose

    The drawbridge across Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3, was removed and 
replaced with a fixed bridge in 1991. The elimination of this 
drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation 
regulation pertaining to this drawbridge.
    The regulation governing the operation of the bridge is found in 33 
CFR 117.955(b). The purpose of this rule is to remove the section of 33 
CFR 117.955 (b) that refers to the bridge at mile 4.3, from the Code of 
Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to 
be opened.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117 by 
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw 
operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence without 
publishing an NPRM. The change removes the section of the regulation 
governing the bridge since the bridge has been replaced with a fixed 
bridge. 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 is an administrative change and does not 
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard considers whether this final rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small 
entities'' include (1) small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and (2) governmental jurisdictions with populations of less 
than 50,000.
    Since the drawbridge across the Buffalo Bayou, mile 4.3 at Houston, 
Texas, 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 final 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

[[Page 16296]]

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 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.  117.955 (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.955  Buffalo Bayou.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Union Pacific Rail Road Bridge, mile 3.1, need 
not be opened to the passage of vessels.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-6876 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


