Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Marks River, Newport, FL

Link to law: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/text/raw_text/201/511/679.txt
Published: 2015-05-14

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the drawbridge across the St. Marks River, mile 9.0, at Newport, Wakulla County, Florida. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 2001 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective May 14, 2015.
The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2015-0120] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this final rule. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Donna Gagliano, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email Donna.Gagliano@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
A. Regulatory History and 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. 98-SR 30 bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.327, was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2001. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The bridge has been a fixed bridge for 14 years and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register , in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.
B. Basis and Purpose
The U.S. 98-SR 30 bridge across the St. Marks River, mile 9.0, was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2001. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.327, that pertains to the former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.327 that refers to the U.S. 98-SR 30 bridge, mile 9.0, from the Code of Federal Regulations because it governs a bridge that has been removed and replaced by a fixed bridge.
C. Discussion of Final Rule
The Coast Guard is amending the regulation in 33 CFR 117.327 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence. The change removes 33 CFR 117.327, which is the regulation governing the U.S. 98-SR 30 bridge because the bridge has been removed from the waterway. This Final Rule seeks to update the CFR by removing language that governs the operation of the U.S. 98-SR 30 bridge, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
1. 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 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
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.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 effect on small entities since this drawbridge has been removed and replaced with a fixed bridge and the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. 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.
3. 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).
4. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this final rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
5. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
10. 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.
11. Energy Effects
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
13. 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 involves the removal of regulation that is no longer necessary. 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
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
§ 117.327
2. Remove § 117.327.
Dated: April 30, 2015.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-11679 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]