Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Swing Span Bridge across the Sabine River, mile 19.3, at Echo, Orange County, TX. The bridge currently opens on signal with 24 hours advance notice but because of the limited number of requests for openings, the bridge owner requested an increase in the length of notification time required to open the bridge.
This rule is effective September 17, 2009.
Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0101 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0101 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Kay Wade, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On March 26, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sabine River, Echo, TX in the Federal Register (74 FR 13164). We received 2 comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
Due to a lack of bridge openings requested by mariners, Union Pacific Railroad Company, the bridge owner, requested a change in the operating regulation governing the Union Pacific railroad swing span bridge across the Sabine River, mile 19.3 at Echo, Texas from 24 hours advance notice to open the bridge to 14 days advance notice to open the bridge. This change allows the bridge owner to open the bridge for the passage of vessels while minimizing his requirements to staff and maintain the bridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 7.9 feet above Mean High Water (MHW), elevation 2.18 feet NGVD in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.493(a), the bridge is currently required to open on signal for the passage of marine vessels if at least 24 hours of advanced notice is given. Bridge tender logs indicate no requests for bridge openings in several years.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of two comments in response to the NPRM. The comments were from Federal and State agencies having no objections to the proposal. Therefore, no change was made to the regulatory text.
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.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
The public will need to notify the bridge owner of a required opening 14 days in advance rather than 24 hours in advance. There is no change in the regulatory text published in the NPRM.
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.Start Printed Page 41633
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge with less than 14 days advance notice. There have been no requests for bridge openings in several years so this rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM 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).
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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Section 117.493(a) is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) The draw of the Union Pacific railroad bridge, mile 19.3 near Echo shall open on signal if at least 14 days notice is given.
Dated: August 4, 2009.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-19703 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P