Skip to Content

Rule

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neuse River, New Bern, NC

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the U.S. 17 bridge across Neuse River, mile 33.7 at New Bern, NC. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 1999. Therefore, the operating regulation pertaining to the U.S. 17 drawbridge is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0974 and are available by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0974 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 email Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Management Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6629, email Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. 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

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 U.S. 17 bridge requiring the draw operating regulation at 33 CFR 117.824(a), was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 1999. The bridge operator and those transiting in the vicinity of this bridge have not been subject to the enforcement of this regulation since the bridge was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is unnecessary because the Coast Guard is removing an unneeded regulation that has no further practical value and Start Printed Page 72310governs a drawbridge that no longer exists. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because operators transiting this portion of the waterway are aware that the bridge is now a fixed bridge. Further, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulation does not purport to place any restriction on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value.

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 U.S. 17 draw operation requirements under 33 CFR 117.824(a), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public. 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 twelve years and this final rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary.

Basis and Purpose

The drawbridge across Neuse River, mile 33.7, at New Bern, NC was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 1999. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for the drawbridge, found in 33 CFR 117.824(a), was never removed subsequent to the completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. Therefore, this regulation seeks to remove the U.S. 17 bridge operating regulation which is no longer applicable or necessary due the present bridge being a fixed structure.

Discussion of Rule

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.824(a) by removing the restriction and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for a drawbridge that is no longer in existence. The change removes the section of the regulation governing the operation of the U.S. 17 bridge since it has been replaced with a fixed bridge. The replacement took place in 1999, approximately twelve years ago. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that regulates signaling and notice requirements for the opening of a bridge that no longer exists. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter those portions of 33 CFR 117.824 dealing with the Atlantic and East Carolina Railway bridge.

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, 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. 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 waterway or land traffic.

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.

Since this drawbridge 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 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 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 Start Printed Page 72311require 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.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

End List of Subjects

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Start Part

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Revise § 117.824 to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Neuse River.

The draw of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railway Bridge, mile 80.0, at Kinston shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.

Start Signature

Dated: November 1, 2011.

William D. Lee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 2011-30188 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P