Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5275

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offered to assist small entities 

in understanding this rule so that they 

can better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. Small 

entities may contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT for assistance in understanding 

and participating in this rulemaking. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations, to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (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 this rule 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. 

Although this rule will not result in 

such 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 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

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 require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under 

Executive Order 13211. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

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 there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. Under figure 2–1, 

Paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are not required for this 

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS

■ 1. The Authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g). 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Section 110.73c is amended by 

revising the text before the note to read 

as follows:

§ 110.73c Okeechobee Waterway, St. Lucie 

River, Stuart, FL. 

The following is a special anchorage 

area: Beginning on the Okeechobee 

Intracoastal Waterway between mile 

marker 7 and 8 on the St. Lucie River, 

bounded by a line beginning at 

27°12′06.583′′ N, 80°15′33.447′′ W; 

thence to 27°12′07.811′′ N, 

80°15′38.861′′ W; thence to 

27°12′04.584′′ N, 80°15′41.437′′ W; 

thence to 27°11′49.005′′ N, 

80°15′44.796′′ W; thence to 27°11′47.99′′

N, 80°15′44.78′′ W; thence to 

27°11′42.51′′ N, 80°15′49.36′′ W; thence 

to 27°11′41.40′′ N, 80°15′47.70′′ W; 

thence to 27°11′40.44′′ N, 80°15′44.64′′

W; thence to 27°11′43.49′′ N, 

80°15′40.74′′ W; thence to 27°11′46.82′′

N, 80°15′37.9647′′ W; thence to 

27°11′47.881′′ N, 80°15′38.271′′ W; 

thence back to the original point. All 

coordinates reference Datum NAD:83.

* * * * *

Dated: January 16, 2004. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–2085 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD08–04–005] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Corpus Christi—Port Aransas 

Channel—Tule Lake, Corpus Christi, 

TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

5276 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the Tule Lake 

Vertical Lift Span Highway and Railroad 

Bridge across the Corpus Christi—Port 

Aransas Channel, mile 14.0, at Corpus 

Christi, Nueces County, TX. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain 

closed to navigation on two days. The 

deviation is necessary to replace haul 

ropes on the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2004, 

through 7 a.m. on Sunday, February 29, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at the office of the Eighth Coast 

Guard District, Bridge Administration 

Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, 

room 1313, 501 Magazine Street, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3396 between 

7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

telephone number is (504) 589–2965. 

The Bridge Administration Branch of 

the Eighth Coast Guard District 

maintains the public docket for this 

temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcus Redford, Bridge Administration 

Branch, telephone (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Port 

of Corpus Christi Authority has 

requested a temporary deviation in 

order to remove and replace the haul 

ropes of the Tule Lake vertical lift span 

bridge across Corpus Christi—Port 

Aransas Channel, mile 14.0 at Corpus 

Christi, Nueces County, Texas. The 

replacement of the haul ropes will bring 

the bridge into compliance with the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers guidelines. This temporary 

deviation will allow the bridge to 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position continuously for 48 hours from 

7 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2004, 

through 7 a.m. on Sunday, February 29, 

2004. 

The vertical lift span bridge has a 

vertical clearance of 9.0 feet above mean 

high water, elevation ¥1.0 feet Mean 

Sea Level and 11.0 feet above mean low 

water, elevation ¥1.0 Mean Sea Level 

in the closed-to-navigation position. 

Navigation at the site of the bridge 

consists mainly of oil tankers and tows 

with barges. There is no recreational 

pleasure craft usage at the bridge site. 

Due to prior experience, as well as 

coordination with water way users, it 

has been determined that this two-day 

closure will not have a significant effect 

on these vessels. The bridge normally 

opens to pass navigation an average of 

850 times per month. The bridge opens 

on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. 

The bridge will not be able to open for 

emergencies during the closure period. 

Alternate routes are not available. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35.

Dated: January 27, 2004. 

Marcus Redford, 

Bridge Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–2232 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD08–04–002] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; East 

Pascagoula River, Pascagoula, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing 

the existing drawbridge operation 

regulation for the draw of the U.S. 90 

bascule span bridge across the East 

Pascagoula River, mile 1.8 at 

Pascagoula, Jackson County, 

Mississippi. A replacement bridge has 

been constructed and the existing bridge 

has been removed. Since the bridge has 

been removed, the regulation 

controlling the opening and closing of 

the bridge is no longer necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective February 4, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents referred to in 

this rule are available for inspection or 

copying at the office of the Eighth Coast 

Guard District, Bridge Administration 

Branch, 501 Magazine Street, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3396, 

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The telephone number is (504) 589–

2965. The Eighth District Bridge 

Administration Branch maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Johnson, Bridge Administration 

Branch, at (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Not Publishing an 

NPRM 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. Public 

comment is not necessary since the 

purpose of the affected regulation is to 

control the opening and closing of a 

bridge that has been removed. 

Good Cause for Making Rule Effective 

in Less Than 30 Days 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds good cause exists for 

making this rule effective in less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register for the same reasons stated in 

the preceding paragraph. 

Background and Purpose 

The State of Mississippi (Department 

of Transportation) has constructed a 

bridge of modern safe design to replace 

the existing bascule span bridge. The 

bascule span bridge that had previously 

serviced the area has been removed. The 

regulation governing the operation of 

the swing bridge is found in 33 CFR 

117.682. The purpose of this rule is to 

remove 33 CFR 117.682 from the Code 

of Federal Regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

This rule removes a regulation that is 

obsolete because the bridge it governs 

no longer exists. 

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. 

This rule will have no impact on any 

small entities because the regulation 

being removed applies to a bridge that 

no longer exists.