52888 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 affect 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 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. From, October 15, 2009 through 

August 31, 2010, § 117.781 is amended 

by suspending paragraph (c) and adding 

a temporary paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.781 East River. 

* * * * * 

(d) The draw of the Roosevelt Island 

Bridge at mile 6.4, at New York City, 

need not open for the passage of vessel 

traffic from October 1, 2009 through 

August 31, 2010. 

Dated: September 28, 2009. 

Joseph L. Nimmich, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–24744 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0814] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), 

Elizabeth River, Southern Branch, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing 

the existing drawbridge operation 

regulation for the Jordan (S337) Bridge, 

at AIWW mile 2.8, across the Elizabeth 

River (Southern Branch) in Chesapeake, 

VA, because the vertical-lift span has 

been removed. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 15, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket, are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0814 and are available by going to 

http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0814 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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 52889 

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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 

Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District; telephone (757) 398–6222, email Waverly.W.Gregory@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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because prior 

removal of the bridge renders a notice 

and comment period unnecessary. 

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. This rule removes the 

regulation used for the operation of a 

movable bridge. Since the modification 

has already taken place, the removal of 

the regulation will not adversely affect 

mariners. 

Background and Purpose 

The Jordan (S337) Bridge vertical-lift 

span at AIWW mile 2.8, across the 

Elizabeth River (Southern Branch) in 

Chesapeake, VA, was removed on May 

6, 2009, thereby eliminating the need for 

33 CFR 117.997(b). 

Since the vertical-lift span of the 

bridge has been removed, a special 

operating regulation for a movable 

bridge is unnecessary. This final rule 

removes the regulation regarding the 

Jordan (S337) Bridge. 

Discussion of Rule 

This change removes the regulation 

governing the operation of a movable 

bridge that has been removed. 

This action necessitates redesignating 

the remaining regulations listed in 33 

CFR 117.997 as (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), 

(h), and (i) for the drawbridges at 

Norfolk and Western Railroad, 

Gilmerton (US13/460), Norfolk 

Southern #7 Railroad, I–64, Dominion 

Boulevard (US 17), S168, Albemarle & 

Chesapeake Railroad, and Centerville 

Turnpike (SR170) along the AIWW, 

South Branch of the Elizabeth River to 

the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. 

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. This rule is not ‘‘significant’’ 

under the regulatory policies and 

procedures of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). We expect 

the economic impact of this rule to be 

so minimal that a full Regulatory 

Evaluation under the regulatory policies 

and procedures of DHS unnecessary. 

This rule merely removes an operating 

regulation for a movable bridge that has 

been removed. Therefore, the operating 

regulation is unnecessary and its 

removal will have a de minimis 

economic impact. 

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. 

Since the bridge is no longer a movable 

bridge, the regulation controlling the 

opening and closing of the bridge in no 

longer necessary. Hence, this action will 

have no economic impact on small 

entities. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

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.). 

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 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, eliminates 

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 would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
52890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 M16475.1D 

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 this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore 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 

■ 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. 

§ 117.997 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 117.997, remove paragraph (b) 

and redesignate paragraphs (c) through 

(j) as paragraphs (b) through (i). 

Dated: September 29, 2009. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–24830 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0896] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Three Mile Slough, Rio Vista, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh 

Coast Guard District, has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the California 

Route 160 Drawbridge across Three Mile 

Slough, mile 0.1, near Rio Vista, CA. 

The deviation is necessary to allow 

Caltrans to conduct drawbridge 

maintenance. This deviation allows the 

bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position during the 

maintenance period. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8 a.m. on October 15, 2009 through 4 

p.m. on November 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0896 and are available online by going 

to www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0896 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 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have 

questions on this rule, call or e-mail 

David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District; 510–437– 

3516, David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Caltrans 

requested a temporary change to the 

operation of the California Route 160 

Drawbridge, mile 0.1, Three Mile 

Slough, near Rio Vista, CA. The 

drawbridge navigation span provides a 

vertical clearance of 12 feet above Mean 

High Water in the closed-to-navigation 

position. The drawbridge opens on 

signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. 

Navigation on the waterway is 

commercial and recreational. 

The drawbridge will be secured in the 

closed-to-navigation position from 8 

a.m. through 4 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, from October 15, 2009 through 

November 4, 2009, to allow Caltrans to 

replace the industrial staircase leading 

to the control house. At all other times 

during this period the drawbridge will 

open on signal as required by 33 CFR 

117.5. This temporary deviation has 

been coordinated with commercial and 

recreational waterway users. There is no 

anticipated levee maintenance during 

this deviation period. No objections to 

the proposed temporary deviation were 

raised. 

Vessels that can transit the 

drawbridge, while in the closed-tonavigation position, may continue to do 

so at any time. 

In the event of an emergency the 

drawbridge can be opened with 4 hours 

advance notice. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: October 01, 2009. 

S.P. Metruck, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–24831 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES