[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38524-38526]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy06-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-06-070]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland
and Virginia
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing temporary regulations that govern
the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile
103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill,
Maryland. This temporary final rule establishes the same operating
requirements for the new drawbridge that is currently in effect for the
existing-to-be-removed drawbridge.
DATES: This rule is effective midnight on June 20, 2006 to 11:59 on
June 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Documents, indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket CGD05-06-070 and are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-
5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.
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. This temporary final rule
establishes the same operating requirements for the new drawbridge that
is currently in effect for the existing-to-be-removed drawbridge.
[[Page 38525]]
The new bridge will be required to open on signal as per 33 CFR
115.255(a). Since the new drawbridge has to be opened for all vessels
requiring an opening that may exceed the present vertical clearance in
the closed-to-navigation position at 75 feet, above mean high water
(MHW), the establishment of this regulation does not place more
constraint on the waterway users than the old regulation governing the
existing-to-be-removed drawbridge.
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 less than 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register because this rule merely establishes the same
requirements as the current operating regulations for the existing-to-
be-removed drawbridge. Accordingly, the primary waterway users will not
be required to change their current practices of transiting the
waterway. Thus, no negative impact on vessel traffic in the area is
anticipated.
Background and Purpose
Construction is ongoing for the new bascule-type Woodrow Wilson
Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between
Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. On June 11, 2006, the
southern most portion of the bascule spans for the new bridge was
publicly placed into service, allowing vehicular traffic and will be
required to open for vessels in accordance with the current drawbridge
operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.255(a). The new drawbridge,
when fully-constructed around 2010, is being constructed on essentially
the same alignment, in close proximity of the existing-to-be-removed
drawbridge. In the closed-to-navigation position, the existing-to-be-
removed drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 50 feet, above MHW.
In the closed-to-navigation position, the newly-constructed
southernmost spans of the new drawbridge provide a vertical clearance
of 75 feet, above MHW, which allows a greater flow of vessels to pass
through. Therefore, this temporary final rule will be identical to the
current regulation governing the operation of the existing-to-be-
removed drawbridge providing the same or less constraint for primary
waterway users than were formerly in effect with the existing-to-be-
removed drawbridge.
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).
We expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based
on the fact that during the many years that the existing-to-be-removed
drawbridge was operating under the identical regulation, the Coast
Guard had not received any complaints regarding the drawbridge
operating schedule. Also, the southernmost spans of the new drawbridge
has been constructed on essentially the same alignment with a higher
vertical clearance above MHW than the existing-to-be-removed drawbridge
and the numbers of opening requests are anticipated to be less for the
new bridge.
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
would 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 will apply to a new bridge, which replaces a
bridge on which the same regulation already exists.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No
assistance was requested from any small entity.
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 would 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,
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 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
[[Page 38526]]
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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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 (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), 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 117
Bridges.
Regulations
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending
33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
0
2. From midnight on June 20, 2006, to 11:59 p.m. on June 12, 2007, in
Sec. 117.255 add a new paragraph(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.255 Potomac River.
* * * * *
(c) From midnight on June 20, 2006, to 11:59 p.m. on June 12, 2007,
the draw of new Woodrow Wilson (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, between
Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland shall operate in
accordance with the same provisions outlined at paragraph (a) of this
section.
Dated: June 20, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-10595 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P