[Federal Register: September 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56379-56381]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se04-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-04-018]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Croix River, Wisconsin,
Minnesota
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing
the Prescott Highway Bridge, across the St. Croix River, Mile 0.3, at
Prescott, Wisconsin. Under our proposed rule, the drawbridge need not
open for river traffic and may remain in the closed-to-navigation
position from November 1, 2005, to April 1, 2006. This proposed rule
would allow the bridge owners to make necessary repairs to the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander (obr) maintains the public docket for
this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal
Building at Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 539-3900, extension 2378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD08-04-
018), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
[[Page 56380]]
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On May 3, 2004, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Prescott Highway
Bridge across the St. Croix River, Mile 0.3 at Prescott, Wisconsin, to
allow the drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for
a 5-month period while the electrical and hydraulic systems are
overhauled. Navigation on the waterway consists of both commercial
(excursion boat) and recreational watercraft, which may be minimally
impacted by the closure period. Currently, the draw opens on signal for
passage of river traffic from April 1 to October 31, 8 a.m. to
midnight, except that from midnight to 8 a.m. the draw shall open on
signal if notification is made prior to 11 p.m. From November 1 to
March 31, the draw shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is
given. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation requested the
drawbridge be permitted to remain closed to navigation from November 1,
2005, to April 1, 2006.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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).
The Coast Guard expects that this temporary change to operation of
the Prescott Highway Bridge will have such a minimal economic impact on
commercial traffic operating on the St. Croix River that a full
regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. This temporary change will only cause minimal
interruption of the drawbridge's regular operation, since the change is
only in effect during the winter months while the river is frozen.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would be in effect for 5
months during the early winter months when the river is frozen over and
navigation is practically at a standstill. The Coast Guard expects the
impact of this action to be minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
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 proposed rule so that they could better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Roger K.
Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, at (314) 539-3900, extension 2378.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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 proposed 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 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 proposed 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
[[Page 56381]]
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. It has not been designated a
significant energy action by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule
and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the
promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges
from the environmental documentation requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this proposed regulation would
alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls
within this exclusion. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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; 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.
2. From November 1, 2005, to April 1, 2006, in Sec. 117.667,
suspend paragraph (a) and add new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 117.667 St. Croix River.
* * * * *
(d) The draws of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge,
Mile 0.2, and the Hudson Railroad Bridge, Mile 17.3, shall operate as
follows:
(1) From April 1 to October 31:
(i) 8 a.m. to midnight, the draws shall open on signal;
(ii) Midnight to 8 a.m., the draws shall open on signal if
notification is made prior to 11 p.m.,
(2) From November 1 through March 31, the draw shall open on signal
if at least 24 hours notice is given.
(e) The draw of the Prescott Highway Bridge, Mile 0.3, need not
open for river traffic and may be maintained in the closed-to-
navigation position from November 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006.
Dated: September 3, 2004.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-21136 Filed 9-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P