Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hoquiam River, WA, 9050-9052 [E6-2426]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9050-9052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2426]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD13-06-006]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hoquiam River, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the drawbridge 
operation regulations for the Simpson Avenue Bridge across the Hoquiam 
River, mile 0.5, at Hoquiam, Washington. The proposed temporary change 
will enable the bridge owner to delay openings of the bridge from May 
1, 2006, through June 1, 2007. This will facilitate major structural 
and mechanical rehabilitation of the bascule bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpw), 13th Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-
1067 where the public docket for this rulemaking is maintained. 
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 the Waterways Management Branch between 7:30 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, 
(206) 220-7282.

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 [CGD13-06-
006], 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 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during

[[Page 9051]]

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 Aids to Navigation and 
Waterways Management 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

    The proposed temporary rule would enable the Washington State 
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the owner of the bridge, to 
rehabilitate the structure and manage interruptions to this 
refurbishment caused by draw openings. The 2-hour notice requirement 
proposed as a temporary requirement from May 1, 2006, to June 1, 2007, 
would enable the work to proceed while still providing operational 
capability. Between January 2, 2007, and March 31, 2007, there is also 
proposed an 8-week period in which 24 hours notice would be required. 
The start and end dates are not yet known for this 8-week portion of 
the project. The 8-week period of 24-hour notice will be considered for 
approval and rulemaking via a separate temporary deviation. The work 
includes mechanical and electrical control system improvements, 
refurbishment of the center lock system, and the replacement of drive 
motors, the control building and maintenance access platforms. The 
eight weeks of testing the new control system will necessitate the 24-
hour notice for openings.
    The Simpson Avenue Bridge in the closed position provides 36 feet 
of vertical clearance above high water elevation 11.2 feet (datum mean 
lower low water 0.0). Drawbridge openings are not frequent at this 
location. The openings are mostly for recreational and commercial 
fishing vessels, rarely for sailboats and tugs.
    The draw opened for vessels 144 times in 2004 for an average of 
almost 3 openings per week and 131 times in 2005 for a lesser weekly 
average.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The operating regulations currently in effect for the Simpson 
Avenue Bridge are found at 33 CFR 117.1047. The regulations require at 
least one hour notice at all times for draw openings.
    One-hour notice is insufficient time for WSDOT and its contractors 
to restore the bridge to operational condition and to clear equipment 
from moving parts as needed to open the span. As few vessels require 
openings, the increased notice of two hours proposed would not seem an 
unreasonable burden to vessel operators.

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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    With regards to the proposed temporary changes, we reached this 
conclusion based on the fact that most vessels will be able to plan 
transits in advance and being locally based will soon adjust to the 
temporary change.

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.
    For the same reasons enumerated above, 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.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 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 can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge 
Section, at (206) 220-7282. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against 
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy 
or action of the Coast Guard.

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 an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed 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 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 rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to

[[Page 9052]]

safety that might 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 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 Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
not designated this 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 proposed rule under 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 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 proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 
2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental 
documentation. There are no expected environmental consequences of the 
proposed action that would require further analysis and documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges.

Regulations

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to temporarily 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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. From May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2007, amend Sec.  117.1047 by 
suspending paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.1047  Hoquiam River.

* * * * *
    (e) From May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2007, the draw of the Simpson 
Avenue Bridge, mile 0.5, shall open on signal if at least 2 hours 
notice is given by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means to 
the Washington Department of Transportation. The opening signal is two 
prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts.

    Dated: February 3, 2006.
R.R. Houck,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
 [FR Doc. E6-2426 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P