Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia, 38524-38526 [E6-10595]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 130 (Friday, July 7, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38524-38526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10595]


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

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