[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48498-48500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-06-021]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; St. Croix River, Prescott, WI

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, 2006 to April 1, 2007. 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 September 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dwb), Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, 
St. Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander (dwb) 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) 269-2378.

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 (CGD08-06-
021), 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 a 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 
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 a meeting 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 March 26, 2005, 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 in vicinity of the bridge 
consists of excursion boats and recreational watercraft, neither of 
which will be impacted by the closure due to winter weather and frozen 
river conditions. Currently, the draw opens on signal for passage of 
river traffic from April 1 to October 31, 8 a.m. to midnight; 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, 2006, to April 1, 2007.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule requires the draw span to be closed to navigation 
for five months, November 1, 2006 to April 1, 2007. This closure will 
enable workers to rehabilitate critical electrical and hydraulic 
systems which control draw span operation. This temporary change will 
not cause navigation problems because the closure is only in effect 
during the winter months when the river is frozen and vessels are 
absent.

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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This proposed rule would only be in effect during the coldest 
months of the year when ice prevents vessel movements. The impacts on 
routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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 rule 
would not

[[Page 48499]]

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 effect 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 Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 
Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, at (314) 269-
2378. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed 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 
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 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 proposed 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 
M16475.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should 
be 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'' is not required for this rule. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to 
categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    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, 2006, to April 1, 2007, in Sec.  117.667, 
suspend paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  117.667  St. Croix River.

* * * * *

[[Page 48500]]

    (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, 2006 to April 1, 2007.

    Dated: August 7, 2006.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander Eighth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E6-13777 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P