[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12305-12307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2018-0128]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ebey Slough, Marysville, WA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge 38.3 across
Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, at Marysville, WA. The modified schedule would
change the operating schedule of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway (BNSF) Railroad Bridge 38.3 from on-demand
[[Page 12306]]
opening to a four hours advance notice for an opening.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0128 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth
Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206-220-7282;
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
499. BNSF has requested a change to the operating schedule of the BNSF
Railroad Bridge 38.3 across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, in order to save on
operating costs for the bridge. The proposed regulation will allow BNSF
to not have a bridge operator attending the bridge until an opening
request has been received. BNSF's proposal would allow a bridge
operator to be able to open the swing span within four hours after
receiving a request for an opening. Marine traffic on Ebey Slough
consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, small tribal
fishing boats and occasionally medium size pleasure motor vessels.
There has been a reduction in waterway usage following the City of
Maryville's closure of the only upriver marina on Ebey Slough with very
few bridge opening requests within the past three years. Only two
marine vessel opening requests were received in 2017 and both were
received longer than four hours prior to needing an opening.
The subject bridge currently operates in accordance in 33 CFR
117.5. This bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 5 feet
above mean high water and approximately 16 feet above mean low water
when in the closed-to-navigation position.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 117.1059 to provide specific
requirements for the operation of BNSF Railroad Bridge 38.3. These
specific requirements are in addition to or vary from the general
requirements that apply to all drawbridges across the navigable waters
of the United States. This proposed rule reasonably accommodates
waterway users while reducing BNSF's burden in operating the bridge. We
have not identified any impacts on marine navigation with this proposed
rule. An alternate route is available into Steamboat Slough via Union
Slough at high tide.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule considering numerous statutes and
Executive order (s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive order (s), and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This
regulatory action determination is based on the ability for the bridge
to open on signal after receiving at least four hours advanced notice
and not delay passage of any mariner. Vessels not requiring an opening
may pass under the bridge at any time. An alternate route is available
into Steamboat Slough via Union Slough at high tide.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.
C. 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.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive order
13132.
Also, 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
[[Page 12307]]
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed
rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record not required for this proposed rule. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.1059 add paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.1059 Snohomish River, Steamboat Slough, and Ebey Slough;
Marysville, WA.
* * * * *
(i) The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge
across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, near Marysville, shall open on signal if
at least a four hour notice is given. The opening signal is one
prolonged blast followed by one short blast. During freshets, a
drawtender shall be in constant attendance, and the draw shall open on
signal when so ordered by the District Commander.
David G. Throop,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2018-05701 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P