[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61303-61305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD13-02-012]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lake Washington Ship Canal, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing 
the drawspan of the Montlake Bridge across the east end of the Lake 
Washington Ship Canal by lengthening the hours that the draw need not 
open for the passage of vessels during the part of the year when vessel 
traffic is low. The proposed change would relieve vehicular congestion 
during the peak congested period for road traffic.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 29, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(oan), Thirteenth Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98174-1067. The office of Aids to Navigation and Waterways 
Management 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 this 
office between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, 
Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch, telephone (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 (CGD13-02-
12), 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 
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 office 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.

[[Page 61304]]

Background and Purpose

    The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has 
requested a change in the drawbridge operations schedule to alleviate 
traffic congestion in the Montlake area by increasing the periods for 
part of the year in which the drawbridge need not open for the passage 
of vessels.
    The draw of the Montlake Bridge, mile 5.2, Lake Washington Ship 
Canal at Seattle, Washington, opens on signal except that the draw need 
not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 
p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, for 
any vessel of less than 1000 gross ton, unless the vessel has in tow a 
vessel of 1000 gross tons or over. The draw need only open on the hour 
and half-hour from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 
Between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. the draw opens if one hour 
notice is provided. This notice requirement has been voluntarily 
suspended by WSDOT. The bridge is staffed by operators 24 hours a day. 
The proposed change would remove this nighttime notice provision.
    The Montlake Bridge provides 48 feet of vertical clearance above 
the mean regulated lake level of Lake Washington for the central 100 
feet of the bascule span. Navigation on the waterway includes tugs, 
gravel barges, construction barges, sailboats, motor yachts, kayaks, 
rowing shells, and government vessels.
    The Lake Washington Ship Canal bisects Seattle from east to west 
and is currently crossed by two fixed highway bridges and four 
vehicular bascules, of which the Montlake is the easternmost. At the 
western extremity seaward of the Hiram Chittenden Locks at Ballard is a 
single-leaf railroad bascule.
    The Montlake Bridge is critical to north-south road traffic in its 
area. The closest alternative crossing is about 0.8 mile to the west 
and cannot be reached easily without traveling other congested streets 
during peak traffic hours.
    This proposal would alleviate vehicular congestion by lengthening 
the periods that the bridge would be allowed to remain closed to marine 
traffic from the beginning of September to the end of April each year. 
These months correspond approximately to the foul weather period in 
Seattle when congestion is heaviest and vessel traffic is lowest.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed change in operating regulations would lengthen the 
morning authorized closed periods by one hour and the afternoon periods 
by a half-hour on weekdays. The proposed hours for September 1 through 
April 30 each year when the bridge may remain closed to vessel traffic 
would be from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. These 
periods would coincide more closely with the peak traffic periods on 
the major north-south arterial of Montlake Boulevard. This street is 
more congested during months when the University of Washington is at 
its peak attendance and inclement weather hinders traffic flow. The 
university, including the university hospital, is immediately north of 
the Montlake Bridge. State Route 520, a major east-west highway, is 
affected by traffic flow via entrance and exit ramps less than 300 
yards south of the drawbridge.
    Boating season begins officially in May and generally extends 
through Labor Day weekend. This period remains unaffected by the 
proposed change. The number of draw openings for vessels is far greater 
in this period than in the months bracketed by the proposed amendment. 
The total vessel traffic is far greater during the peak four months 
between May and August than the total for the other eight months of the 
year. The peak number of monthly openings in the affected period is 
less than 30 and for most of that period is less than 10 per month. 
Road traffic in contrast is between 4000 and 5000 vehicles per hour 
during each closed period, as measured for an average weekday in 
October 2000. Draw openings can queue traffic for over a mile from the 
bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, 
February 26, l979).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the majority of vessels 
plying the canal will not be hindered by this change. Many of the 
commercial and recreational vessels can pass the span without an 
opening. Vessel traffic diminishes significantly during the months that 
would be affected while the maximal use period would remain unchanged.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
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. There are no known small entities affected by 
this proposal. 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.

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 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) 
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded 
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, 
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs 
without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay 
those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental

[[Page 61305]]

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 economically significant and does not 
concern 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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. Drawbridge regulatory changes 
are categorically excluded. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' 
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 
117.255 also issued under the authority of Public Law 102-587, 106 
Stat. 5039.

    2. In Section 117.1051 paragraph (e)(2)(i)is revised and paragraph 
(e)(3) is removed to read as follows:


Sec.  117.1051  Lake Washington Ship Canal.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The draw need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. 
to 6:30 p.m. from April 30 to September 1 and from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. 
and from 3:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. from September 1 to April 30.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 20, 2002.
Erroll Brown,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 02-24634 Filed 9-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P