[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53079-53081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-02-035]
RIN 1626-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation Change, St. Croix River, 
Minnesota and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised its proposal to amend the 
regulations governing the operation of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
Railroad Bridge, mile 0.2, Prescott, Wisconsin; the U.S. 16-61 Bridge, 
mile 0.3, Prescott, Wisconsin, the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 
17.3, Hudson, Wisconsin across the St. Croix River, and the S36 Highway 
Bridge at Stillwater, mile 23.4. The revised proposal would modify the 
dates and hours requiring advanced notice for openings on each of the 
bridges. This proposed change is intended to reduce the number of hours 
that a drawtender is required to be on site at each of the bridges 
while maintaining satisfactory service to vessels navigating the area.

DATES: Comments and related materials must be received by November 10, 
2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, are part of docket CGD08-02-035 and are available for 
inspection or copying at room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal 
Building at Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce 
Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (314) 
539-3900, extension 2378. Commander (obr) maintains the public docket 
for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 
Administrator, (314) 539-3900, extension 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 (CGD08-02-
035), 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 if 
it 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 one would aid this rulemaking, we 
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register.

Regulatory History

    On April 16, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation Change, St. Croix 
River, MN in the Federal Register (67 FR 18521). On March 25, 2003, we 
clarified a statement in the NPRM and reopened the comment period to 
receive additional comments (68 FR 14364). We received six letters 
commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and 
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.667, the draws of the Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge, Mile 0.2 at Prescott, Wisconsin, the 
U.S. 16-61 Bridge, Mile 0.3, at Prescott Wisconsin and the Union 
Pacific Railroad Bridge, Mile 17.3, at Hudson, Wisconsin, currently 
open on signal; except that, from December 15 through March 31, the 
draws open on signal if at least 24-hours notice is given. Currently, 
the S36 Stillwater Highway Bridge, Mile 23.4, opens on signal at 
various times throughout the day from May 15 through October 15, and on 
signal from October 16 through May 14. The NPRM proposed to amend the 
regulations governing drawbridges across the St. Croix River by adding 
a notice requirement for bridge openings during the summer season. 
Specifically, the NPRM proposed requiring that advance notice be given 
prior to 11 p.m. for openings between midnight and 7 a.m. from April 1 
to October 15 for three of the four bridges.
    The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Mile 0.2 at Prescott 
initially requested a change to the regulation for the Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, to open on signal from 7 a.m. to midnight 
and to open between midnight and 7 a.m., if the bridge was notified 
prior to 11 p.m during the summer tourism months. Although the request 
was submitted by only one bridge owner, the approval would also impact 
the U.S. 16-61 Bridge and the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Therefore, 
the proposal was expanded to include these two bridges. The S36 Bridge 
at Stillwater is more remotely located than the other three bridges, 
and we have proposed a separate opening requirement for the S36 Bridge 
rather than including it with the other three bridges.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The rule proposed by the NPRM included two separate changes to the 
existing regulation that affect the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 
Bridge, the U.S. 16-61 bridge, and the Union Pacific railroad bridge. 
The first change would restrict drawbridge openings between midnight 
and 7 a.m. by requiring that advance notice be made by 11 p.m. the 
night before. The second change would move up the date when the 
drawbridges require 24-hour notification for an opening from December 
15 to October 16 each year. The Coast Guard received six letters 
commenting on one or both of the proposed changes.
    One letter opposed the proposed requirement allowing the 
drawbridges to remain in the closed to navigation position between 
midnight and 7 a.m. except when a request for an opening was received 
prior to 11 p.m. The letter cited impacts on weekend boaters who may 
want late night openings, additional openings required by increases in 
the river level, and the difficulty in amending the bridge operating 
regulations once they have become effective. A review of the bridge 
opening data for the period of April 1 to December 14 for the years 
1998--

[[Page 53080]]

2002 revealed that bridge openings between midnight and 7 a.m. 
decreased by 87% during that time period. For 2001, there were two 
openings in this time period, and in 2002 there was one opening. Due to 
the drastic reduction in requests for openings during the midnight to 7 
a.m. time period, including weekends and high river stages, the Coast 
Guard has determined that impact on vessel traffic in the affected area 
will be minimal and may be avoided by making a request for an opening 
prior to 11 p.m. Accordingly, the requirement to give advanced notice 
for openings between midnight and 7 a.m. will remain in the proposed 
rule. With regard to the burden of modifying or removing a regulation 
once in effect, nothing in this proposed rule would create an unusual 
burden to future amendment in accordance with Administrative Procedures 
Act.
    Three letters proposed changing the time period that requires an 
advance notice from midnight to 7 a.m. to midnight to 8 a.m. This would 
allow the drawbridge owners to provide two standard eight-hour work 
shifts instead of one eight-hour shift and one nine-hour shift during 8 
a.m. to midnight time period when the bridges would be required to open 
on signal. A review of the historical bridge opening data for the 
affected bridges revealed that the bridges opened on average less than 
two times per month between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. for the 
period April 1 through October 31. The Coast Guard agrees that changing 
the end of the time period from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. would have minimal 
impact on vessel traffic and facilitate more manageable work shifts for 
the bridge owner. Additionally, vessels that might be impacted by the 
change can avoid delays by requesting a bridge opening prior to 11 p.m. 
the day before. Therefore, we have amended the proposed rule to reflect 
the time change.
    Two letters opposed moving the start of the winter 24-hour 
notification time period from December 15 to October 16. One of the 
letters cited that the boating season on the St. Croix River does not 
traditionally end until late October. The other letter cited a 
deterrent effect on vacationers wanting to view the fall colors on the 
river. After reviewing the bridge opening data for October 16 through 
November 1, the Coast Guard has determined that the amount of vessel 
traffic on the St. Croix River is sufficient to amend the beginning 
date for the 24-hour notification period from October 16 to November 1.
    In summary, this SNPRM proposes modifying the rule as it was 
originally proposed in the NPRM by extending the time period requiring 
advanced notification before 11 p.m. during the summer tourism season 
by one hour from midnight to 8 a.m. instead of midnight to 7 a.m. This 
SNPRM also proposes moving the ending date of the summer operating 
hours from October 15, as it was originally proposed in the NPRM, to 
October 31.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of the 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 rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary.
    Implementing the proposed regulation would allow the owners of 
drawbridges to reduce the number of hours drawtenders are required to 
be on site due a reduction in requests to open the drawbridges between 
midnight and 8 a.m. from 1 April to 31 October. Previously, these 
advanced notification requirements were temporarily instated to 
facilitate maintenance on the bridges. During these maintenance 
periods, the bridge owners received no complaints from commercial or 
recreational vessel operators. Additionally, this has become the widely 
accepted method of voluntarily requesting bridge openings from local 
vessel operators during non-maintenance periods without complaint.

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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The Coast Guard identified local marinas as 
small entities that might be affected by this rule due to restricted 
access to the marinas during periods when drawtenders are not on site. 
These entities were consulted prior to initiating this rulemaking 
process to minimize the economic impact that might result from this 
proposed rule.
    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 the proposed rule so that they could better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 
Any individual that qualifies or, believes he or she qualifies as a 
small entity and requires assistance with the provisions of this 
proposed rule may contact Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, 
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314) 539-3900, 
extension 2378.

Collection of Information

    This proposed 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 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

[[Page 53081]]

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 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. 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 have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 
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. Promulgation of changes to drawbridge 
regulations have been found to not have significant effect on the human 
environment. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    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. In Sec.  117.667, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), introductory 
text, are revised and a new paragraph (b)(3) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  117.667  St. Croix River

    (a) The draws of the Burlington Northern Railroad Drawbridge, mile 
0.2, Prescott Highway Drawbridge, mile 0.3, and the Hudson Railroad 
Drawbridge, 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.
    (b) The draw of the Stillwater Highway Bridge, mile 23.4, shall 
open on signal as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) From October 16 through May 14, if at least 24 hours notice is 
given.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 25, 2003.
J.W. Stark,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist.
[FR Doc. 03-22793 Filed 9-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P