[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43226-43230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0972]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Bayou Liberty, Mile 2.0, St. 
Tammany Parish, Slidell, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the operating schedule 
for the State Route 433 (S433) bridge across Liberty Bayou, mile 2.0, 
at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The proposed rule provides 
for an opening upon one-hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., allowing the 
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, owner of the 
bridge, to reduce the hours of manned operation of the bridge in order 
to make more efficient use of personnel and operating resources. This 
Supplemental Notice follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 
in the Federal Register [USCG-2010-0972] on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 
71061).

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0972 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground

[[Page 43227]]

Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
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 e-mail Jim Wetherington; Bridge Administration Branch, 
Eighth Coast Guard District, telephone 504-671-2128, e-mail 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0972), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, 
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online 
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the 
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, 
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having 
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket 
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of 
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding 
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become 
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select 
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0972'' in the ``Keyword'' 
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the 
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand 
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will 
consider all comments and material received during the comment period 
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0972'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on 
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an 
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket 
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please explain 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.

Basis and Purpose

    In October 2010, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and 
Development (LDOTD), the owner of the bridge, replaced the existing 
S433 pontoon bridge over Bayou Liberty, mile 2.0, St. Tammany Parish, 
Slidell, LA with a new modern swing bridge. Due to the fact that not 
all vessels would now require the bridge to open for the passage of 
vessels, LDOTD requested a modification to the existing requirements 
for giving notice to open the bridge. The Coast Guard published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register [USCG-2010-0972] 
on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71061). The proposed rule would have 
changed the notice required for an opening of the bridge from 7 a.m. to 
7 p.m. from on signal to two hours notice. The notice required for an 
opening from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. would have remained two hours as required 
by the existing regulations.
    At the same time, a test deviation was published in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 71017) to allow mariners to test the proposed change 
for 30 days. Thirteen comments were received either by e-mail or 
through the docket but only four were within the time specified. All 13 
comments were considered, and are discussed and addressed in this 
SNPRM.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    As stated above, we received 13 submissions commenting on the NPRM. 
Five comments expressed concern with testing a new opening procedure 
during the winter months and relying on recorded openings during 
construction or the recreational boating off season. One comment 
specifically stated that Bayou Liberty is primarily a recreational 
waterway and several comments referenced residential and recreational 
use. The Coast Guard agrees that better results will likely result from 
a test period during a season that better reflects the recreational and 
residential use of the waterway and as a result issued a new temporary 
deviation to run from June 1, 2011 through September 9, 2011, to test a 
revised opening schedule and it was published in Federal Register (76 
FR 28311) on May 17, 2011. The current test deviation will provide a 
record of openings during the spring and summer months, including 
recreational boating during a couple of holiday weekends. So, the 
comparison between recorded openings during prior years and recorded 
openings during the current test period will provide a better 
representation of the bridge's use and need, specifically during 
holidays. While one comment mentioned a 12 month test period, the Coast 
Guard feels that this would be unnecessary and impracticable. As stated 
above, the current test period will be during the

[[Page 43228]]

higher traffic season and will be compared to the prior year's recorded 
openings. Lengthening a test period to 12 months would incorporate 
lower traffic months already determined to be a poor representation of 
the bridge's use, unnecessarily delaying an appropriate final opening 
schedule.
    Four comments mention concern with the impact this rule would have 
on property value if certain vessels are not able to easily transit 
through the bridge. The Coast Guard understands this concern and the 
current test deviation will provide a record of the type of traffic 
using and attempting to use the bridge during the high use season.
    Four comments indicated a concern with evacuation during threat of 
a hurricane or tropical storm. Should emergency evacuation be 
necessary, the bridge would operate under emergency procedures already 
in place pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part 117. 
Specifically, 33 CFR 117.59 states that for the duration of occurrences 
hazardous to safety or navigation such as floods, freshets and damage 
to the bridge of fender system, the District Commander may require the 
owner of an operational drawbridge listed in this sub part to have the 
bridge attended full time and open on signal. But, 33 CFR 117.33 
provides that ``[d]raw bridges need not open for the passage of vessels 
during periods of natural disasters or civil disorders declared by the 
appropriate authorities unless otherwise provided for or directed to do 
so by the District Commander.''
    Four comments expressed a concern that the two-hour request time 
was excessive during the day. The Coast Guard agrees and the bridge 
owner agreed to the new test deviation and this SNPRM proposing a one-
hour request time during the day, cutting the request time during the 
day in half.
    Two comments expressed difficulty with reaching the point of 
contact to request an opening. The Coast Guard contacted the bridge 
owner, confirming that accurate contact information is posted. The 
bridge owner also stated that they do periodic tests of the phone 
system and have never had an issue.
    One comment expressed concern that the majority of comments 
submitted were concerned with large boats and that smaller boat owners 
are not as concerned about a change in opening procedures because the 
replacement bridge is high enough to go under. The new test period 
during a higher traffic season is expected to provide a better 
representation of the waterway use by boats requiring the bridge to 
open.
    Finally, two comments proposed combining bridge-tender duties with 
other bridges operating in the vicinity of this bridge and stated that 
a full-time tender was represented as part of the new bridge. The Coast 
Guard contacted LDOTD, the bridge owner, and confirmed that LTOTD is 
considering a solution regarding bridge-tender duties and if they may 
be combined.
    In summary, the time of year that the original NPRM and deviation 
were issued did not capture a true representation of the bridge's use 
and how a new operating schedule may impact such use. The original test 
period was during the winter when vessel traffic was considerably less 
than the summer months which the new test and comment period will 
cover.
    Based on the limited data received and the aforementioned comments, 
LDOTD changed their request to modify the requirements for giving 
notice to open the bridge. Specifically, LDOTD lessened the request 
time required for opening during the day. This supplemental notice 
proposes to have the bridge open on signal if at least one-hour notice 
is given from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and two-hour notice is given from 7 p.m. 
to 7 a.m.
    As previously stated, the Coast Guard issued a new temporary 
deviation to test the newly proposed schedule and it was published in 
Federal Register (76 FR 28311) on May 17, 2011. The test deviation is 
scheduled to run from June 1, 2011 through September 9, 2011. During 
and following completion of the test deviation, the Coast Guard will 
analyze the data collected from the tender logs and vehicular transits 
and review the comments received to this SNPRM to determine if the 
requested modifications to the operating schedule can be made 
permanent.
    The replacement bridge has a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above 
the 2% flowline, elevation 2.5 feet (NAVD 1988) in the closed-to-
navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. 
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.469, the draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 
2.0, at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. and 7 
a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least a two-hour notice is 
given.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    LDOTD is requesting a new regulation to open the bridge on signal 
with one-hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and with two-hour notice 
from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Presently, the bridge opens on signal, except 
that between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at 
least a two-hour notice is given. This rule proposes to change the 
requirement that a bridge tender open the bridge on signal during the 
day. The proposed change is to require that the bridge be opened with a 
one-hour notice during the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. time period each day. So, 
the bridge would open within one hour of a mariner calling the number 
posted at the bridge rather than having a bridge tender present from 7 
a.m. to 7 p.m. each day. The area above the bridge site is an area 
normally transited by local mariners. It is believed that these 
mariners will be able to contact the bridge owner before their planned 
departure from their docks. The reason for the requested change in the 
operation schedule is that a new swing bridge has been constructed with 
a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above the 2% flowline, elevation 2.5 
feet (NAVD 1988) in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in 
the open-to-navigation. This new bridge replaces a pontoon bridge that 
required bridge openings for all vessels. LDOTD has indicated that 
bridge opening requests have decreased significantly and the bridge 
owner feels that they can maintain a quality level of service without 
keeping a tender on the bridge at all times.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management 
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    The public would need to notify the bridge owner of a required 
opening one hour in advance from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., rather than on 
signal. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., two-hour notice will be required.

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

[[Page 43229]]

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. This proposed rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or 
operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge between 7 a.m. and 7 
p.m. with less than one-hour advance notice.
    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 this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects 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 call or e-mail Jim Wetherington; Bridge 
Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District, telephone 504-671-
2128, e-mail [email protected]. 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 will not call for a 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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 cause 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 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. 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 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 because it simply 
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We 
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a 
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Sec.  117.469 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 43230]]

Sec.  117.469  Liberty Bayou.

    The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0, at Slidell, shall open on 
signal with a one hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 
7 a.m., two-hour notice will be required, seven days a week.

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-18225 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P