[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22911-22913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09384]



[[Page 22911]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0272]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugus River, Revere and Lynn, 
MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that 
governs the General Edwards SR1A Bridge across the Saugus River at mile 
1.7, between Revere and Lynn, Massachusetts. The bridge owner, 
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, submitted a request to 
require a two-hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times 
based upon infrequent requests to open the draw during past years. It 
is expected that this change to the regulation will create efficiency 
in drawbridge operations while continuing to meet the reasonable needs 
of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before June 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0272 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries 
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these 
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast 
Guard District Bridge Program, telephone 617-223-8364, email 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tables of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2014-0272), 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 delivery, 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 email 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, 
type the docket number USCG-2014-0272 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. 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.

2. 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, 
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0272) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. You may also visit either 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The General Edwards SR1A Bridge across the Saugus River at mile 
1.7, between Revere and Lynn, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance 
of 27 feet at mean high water and 36 feet at mean low water. The 
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b).
    The waterway users are commercial lobster boats and seasonal 
recreational vessels of various size.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of 
Transportation, submitted a request to the Coast Guard to change the 
drawbridge operating regulations that presently require the bridge to 
open on signal; except that, from April 1 through November 30, from 
midnight through 8 a.m. at least an eight hour advance notice is 
required for bridge openings, and at all times from December 1 through 
March 31, at least an eight hour

[[Page 22912]]

advance notice is required for bridge openings.
    Under this proposed rule the bridge would open on signal at all 
times if at least a two-hour advance notice is given by calling the 
number posted at the bridge.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations at 33 CFR 117.618(b) that would allow the General Edwards 
SR1A Bridge to open on signal at all times if at least a two-hour 
advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    As a result of the vertical clearance under the bridge, 27 feet at 
mean high water and 36 feet at mean low water, the bridge has received 
few requests to open during past years. There were no requests to open 
the bridge in 2013, because the bridge was closed due to a major 
rehabilitation. There were 20 requests to open in 2012, 14 requests to 
open in 2011, 55 requests to open in 2010, and 141 openings in 2009, 59 
of which were test openings.
    Based on the above information, the Coast Guard believes it is 
reasonable to allow the General Edwards SR1A Bridge to open on signal 
at all times if at least a two-hour advance notice is given. This 
decision was based on the number requests to open the bridge during the 
past years and the relatively high vertical clearance under the bridge.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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 Order 12866, or under 
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget 
has not reviewed it under those Orders. We believe that this rule is 
not a significant regulatory action because the bridge will still open 
for all vessel traffic at all times provided the two-hour advance 
notice is given.

2. 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.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of 
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels 
needing to transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The 
General Edwards SR1A Bridge will open on signal at all times provided 
at least a two hour advance notice is given.
    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.

3. 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. 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.

4. 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.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

[[Page 22913]]

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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. 
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an 
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of significant environmental 
impact from the 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

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. Revise Sec.  117.618, paragraph (b), to read as follows:


Sec.  117.618  Taunton River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the General Edwards SR1A Bridge, mile 1.7, between 
Revere and Lynn, shall open on signal at all times if at least a two-
hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the 
bridge.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-09384 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P