Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA, 76889-76891 [2016-26654]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76889-76891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0963]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, 
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that 
governs the State Route 22 Bridge (Madisonville (SR22) swing span 
bridge) across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. 
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of Transportation 
and Development requested changes to the present drawbridge operating 
regulations governing the SR 22 swing span bridge, to enhance the flow 
of vehicle traffic across the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before January 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0963 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 David Frank, Bridge Administrator, at 504-671-2128, 
email david.m.frank@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
LTOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
SR State Route
MHW Mean High Water

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    Local governmental officials from St. Tammany Parish and the City 
of Madisonville, in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of 
Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested that the operating 
regulation of the SR 22 Bridge, a swing span bridge, be changed in 
order to better accommodate the increased vehicular traffic crossing 
the bridge especially during the peak, weekday rush hours. Currently, 
this bridge is governed under 33 CFR 117.500. The current regulation 
was created to allow for improved vehicular traffic flow during peak 
rush hours due to the increased population of the western portions of 
St. Tammany Parish.
    Based on a recent study of the current vehicle traffic crossing the 
bridge, public officials and LDOTD requested that the operating 
regulation be changed to better meet current bridge use.
    The traffic study conducted by the LDOTD determined that the 
existing vehicular traffic at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21/SR 
1077 is over capacity at peak hours and causes unacceptable levels of 
delay to roadway traffic. This situation is compounded by the opening 
of the bridge during these peak hours. A combination of modifications 
to the

[[Page 76890]]

operating schedule of the bridge and modifications to the traffic 
controls at this intersection will improve traffic flow and reduce 
traffic delays. As the largest commercial facility upstream of the 
bridge is no longer in service, most of the vessels that request 
openings are recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely 
transit this waterway and should be able to adjust their schedules to 
coincide with the proposed drawbridge operating schedule. The SR 22 
swing bridge has a vertical clearance of 6.2 feet above Mean High Water 
(MHW) in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in 
the open-to-navigation position.
    Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM), a Test Deviation [USCG-2016-0963] has been issued to 
allow the LDOTD to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and 
public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire 
NPRM comment period. The Coast Guard will review the logs of the 
drawbridge, the traffic counts provided by LDOTD, and evaluate public 
comments from this NPRM and the above referenced Temporary Deviation to 
determine if the requested change to the permanent special drawbridge 
operating regulation is warranted.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The rule proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.500. The proposed rule change 
would extend the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour, 
between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., and not require the bridge to open for the 
passage of vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. during the weekday rush 
hours. This additional time would allow commuters and school buses to 
cross the bridge freely and prevent vehicular traffic from backing up 
for over a mile on SR 22. The bridge will open at any time in the case 
of an emergency.
    Approximately 7,500 vehicles cross the bridge daily between the 
hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Vessel openings for the month of July 
indicate that the bridge opened to pass vessels 118 times during the 
week and 202 times during the weekend. Vessel openings for the month of 
August dropped to 68 openings during the week and 85 openings during 
the weekend.
    Traffic studies have indicated a significant increase in highway 
traffic delays caused by bridge openings, consisting of mainly 
recreational traffic that presently passes through the bridge on 
scheduled openings, and can adjust their schedules to work with the 
needs of land transportation. There are no alternate routes available 
for vessels that wish to transit the bridge site; however, if vessels 
have a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above MHW, 
they may transit the bridge site at any time.

IV. 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 and Executive Orders and we discuss 
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 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. Executive Order 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 a reduction of 
commercial vessel traffic on this waterway, and the recreational 
powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit this waterway can still 
transit the bridge under the proposed schedule. And, those vessels with 
a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above MHW, they 
may transit the bridge site at any time. This regulatory action takes 
into account the reasonable needs of vessel and vehicular traffic.

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 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 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 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

[[Page 76891]]

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 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.
    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 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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal 
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal 
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in 
our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by 
following that Web site'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. Revise Sec.  117.500 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.500  Tchefuncta River

    The draw of the SR 22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, shall open 
on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need 
only open on the hour, except that the draw need not open for the 
passage of vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday 
except federal holidays. The bridge will open at any time an emergency.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-26654 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P