Proposed Rule2023-27385
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the operating schedule that governs the Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, over the Saginaw River to allow contractors to rehabilitate the bridge. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86301-86303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27385]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0912]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saginaw River, Bay City, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the operating
schedule that governs the Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, over the
Saginaw River to allow contractors to rehabilitate the bridge. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0912 using Federal Decision-Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth
[[Page 86302]]
Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#541831317a107a073b21383114212737337a393d38"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a765f5f147e1469554f565f7a4f49595d14575356">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
The Saginaw River is a 22.4-mile-long river in that is a popular
recreational and an important shipping route for mid-Michigan and the
Great Lakes in general. The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is one of
sixteen bridges that cross the Saginaw River in the Bay City
Metropolitan Area. Out of the sixteen bridges only four are bascule
bridges, two are owned by the State of Michigan and two have been
recently leased by the city of Bay City to United Bridge Partners, a
private company that intends to rehabilitate the two bridges and charge
vehicles tolls to cross the bridges.
The proposal to lease the bridges and charge tolls has created the
need for several public meetings and has flooded the local area news
media with stories concerning the progress of the rehabilitation and
administration regarding the Independence Bridge.
United Bridge Partners has established a physical customer service
office within Bay City and a twenty-four-hour call line residents and
mariners can call to receive information concerning the bridge
operations and proposed construction schedule. United Bridge Partner,
the City of Bay City, along with their chosen contractor held a public
meeting on August 15, 2023, along with many media interviews prior to
the public meeting. Most of the questions from the public were
regarding the pass ability of vehicles and tolls associated with the
new bridge ownership rather than the impacts the maintenance would have
on the marine community.
On November 13, 2023, representatives from Congressman Dan Kildee,
Senator Gary Peters, Congressman John Moolenaar, and Senator Debbie
Stabenow's offices along with the U.S. Coast Guard and nineteen area
stakeholders had a meeting to discuss the proposed rehabilitation
project's effects on vessel traffic. The thirty people in attendance
proposed the conditions in this proposed rule.
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is a double leaf bascule bridge
that crosses the Saginaw River and provides a horizontal clearance of
150 feet and a vertical clearance of 22 feet above LWD in the closed
position and an unlimited clearance in the open position. The bridge
allows vehicles and pedestrians to cross the river near the north end
of the City of Bay City. The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is
regulated under 33 CFR 117.647 and is allowed to open twice hourly in
the summer and from January 1 through March 31 will open if a 12-hour
advance notice is provided.
The reason for this proposed rule will be to allow the bridge to be
secured to masted navigation from December 1 through March 31 and then
through the summer require a 2-hour advance notice for openings to
accommodate the rehabilitation of the bridge.
Granit Construction, the official contractor for the bridge owner
has made this request for a temporary change in the bridge schedule to
allow for the rehabilitation of structural, electrical, and mechanical
components of the bridge during the winter when accumulation of ice
makes navigating the river difficult.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, is near the mouth of the river
and there are no alternative routes for vessels. The December 1 to
March 31 dates have been identified by local stake holders and dock
owners as the best time to secure the bridge to masted navigation for
the rehabilitation project. Because the new bridge owner intends to
charge tolls on the bridge that once was free to cross has caused
several people to be concerned about any bridge project in the area.
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.
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. This proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). 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 (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice and that the
repair winter work will be done at a time of year when vessel traffic
is at its lowest.
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 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.
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 proposed 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 section. 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).
[[Page 86303]]
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
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.
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 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, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of chapter 3, table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this proposed rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
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.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
do so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2023-0912 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, 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 of any posting or updates to the docket.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
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; DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
2. [From the date of publication in the Federal Register], through
11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2025, Sec. 117.647(e) is temporarily added to
read as follows:
Sec. 117.647 Saginaw River.
* * * * *
(e) The draw of the Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, over the
Saginaw River, will require a 2-hour advance notice of arrival to be
given to move barges away from the draw to allow vessels to pass
through the bridge from April 24, 2024, through November 30, 2024, and
the bridge need not open for the passage of vessels from December 1,
2024, through March 31, 2025.
Jonathan Hickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-27385 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 13, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.