Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65299 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

Docket No. USCG–2018–0128] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Ebey Slough, Marysville, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying 

the operating schedule that governs the 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

(BNSF) Bridge 38.3 across Ebey Slough, 

mile 1.5, at Marysville, WA. The 

modified schedule removes the bridge 

operator at the subject drawbridge, and 

will change from on-demand opening to 

a four hour advance notice for opening. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 22, 

2019. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Type USCG– 

2018–0128 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and 

click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge 

Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard 

District Bridge Program Office, 

telephone 206–220–7282; email d13-pfd13bridges@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 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Railway 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

On March 12, 2018, we published a 

NPRM entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulation; Ebey Slough, Marysville, 

WA,’’ in the Federal Register (83 FR 

12305). We received one comment on 

this rule. This comment was received 

May 8, 2018, and included several 

objections. BNSF submitted a rebuttal to 

us on June 1, 2018, addressing each 

objection. We have read both submittals 

from each party, and will discuss the 

material herein. 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. BNSF 

requested a change to the operating 

schedule of the BNSF Railroad Bridge 

38.3 across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, in 

order to save on operating costs for the 

bridge. The regulation will allow BNSF 

to operate without a bridge operator 

attending the bridge until an opening 

request has been received, and allow 

BNSF’s bridge operator to open the 

swing span within four hours after 

receiving a request for an opening. 

Marine traffic on Ebey Slough consists 

of vessels ranging from small pleasure 

craft, small tribal fishing boats and 

occasionally medium size pleasure 

motor vessels. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The 

BNSF Bridge 38.3 across Ebey Slough, 

mile 1.5, at Marysville, WA, currently 

operates in accordance with 33 CFR 

117.5. This bridge provides a vertical 

clearance approximately 5 feet above 

mean high water and approximately 16 

feet above mean low water when in the 

closed-to-navigation position. The Coast 

Guard will add the vertical clearances in 

the Coast Pilot. Vertical clearance in the 

open-to-navigation position is 

unlimited. During July 2017, a BNSF 

supervisor contacted the District Bridge 

Office via a phone call enquiring about 

a rule change for the subject bridge due 

to a low number of openings. In 2015, 

the number of bridge openings was 128, 

and each year afterward, the number of 

openings have progressively been less. 

The City of Maryville closed the only 

marina upriver from the swing bridge in 

2016, and that year the bridge opened 

48 times, and most of those openings 

were for relocating vessels leaving the 

marina. At the time BNSF submitted a 

rule change request in August 2017, 

only two vessel opening requests were 

received. However, after reviewing 

updated bridge logs for this rule change, 

we identified a total of five openings. 

This rule change to request at least a 

four hour notice to open the subject 

bridge will lower operating cost, and the 

waterway use supports this rule. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

Part of the comment submitted stated 

our NPRM was devoid of BNSF’s 

written request. Our NPRMs do not 

include the bridge owner’s written 

request, and anyone may request a rule 

change. The Coast Guard published the 

NPRM based on facts open to public 

comment, allowing ample opportunity 

for review. The comment continues 

with six objections, the following 

addresses these objections with BNSF’s 

rebuttal and our determination: 

A. The commenter objects to removal 

of the bridge tender on the basis that the 

bridge tender performs routine day-today maintenance and inspection, 

assuring that the bridge operates as 

intended. Without the bridge tender, 

there are increased chances for 

mechanical failure leading to a halt in 

maritime traffic. USCG disagrees. The 

bridge operator’s responsibility and/or 

role to perform day-to-day routine 

maintenance, inspection, repairs and in 

ensuring the swing span will open is 

irrespective of the mariner notice time 

to open the bridge. In the event of a 

mechanical failure, multiple BNSF 

employees are available to respond, 

including BNSF maintenance crews, 

bridge and track inspectors, and 

supervisors. This response to execute 

repairs is not changed by this rule. The 

subject bridge is cycled open and closed 

on a periodic bases to ensure the 

operating status as required by 33 CFR 

117.5. This rule will not impact the 

operation of the bridge or change 

BNSF’s responsibility to maintain the 

bridge. 

B. The commenter discusses the issue 

of trespassers who use the bridge for 

fishing, and freight trains depositing 

debris and trash on the bridge, both of 

which are removed and handled by the 

bridge tender. The commenter asserts 

that without the bridge tender’s actions, 

there are significant safety concerns. 

USCG disagrees. Potential trespassing 

and debris scattered on the subject 

bridge are hypothetical situations that 

may or may not occur. Nevertheless, 

other unmanned bridges within the 

district clear debris and have 

trespassing issues with no impact to 

reasonable navigation. Furthermore, 

Federal no trespassing signage is 

installed at each bridge. 

C. The commenter raised the issue of 

the high number of pleasure crafts 

utilizing the waterway, and how those 

watercrafts may try and utilize the 

waterway without requesting an 

opening. The Coast Guard has 

determined that the use of Ebey Slough 

has progressively lessened over a few 

years, as stated in section III. We 

contacted local authorities asking what 

type of vessels have been seen using this 

waterway, and they answered kayaks 

and small outboard motor boats. These 

vessels have not or typically have not 

requested bridge openings. At high tide, 

5 feet is enough vertical clearance for 

these types of vessels to transit under 

the swing span. In 2016 and 2017, only 

two vessels routinely requested an 

opening, and those opening request 

were given more than four hours prior 

to needing the swing span to open. 

Other pleasure vessels did request 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65300 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

openings in 2016, but after the marina 

was closed, those vessels no longer 

transit through Ebey Slough. The marina 

was the only small business on this part 

of Ebey Slough. We also stated in the 

NPRM that an alternate route is 

available via Steamboat Slough or 

Union Slough. Whether or not a vessel 

requests an opening on demand or four 

hours prior to arriving at the subject 

bridge, mariners are responsible for 

knowing and following the notification 

for bridge operating rules. All mariners 

are responsible for and encouraged to 

report bridge opening delays or nonopening issues. 

D. The commenter states that the 

NPRM did not disclose how a mariner 

may contact BNSF for the subject bridge 

operations or emergencies. That omitted 

information was an error on our part. 

BNSF agrees to install signs at the 

subject bridge that will state, ‘‘Call 

BNSF Bridge 37.0 at Snohomish River 

mile 3.5 at 425–304–6613, or use VHF 

CH 13 for bridge opening requests. In 

case of an emergency, call 800–832– 

5452’’. 

E. The commenter states that with just 

a four hour notice, without a tender on 

site for operation, a qualified tender 

may have to travel far to Ebey Slough. 

Furthermore, the commenter states that 

BNSF may lose availability of qualified 

bridge tenders due to this change in the 

regulation. The Coast Guard disagrees, 

as BNSF made the request of at least 

four hours of notification to open the 

swing span of the subject bridge. By the 

Coast Guard approving this rule, the 

burden falls on BNSF to follow the rule 

or will be in violation and subject to 

civil penalties. BNSF has stated they 

have qualified bridge operators within 

four hours of Ebey Slough residing near 

Marysville/Everett, WA. Moreover, 

BNSF has a demonstrated history of 

meeting this same time requirement at 

a nearby bridge across Steamboat 

Slough. 

F. This rule will amend 33 CFR 

117.1059 to provide specific 

requirements for the operation of BNSF 

Railroad Bridge 38.3. These specific 

requirements are in addition to or vary 

from the general requirements that 

apply to all drawbridges across the 

navigable waters of the United States. 

This rule reasonably accommodates 

waterway users while reducing BNSF’s 

burden in operating the subject bridge, 

and supports the current usage of Ebey 

Slough. We have not identified any 

impacts on marine navigation with this 

rule. An alternate route is available into 

Steamboat Slough and/or via Union 

Slough at high tide. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final rule 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive order(s) related to 

rulemaking. Below we summarize our 

analyses based on these statutes and 

Executive order (s), 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 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This rule has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. This regulatory action 

determination is based on the ability for 

the bridge to open on signal after 

receiving at least four hours advanced 

notice, and not delay passage of any 

mariner. Vessels not requiring an 

opening may pass under the bridge at 

any time. Alternate routes are available, 

as stated herein. 

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 received no comments 

from the Small Business Administration 

on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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.C above, this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on any vessel owner or operator. 

The only small entity that could have 

been impacted on this part of Ebey 

Slough, and used the BNSF Bridge 38.3, 

closed in 2016. No other entities are 

near the subject bridge, or use this part 

of the waterway. Ebey Waterfront Park 

has a public boat ramp less than 200 

yards upriver from the subject bridge. 

Mariners and marine businesses were 

informed of the NPRM via publishing a 

notification in the Local Notice to 

Mariners from March 21, 2018 to May 

22, 2018, and no comments were 

submitted by any small entities. The 

only comment received was from a 

union group representing the bridge 

operators, and that comment with 

objections were addressed in Section IV. 

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 rule. If the rule will 

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. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule calls 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 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 rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65301 

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. No 

comment were received from the 

published NPRM in regards to this 

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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. No 

comment were received from the 

published NPRM in regards to this 

section. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 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 rule 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This action is categorically 

excluded from further review, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32) (e), of the 

Instruction. A Record of Environmental 

Consideration and a Memorandum for 

the Record are not required for this 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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.1059 add paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.1059 Snohomish River, Steamboat 

Slough, and Ebey Slough. 

* * * * * 

(g) The draw of the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge 

across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, near 

Marysville, WA, shall open on signal if 

at least four hours notice is given. The 

opening signal is one prolonged blast 

followed by one short blast. During 

freshets, a draw tender shall be in 

constant attendance, and the draw shall 

open on signal when so ordered by the 

District Commander. 

David G. Throop, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27525 Filed 12–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0277; FRL–9988–14– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Removal of Department 

of Environmental Protection Gasoline 

Volatility Requirements for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

approving a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a SIP revision on May 2, 2018 

seeking the removal from the 

Pennsylvania SIP of the requirement 

limiting summertime gasoline volatility 

to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) to address 

nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley ozone nonattainment area 

(hereafter Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area). The submitted SIP revision 

includes a demonstration, pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA), that amendment of 

the approved SIP will not interfere with 

the area’s ability to attain or maintain 

any NAAQS. EPA is approving this 

revision to remove the PADEP 

requirement for use of 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline in summer months from the 

Pennsylvania SIP, in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 22, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0277. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email 

at rehn.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 15, 2018 (83 FR 27901 and 

82 FR 27937), EPA simultaneously 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) and a direct final 

rule (DFR) for the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania approving its revision to 

remove the PADEP’s 7.8 psi 

summertime RVP requirement from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. In the NPRM, EPA 

proposed to approve Pennsylvania’s 

request to remove the 7.8 psi RVP 

summertime gasoline requirement from 

the Pennsylvania SIP. However, EPA 

received adverse comments on the 

rulemaking and withdrew the DFR on 

August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38261) prior to 

its effective date of August 14, 2018. In 

this final rulemaking, EPA is responding 

to the comments submitted on the 

proposed revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP and is approving Pennsylvania’s 

demonstration that removal of the 

program does not interfere with the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area’s ability 

to attain or maintain any NAAQS under 

section 110(l) of the CAA. The formal 

SIP revision requesting this removal of 

the PADEP summertime low RVP 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES