[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 219 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58931-58933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0840]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Port of Coos Bay Railroad 
Bridge, Coos Bay, North Bend, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the drawbridge operation 
regulation for the Port of Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, Coos Bay, mile 
9.0, at North Bend, Oregon by deleting the requirement for special 
sound signals used in foggy weather and to change the name of the 
owner. This rule is necessary to make the sound signals used at the 
bridge consistent with other bridges in the area and to eliminate the 
unnecessary special sound signals.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before January 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2009-0840 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 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 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 Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management 
Branch, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, telephone 206-220-7282, e-mail 
address [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-2009-0840, 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 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 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-2009-0840'' 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 proposed rule in view of them.

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-2009-0840'' and click 
``Search''. Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT 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 all comments received into 
any

[[Page 58932]]

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 using one of the four methods 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.

Background and Purpose

    The proposed rule would remove the requirement at the Port of Coos 
Bay Railroad Bridge, Coos Bay, mile 9.0, at North Bend, Oregon for a 
bell to be rung continuously in foggy weather and for a siren to be 
sounded in foggy weather when the swingspan is closed. The movable span 
is normally kept in the open position except for the passage of trains 
or maintenance work. The proposed rule would also change the regulation 
to reflect the bridge's current owner as the Port of Coos Bay.
    The bell and siren at this drawbridge are not standard requirements 
at drawbridges and there is nothing specific to the bridge that 
warrants the continued use of these special sound signals. Vessel 
traffic through the swingspan includes tugs and tows and a variety of 
recreational craft. Oceangoing ship traffic has diminished greatly in 
recent decades.
    The operating regulations currently in effect for the bridge are 
found at 33 CFR 117.871. These state that the bridge be maintained 
normally in the open position except for the passage of trains or 
maintenance. The aforementioned sound signals are also prescribed.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.871 by deleting the 
requirements for the Coos Bay Railroad Bridge to use the special sound 
signals noted above. The rule will also change the regulation to 
reflect that the bridge's new owner is the Port of Coos Bay. The 
requirement that the bridge be normally maintained in the open position 
would not be changed.

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 proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard has made 
this finding based on the fact that that the rule will have no known 
impact on the maritime public.

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 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 because it will have no known impact on any 
vessel traffic.
    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 contact Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge 
Section, Waterways Management Branch, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, 
at (206) 220-7282. 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.

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).

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 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 affect 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

[[Page 58933]]

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 Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
not designated this 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. Amend Sec.  117.871 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.871  Coos Bay.

    The draw of the Port of Coos Bay railroad bridge, mile 9.0 at North 
Bend, shall be maintained in the fully open position, except for the 
crossing of trains or maintenance.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. E9-27354 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P