[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29007-29010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0186]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Portage River, Port Clinton, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating regulations 
of the Monroe Street Highway Bridge, mile 0.4 and the Norfolk Southern 
Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, over the Portage River at Port Clinton, 
Ohio. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before July 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0186 using Federal Decision-

[[Page 29008]]

Making 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 
temporary final rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management 
Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email 
[email protected].

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
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Portage River is 41.5 miles long and empties into Lake Erie at 
Port Clinton, Ohio. The lower twelve miles of the Portage River, 
between Oak Harbor and the mouth at Port Clinton, is an estuary and is 
over 3,000 feet wide making it a prime location for recreational 
boating, canoeing, and kayaking.
    Several inspected and uninspected passenger vessels operate in the 
river, sharing the waterway with approximately 12,000 (state 
registered) powered and unpowered recreational vessels.
    The river is crossed by two movable bridges. The Monroe Street 
Highway Bridge, mile 0.4, is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides 
a horizontal clearance of 75-feet and a vertical clearance of 9-feet in 
the closed position and an unlimited clearance in the open position 
based on LWD. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, is a 
single leaf bascule bridge with a horizontal clearance of 109-feet and 
a vertical clearance of 9-feet in the closed position and an unlimited 
clearance in the open position based on LWD and is remotely operated by 
the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76, over the Maumee River, 
Toledo, OH.
    The current bridge regulation was written in 1986 (49 FR 17452); it 
has been amended four times. We intend to revise the regulation to make 
it easy to understand and to align this regulation with the regulations 
of the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, for the ease of drawtenders and the 
mariners.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Paragraph (a) of 33 CFR 117.851 speaks of emergency and public 
vessels crossing at the bridge. This requirement was included with the 
original regulation before the requirements of 33 CFR 117.31 were 
promulgated and to prevent any confusion with part a of 33 CFR 117. 
Accordingly, we propose removing this language.
    We propose to remove the board gauge requirement in paragraph (b) 
since the water fluctuations in the river do not change rapidly and 
both bridges over the river will be required to open on signal. If a 
mariner is not certain of the clearance under the bridge, they can 
request a full opening. We look forward to public comments on the 
actual need and usefulness of the current board gauges.
    Monroe Street Highway Bridge, mile 0.4, currently the bridge opens 
on the hour and half-hour in the summer; this schedule was intended to 
preserve the bridge until it could be replaced. However, since the 
publication of the original rule, the bridge has completed an extensive 
rehabilitation, with both leaves having been removed and new leaves 
fabricated for the bridge. New modern controls have been installed. The 
bridge has annual daily crossings of 3,227 vehicles in 2022, compared 
to 1994, when the bridge had an annual daily crossing of 5,800 
vehicles. The trend has been a 2% to 17% drop in vehicles crossing this 
bridge year over year. Hourly and half-hour opening are tools used to 
extend the longevity of a failing drawbridge and balance the needs of 
vehicle crossings while still meeting the reasonable needs of 
navigation in the waterway. The Coast Guard believes that the previous 
justifications for hourly and half-hour openings have diminished. 
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is proposing removal of the hourly and 
half-hour openings. Rather, the Coast Guard is proposing that the 
bridge open on signal (with notice requirements during certain winter 
months).
    The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, will continue to 
operate remotely, maintain and operate a radiotelephone, and open on 
signal. At this time, we do not propose that the bridge should remain 
in the open position through the summer like the nearby Norfolk 
Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 5.76; however, we will propose the 
bridge operate and maintain a telephone the number, to be posted at the 
bridge, so mariners may call and request an opening.
    When the winds exceed 40 mph there is a danger that lightweight 
railcars could be blown off the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 
1.5. These half floating railcars are a potential hazard to motorists 
and marine traffic. During wind events, the railroad routinely sets 
upwind blocker, composed of heavy railcars on the parallel track to 
block the wind, which protects railcars from the wind. However, the 
railroad must coordinate with the local Coast Guard Sector office 
before posting wind blockers, as the wind blockers may disrupt a 
bridge's posted operating schedule. Often, there is confusion on how 
long the wind blocker can be posted and when it needs to be moved to 
allow vessels to pass through the bridge. The Coast Guard is proposing 
new language that will specify when a wind blocker is appropriate and 
stipulate how it will be used by the railroad.
    The winter hours noted in paragraph 2 of the current regulation is 
an antiquated regulation from when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
regulated bridges over navigable waters and allowed a 24-hour advance 
notice. We propose amending the winter hours to require a 12-hour 
advance notice, in line with current policies. Further, we propose 
moving the dates from December 1 to April 30 to November 1 to April 30. 
These dates will be in harmony with the inspected and uninspected 
passenger vessels schedules and better meet the reasonable needs of 
navigation for both the Monroe Street Highway Bridge, mile 0.4, and the 
Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5.

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 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.

[[Page 29009]]

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 
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.).

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 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 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 https://www.regulations.gov. To 
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0186 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 
Questions web page. 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. 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 of any posting or updates to the docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov 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:

[[Page 29010]]

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. 00170.1, Revision 01.3.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.851 Portage River to read as follows:


Sec.  117.851  Portage River.

    (a) The draw of the Monroe Street Highway Bridge, mile 0.4, will 
open on signal, except from November 1 through April 30 the draw will 
open on signal if at least 12-hours' notice is given.
    (b) The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 1.5, is 
remotely operated, is required to operate a radiotelephone and a 
telephone, and will open on signal, except from November 1 through 
April 30 the draw will open on signal if at least 12-hours' notice is 
given. If the winds are predicted to be over 40 MPH, a wind blocker is 
authorized, and the bridge will open with a 2-hour advance notice until 
the end of the wind event. The drawtender will request the cognizant 
USCG Sector to issue a broadcast notice to mariners to alert vessels of 
the wind blocker and the 2-hour advance notice requirement.

    Dated: May 1, 2023.
E.J. Doucette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2023-09576 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P