Proposed Rule2024-07578
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Umpqua River, Reedsport, OR
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
April 10, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to change the name and operating schedule that governs the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad bridge across the Umpqua River, mile 11.5, at Reedsport, OR. Coos Bay Rail Line, the bridge owner, requested to change the name of the bridge to a locally recognized name and to change the current operating schedule due to reduced marine traffic using the waterway. The modified rule would change the name of the bridge, allow the bridge to be maintained in the closed to navigation position and remove the requirement for fog signals at the bridge. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25198-25200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07578]
[[Page 25198]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0969]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Umpqua River, Reedsport, OR
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the name and operating
schedule that governs the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad bridge
across the Umpqua River, mile 11.5, at Reedsport, OR. Coos Bay Rail
Line, the bridge owner, requested to change the name of the bridge to a
locally recognized name and to change the current operating schedule
due to reduced marine traffic using the waterway. The modified rule
would change the name of the bridge, allow the bridge to be maintained
in the closed to navigation position and remove the requirement for fog
signals at the bridge. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0969 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. This notice of proposed rulemaking with its plain-
language, 100 word or less proposed rule summary will be available in
this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Danny McReynolds, Bridge Management Specialist
Thirteenth District, Coast Guard; telephone 206-220-7234, email, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315500021c425c531c5500021c5343585556544271444252561f5c585d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4a1f1d035d434c034a1f1d034c5c474a494b5d6e5b5d4d4900434742">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CBRL Coos Bay Rail Line
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Coos Bay Rail Line (CBRL) owns and operates the Central Oregon
and Pacific railroad bridge across the Umpqua River at mile 11.5. The
CBRL requested to change the subject bridge name to the Umpqua River
railroad bridge, which is a more recognizable local name. The Central
Oregon and Pacific railroad bridge will be referred to as the Umpqua
River railroad bridge for the rest of this NPRM. Umpqua River railroad
bridge is maintained in the open to navigation position. We are
proposing to change 33 CFR 117.893(b) to maintain the Umpqua River
railroad bridge in the closed to navigation position and open to marine
vessels with a minimum of two-hours' advance notice. In the closed to
navigation position, the bridge provides 15 feet of vertical clearance
above high water. The Umpqua River has experienced a reduction in
marine traffic using the waterway while CBRL has experienced an
increase in rail traffic that requires the bridge span to be in the
closed position. Vessels that regularly request draw openings are two
fishing vessels named Pearl J and Pacific Marit. These vessels transit
upriver to a repair facility, and after repairs, the vessels transit
down river to their normal moorings. The proposed regulation change
would allow the Umpqua River railroad bridge to be maintained in the
closed to navigation position to marine vessels, and the bridge will
open with at least two-hours' notice via the phone number posted on the
bridge. The phone number to contact CBRL will be published in the Local
Notice to Mariners.
Currently the bridge operates fog signals to warn vessels when the
bridge is cycled closed and open during reduced visibility. This
proposed regulation change would open the subject bridge on request
from mariners, and therefore, the mariner would know the bridge is open
and have no need to be warned of the position of the draw during fog or
any reduced visibility type of weather.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend the operating schedule of the Umpqua
River railroad bridge by allowing the bridge to remain in the closed to
navigation position and would require two-hours' advance notice for all
draw openings. The rule is necessary to balance the needs of the
railroad by reducing the need to frequently cycle the draw closed for
rail traffic and back open for marine traffic, while still maintaining
the reasonable needs of navigation. Over the years the bridge has had
multiple owners, but the bridge name in the Code of Federal Regulations
has not changed. Changing the bridge name to the proposed name will
alleviate the need of a future rule change if the railroad ownership
changes. Vessels able to transit under the bridge without an opening
may do so at any time.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability for
the Umpqua River railroad bridge to open on signal after the CBRL has
received at least two-hours' notice by telephone. The Coast Guard has
made this finding understanding that the proposed change allows any
vessel that needs a drawbridge opening to transit through the Umpqua
River railroad bridge with the proper advance notice during clear
visibility or reduced visibility. Changing the position of the draw to
be maintained closed to mariners, vice open to mariners, would allow
all mariners to know the draw is always closed except when a signal is
given to open the draw.
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.
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
[[Page 25199]]
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 <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-2023-0969 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; and DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
2. Amend Sec. 117.893 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.893 Umpqua River.
* * * * *
[[Page 25200]]
(b) The draw of the Umpqua River railroad bridge, mile 11.5 at
Reedsport, shall open on signal if at least two-hours' notice is given
via telephone.
* * * * *
Dated: April 4, 2024.
Charles E. Fosse,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2024-07578 Filed 4-9-24; 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 April 10, 2024.
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.