[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76249-76251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0213]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Coquille River, Coos Bay, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that 
governs the U.S. 101 highway drawbridge also known as Bullard's 
Drawbridge, near Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed change would allow the 
drawbridge to permanently remain in the closed position, no longer 
opening for vessel traffic. While there is vessel traffic on this 
waterway, no one has requested a drawbridge opening since 1998. Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the bridge and requested to 
update the operating schedule accordingly.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 20, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received 
by the Coast Guard on or before January 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0213 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries 
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these 
methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, 
Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b6f3a38267b6d266f3a386979626f6c6e784b7e78686c25666267"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcb8edeff1acbaf1b8edefbeaeb5b8bbb9af9ca9afbfbbf2b1b5b0">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket 
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this proposed 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.

1. Submitting comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2014-0213), 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 you 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 
as having been 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 email address, or a phone number in the body of 
your

[[Page 76250]]

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, 
type the docket number [USCG-2014-0213] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. 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 rule based on your comments.

2. 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, 
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0213) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in 
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
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).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one by January 21, 2015 using one of the methods specified 
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.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the U.S. 101 
Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, Coquille River, mile 
3.5, Coos Bay, OR, and has requested that the drawbridge regulation be 
amended to allow the bridge to remain in the permanently closed 
position. ODOT provided the Coast Guard with bridge logs which 
indicated no request for bridge openings have been received since 1998. 
The U.S. 101 Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, 
Coquille River, in the closed position, provides 28.1 feet of vertical 
clearance at mean high water and 35 feet at low water. In the open 
position the span provides 74.3 feet of vertical clearance at mean high 
water. Coquille River is transited by commercial fishing and 
recreational vessel traffic.
    The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable, and if 
implemented, should continue to meet the present and future needs of 
navigation. Based on the records provided by ODOT to the Coast Guard, 
it is expected that the proposed change will have no known impact to 
navigation or other waterway users.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.875 which requires the 
U.S. 101 highway bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge to open on 
signal if at least two hours notice is given to the drawtender at the 
Coos Bay South Slough bridge. The amendment allows the bridge to remain 
closed to the passage of vessels. However, pursuant to 117.39, the 
draws must be able to operate within six months of being required to do 
so by the District Commander. The Coast Guard believes this proposed 
rule change will meet the current and future reasonable needs of 
navigation since the drawbridge has not received a request to open for 
marine traffic since 1998.

D. 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 or executive orders.

1. 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, 
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under 
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget 
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard basis of this 
finding is on the fact that the bridge has received no requests for 
openings and has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years 
without any impacts to waterway users.

2. 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.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessels 
that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. 
Furthermore, no known waterway users have requested a bridge opening 
within the last 16 years.
    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.

3. 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. 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, above. 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.

4. 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.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,

[[Page 76251]]

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 does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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. This proposed rule simply 
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. 
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an 
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are not 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.

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; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.875 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.875  Coquille River.

The draws of the US 101 highway bridge, mile 3.5 at Bandon, Oregon, 
need not be opened for the passage of vessels; however, the draws shall 
be restored to operable condition within 6 months after notification by 
the District Commander to do so.

    Dated: December 5, 2014.
R.T. Gromlich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-29851 Filed 12-19-14; 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>