Document ID: USCG-2009-0840-0002
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Rule
Title: FR:  Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Port of Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, Coos Bay, North Bend, OR (Federal Register Publication)
Posted Date: 2010-03-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 16005-16006]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-8]                         

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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation 
regulation for the Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, Coos Bay, mile 9.0, at 
North Bend, Oregon to delete the requirement for special sound signals 
used in foggy weather and to change the name of the owner. The change 
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: This rule is effective April 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as 
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in this 
docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0840 and are available online by 
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0840 in the 
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also 
available for inspection or copying at the 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, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management 
Branch, 13th Coast Guard; telephone 206-220-7282, e-mail 
william.a.pratt@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On November 16, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Port of Coos Bay 
Railroad Bridge, Coos Bay, North Bend, OR, in the Federal Register (74 
FR 58931). No comments were received on the proposed rule. No public 
meeting was requested and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    This rule will remove the requirements 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 that a siren 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 rule will 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 this bridge that 
currently warrants the continuance of these 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 Comments and Changes

    No comments on the proposed rule were received and no changes were 
made to it.

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 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 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 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 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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to 
assist small entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they 
can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

    This 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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we 
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

[[Page 16006]]

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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 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 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 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 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 concluded 
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 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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. 0170.1.2.

0
2. Revise 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: March 11, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-7159 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P