FR 2020-28710

The document from the Federal Register discusses a final rule issued by the Coast Guard regarding the operational schedule of the State Road 609 highway bascule bridge in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. This rule is a response to increased vehicular traffic congestion, allowing the bridge operations to better balance the needs of road users and vessels. The rule specifies periods during weekday mornings and afternoons when the bridge will not open for vessels to mitigate traffic issues.

General Summary

This new regulation modifies the bridge's operating schedule, specifying closure times during peak traffic periods, namely from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday except on federal holidays. Outside these hours, the bridge will open for marine vessels with certain notices required during night hours and specific holidays. The rule aims to reduce vehicular congestion and improve safety without significantly impacting marine navigation.

Critical Issues and Concerns

Despite the changes addressing congestion, some concerns remain about operational specifics:

• Advance Notice Requirements: The rule requires an eight-hour notice for night openings and a 12-hour notice during holidays, which may inconvenience maritime operators who face unexpected circumstances, even though emergencies are considered exceptions.

• Ambiguity in Notice Timing: The document’s language concerning the notice period could benefit from clarity. Specifically, it is unclear whether advance notice can be given anytime for events during the night hours or if specific conditions must be met.

• Emergency Protocols: There is insufficient detail on what constitutes an "emergency" under 33 CFR 117.31, potentially leading to interpretation discrepancies over when immediate bridge openings are permissible.

• Impacts on Small Entities: While the document assures minimal economic impact, it lacks a detailed examination of how unforeseen bridge closings could affect businesses, especially small enterprises reliant on waterway transport.

Broader Public Impact

The document's implementation affects both road and waterway users. Road users are expected to benefit from decreased congestion and increased safety with less vehicle backing up on major highways like U.S. 90. However, vessel operators might experience inconvenience due to scheduled closures and required advance notice unless they adapt their transit plans accordingly.

Stakeholders

The rule broadly impacts multiple groups:

• Motorists: Generally positive, as the regulations aim to reduce road congestion during peak traffic hours, potentially leading to smoother commutes and increased roadway safety.

• Vessel Operators: This group may experience negative impacts, primarily due to the imposed restrictions during peak commuting periods and the mandatory notices required for bridge openings during off-peak times.

• Local Businesses: Particularly those dependent on maritime transit, may face challenges if not aligned with changes. The lack of alternative solutions and consideration for unexpected closures might pose operational risks.

In summary, while the Coast Guard's rule is intended to alleviate vehicular congestion and improve safety, the document raises important questions about maritime operation flexibility and logistical challenges it may pose for vessel operators. The clarity and adaptability of the regulation may need further attention to adequately serve all stakeholders' needs.

In the Federal Register document concerning the regulation changes for the drawbridge at Old Fort Bayou, Mississippi, there is a mention of a financial reference that pertains to the potential impact of the rulemaking process.

Financial Reference and Context

The primary financial reference in this document relates to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions. The document highlights that the rule change does not incur costs expected to result in expenditures by the State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. This figure is mentioned to assure the stakeholders that the financial burden of the new rule is not significant enough to warrant concerns about overwhelming expenses.

Relation to Identified Issues

The financial reference is indirectly connected to the issue concerning the potential impact on small entities, such as small businesses or local organizations. While the document asserts that the rule would not result in substantial economic impacts, it fails to discuss in detail how unexpected bridge closures might economically affect these smaller operations. The absence of specific financial impact assessments for small entity scenarios leaves open questions about whether less significant costs, which are nonetheless substantial to those small entities, were adequately considered.

Another point for concern is whether the procedure for unexpected situations is financially well-considered, given that a clear plan is absent. While the bridges are mandated to open for emergencies, should these openings lead to significant costs, such as fines or losses due to delays, it is unclear if the financial implications have been thoroughly evaluated.

Conclusion

The document outlines that the proposed rule is not expected to create significant financial burdens exceeding $100,000,000 annually, which aligns with mandated federal guidelines. However, it falls short of addressing in detail how smaller businesses or local entities might bear costs from the changes due to unforeseen scenarios, hinting at a potential oversight in assessing the full financial ramifications on all stakeholders affected by the bridge regulation change.