[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16715-16718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1117]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Raritan River, Arthur Kill and 
Their Tributaries, Staten Island, NY and Elizabeth, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations governing the operation of the Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad 
Bridge at mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill between Staten Island, New York 
and Elizabeth, New Jersey. This proposed rule would provide relief to 
the bridge owner from crewing their bridge by allowing the bridge to be 
operated from a remote location while continuing to meet the present 
and future needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before May 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-

[[Page 16716]]

2010-1117 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: 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.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. 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 proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First 
Coast Guard District; telephone (212) 668-7165, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#224543505b0c494351514d4462575141450c4f4b4e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="137472616a3d787260607c7553666070743d7e7a7f">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket 
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this 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.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2010-1117), 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 e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body 
of your 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, 
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become 
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select 
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2010-1117'' in the ``Keyword'' 
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the 
``Actions'' column. 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.

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, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-1117'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
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. We have an 
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket 
Management Facility.

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).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting 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.

Basis and Purpose

    The Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge at mile 11.6, across Arthur 
Kill, has a vertical clearance of 31 feet at mean high water, and 35 
feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge 
operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.72.
    Beginning in 2009, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) 
conducted a year of successful remote operation tests of the AK 
Railroad Bridge without any objections from marine users. A draw 
operator was on scene at all times to ensure compliance with drawbridge 
operating regulations cited above. In September 2010, Conrail formally 
requested that the drawbridge operating regulation be revised to permit 
remote operation of the Arthur Kill AK Railroad Bridge.
    Conrail, on October 20, 2010 and at the request of the Coast Guard, 
presented its proposal to remotely operate the bridge to the New York 
Harbor Operation Committee. Discussions between Conrail, the Coast 
Guard, and the New York Harbor Operations Committee ensued with no 
objections to the remote operation raised by the committee members.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge would operate the same way as 
stated in the existing regulation, except that it will be operated 
remotely from the Lehigh Valley drawbridge at mile 4.3 across Newark 
Bay or at the bridge locally.
    The revised regulation would require a sufficient number of closed 
circuit TV cameras, approved by the Coast Guard, to be maintained at 
the bridge to enable the remotely located bridge tender to have a full 
view of the waterway and all vessel traffic.
    In addition, VHF-FM radiotelephone channels 13 and 16 would be 
monitored to facilitate vessel to bridge communication from both the 
remote and the local control location.
    Directional microphones and signal horns would also be installed at 
the bridge to receive and deliver signals to vessels.
    In the event that the remote operation equipment fails to operate 
in any way, a bridge tender will be dispatched to the bridge to arrive 
no more than 45 minutes following the equipment failure.

[[Page 16717]]

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 proposed 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. This conclusion is based 
upon the fact that the bridge will continue to operate according to the 
existing regulations except that it could be controlled from either a 
remote location or locally.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed 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 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. The bridge will continue to operate according to 
existing regulations except that it will be controlled from either a 
remote location or locally.
    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.

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 so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Mr. Joe Arca, First Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Program Manager, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85efeae0abe8abe4f7e6e4c5f0f6e6e2abe8ece9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="157f7a703b783b7467767455606676723b787c79">[email protected]</span></a> or 212-668-
7165. 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.

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.).

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 proposed 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 (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 rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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

[[Page 16718]]

that this action is one of a category of actions which do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment because it simply promulgates the operating regulations or 
procedures for drawbridges. 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

    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. Revise Sec.  117.702 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.702  Arthur Kill

    (a) The draw of the Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge shall be 
maintained in the full open position for navigation at all times, 
except during periods when it is closed for the passage of rail 
traffic.
    (b) The bridge owner/operator shall maintain a dedicated telephone 
hot line for vessel operators to call the bridge in advance to 
coordinate anticipated bridge closures. The telephone hot line number 
shall be posted on signs at the bridge clearly visible from both the up 
and downstream sides of the bridge.
    (c) Tide constrained deep draft vessels shall notify the bridge 
operator, daily, of their expected times of vessel transits through the 
bridge, by calling the designated telephone hot line.
    (d) The bridge shall not be closed for the passage of rail traffic 
during any predicted high tide period if a tide constrained deep draft 
vessel has provided the bridge operator with an advance notice of their 
intent to transit through the bridge. For the purposes of this 
regulation, the predicted high tide period shall be considered to be 
from two hours before each predicted high tide to a half-hour after 
each predicted high tide taken at the Battery, New York.
    (e) The bridge operator shall issue a manual broadcast notice to 
mariners of the intent to close the bridge for a period of up to thirty 
minutes for the passage of rail traffic, on VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 
(minimum range of 15 miles) 90 minutes before and again at 75 minutes 
before each bridge closure.
    (f) Beginning at 60 minutes prior to each bridge closure, automated 
or manual broadcast notice to mariners must be repeated at 15 minute 
intervals and again at 10 and 5 minutes prior to each bridge closure 
and once again as the bridge begins to close, at which point the 
appropriate sound signal will be given.
    (g) Two 15 minute bridge closures may be provided each day for the 
passage of multiple rail traffic movements across the bridge. Each 15 
minute bridge closure shall be separated by at least a 30 minute period 
when the bridge is returned to and remains in the full open position. 
Notification of the two 15 minute closures shall follow the same 
procedures outlined in paragraphs (e) and (f) above.
    (h) A vessel operator may request up to a 30 minute delay for any 
bridge closure in order to allow vessel traffic to meet tide or current 
requirements; however, the request to delay the bridge closure must be 
made within 30 minutes following the initial broadcast for the bridge 
closure. Requests received after the initial 30 minute broadcast will 
not be granted.
    (i) In the event of a bridge operational failure, the bridge 
operator shall immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 
New York. The bridge owner/operator must provide and dispatch a bridge 
repair crew to be on scene at the bridge no later than 45 minutes after 
the bridge fails to operate. A repair crew must remain on scene during 
the operational failure until the bridge has been fully restored to 
normal operations or until the bridge is raised and locked in the fully 
open position.
    (j) When the bridge is not tended locally it must be operated from 
a remote location. A sufficient number of closed circuit TV cameras, 
approved by the Coast Guard, shall be operated and maintained at the 
bridge site to enable the remotely located bridge tender to have full 
view of both river traffic and the bridge.
    (k) VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 shall be maintained and monitored to 
facilitate communication in both the remote and local control 
locations. The bridge shall also be equipped with directional 
microphones and horns to receive and deliver signals to vessels.
    (l) Whenever the remote control system equipment is disabled or 
fails to operate for any reason, the bridge operator shall immediately 
notify the Captain of the Port New York. The bridge shall be physically 
tended and operated by local control as soon as possible, but no more 
than 45 minutes after malfunction or disability of the remote system. 
Mechanical bypass and override capability of the remote operation 
system shall be provided and maintained at all times.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-7049 Filed 3-24-11; 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>