```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18751-18753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0336]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, Oshkosh, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that 
governs the Tayco Street Bridge, mile 37.52, the Main Street Bridge, 
mile 55.97, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, the Wisconsin Street 
Bridge, mile 56.72, and the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, all 
over the Fox River near Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This proposed rule will 
allow the bridges to operate remotely. We invite your comments on this 
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0336 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    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 email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, 
Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On July 6, 2021, we published a temporary deviation in the Federal 
Register (86 FR 35402) to test the effectiveness of the remote bridge 
operations and to solicit public comments; public commenting closed on 
November 1, 2021. The Main Street Bridge, mile 55.97, provides a 
horizontal clearance of 89 feet and a vertical clearance 11 feet in the 
closed position, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, provides a 
horizontal clearance of 97 feet and a vertical clearance of 11 feet in 
the closed position, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 56.72, provides 
a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet 
in the closed position, the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, 
provides a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance of 
13 feet in the closed position, and the Tayco Street Bridge provides a 
horizontal clearance of 63 feet and a vertical clearance of 3 feet in 
the closed position. All of these bridges are over the Fox River and 
provide an unlimited clearance in the open position, and are governed 
by the regulations found in 33 CFR 117.1087.
    WisDOT has tested the capabilities of the remote operating system 
with live operators in the bridges and allowed the public to comment on 
the bridge operations before this proposed rule was published.
    This proposed rule will not change the operation of the bridges. 
WisDOT will provide weekly bridge opening data and approximate vehicle 
and pedestrian crossings at the end of the comment period. If the 
proposed rule is finalized, remote bridge operators will have the 
ability to communicate by visual or audio (two-way radio, loudspeaker, 
and telephone) means with vessels, including enough cameras to see 
above and below the bridge, including night vision cameras to monitor 
approaching river traffic in adverse weather conditions.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through 
our Local Notice to Mariners when the comment period opens and how to 
leave comments.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The remote operations of the bridges will not affect the operations 
of the current regulations. During the test deviation, we received nine 
comments. In addition to the responses to the comments below, WisDOT 
took the opportunity to answer each comment, and we have added those 
responses to the docket.
    Most of the commenters described increased wait times for a remote 
bridge opening and indicated wait times were at least 30 minutes per 
bridge. Most of these delays were the result of challenges associated 
with training certain drawtenders on the new remote system. Moving 
forward, said drawtenders will be retrained to prevent delays beyond 
what users experience with live drawtenders. Further, WisDOT agreed 
that on certain weekends and holidays, when vessel and vehicle traffic 
will be the greatest, extra drawtenders will be provide to maintain a 
reliable level of safety for the public. Despite the comments discussed 
above, the data collected by WisDOT show that there were limited delays 
to boaters.
    In response to the safety concern, there is audio and video 
equipment to monitor the bridge, with cameras above and below the 
bridge to provide sufficient visualization of the areas surrounding the 
bridge. Further, we would like to note that from January to December 
2020 there were five reported boating accidents while the bridges were 
operated by independent drawtenders. Out of the five accidents, one 
required advanced first aid. During the 2021 test deviation, there were 
no reported boating accidents. The test deviation covered June 30 to 
October 7, 2021, when the waterways are the busiest. During 2021, 
during the period before and after the test deviation, no accidents 
were reported.
    We did not address the incident of the bicyclist accident on the 
Racine Street Bridge because it occurred during the July 4th 
celebrations in 2018, on a bridge not included in the NPRM, and the 
cause of the incident, according to police records, was the result of 
human negligence and wholly unrelated to bridge operations.
    The Tayco Street Bridge, mile 37.52 was not included in the test 
deviation because its remote operations were not discovered until after 
the conclusion of the test deviation. WisDOT has been remotely 
operating this bridge since 1984, after the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers abandoned the lock system

[[Page 18752]]

and the U.S. Coast Guard stopped regulating bridges as the waterway 
could not engage in interstate commerce. Because the bridge has been 
operated remotely for 37 years we find no reason to repeat the test 
deviation to include this bridge for comments.

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 and we discuss 
First Amendment rights of protestors.

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 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, as the 
bridges will open normally.

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 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.

G. 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.

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.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision 
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0336 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 https://www.regulations.gov, contact the 
person

[[Page 18753]]

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for 
alternate instructions.
    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 https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. 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.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov 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 Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.1087 by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1087  Fox River.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) All drawbridges between mile 37.52 and 58.01, are authorized to 
be operated remotely, and are required to operate and maintain a VHF-FM 
Marine Radio.
* * * * *

M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-06803 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```