Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Raritan River, Arthur Kill and Their Tributaries, Staten Island, NY and Elizabeth, NJ, 16715-16718 [2011-7049]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
88.292(a), 89.52(c), and 90.102(a) result
in the elimination of the manganese
limits for Group B discharges which
include surface runoff and discharges
during precipitation events less than or
equal to the 10 year/24 hour storm
event. The addition of 87.102(e);
88.92(e); 88.187(e); 88.292(e); and
90.102(e) establish three specific
categories of discharges that can be
adequately treated using passive
treatment technologies. They are: where
pH is always greater than 6.0 and
alkalinity always exceeds acidity; where
acidity is always less than 100mg/l, iron
is always less than 10mg/l, manganese
is always less than 18mg/l, and flow is
always less than 3 gpm; and where net
acidity is always less than 300mg/l. The
regulations do not limit applicability to
only these three categories. The
proposed regulations also establish
construction and performance criteria
for the treatment systems.
Supporting Documentation:
Pennsylvania also provided references
to OSM’s regulations, excerpts from 40
CFR part 434, references to past
correspondence with EPA on this issue,
and a 1994 Pennsylvania report entitled
‘‘Best Professional Judgment Analysis
for the Treatment of Post-Mining
Discharges from Surface Mining
Activities.’’
III. Public Comment Procedures
Under the provisions of 30 CFR
732.17(h), we are seeking your
comments on whether the submission
satisfies the applicable program
approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we
approve the amendment, it will become
part of the Pennsylvania program.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Electronic or Written Comments
If you submit written comments, they
should be specific, confined to issues
pertinent to the proposed regulations,
and explain the reason for any
recommended change(s). We appreciate
any and all comments, but those most
useful and likely to influence decisions
on the final regulations will be those
that either involve personal experience
or include citations to and analyses of
SMCRA, its legislative history, its
implementing regulations, case law,
other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or
regulations, technical literature, or other
relevant publications. We cannot ensure
that comments received after the close
of the comment period (see DATES) or
sent to an address other than those
listed above (see ADDRESSES) will be
included in the docket for this
rulemaking and considered.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Mar 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. We will not consider anonymous
comments.
Public Hearing
If you wish to speak at the public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4
p.m., local time April 11, 2011. If you
are disabled and need reasonable
accommodations to attend a public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will arrange the location and time of the
hearing with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an
opportunity to speak, we will not hold
the hearing.
To assist the transcriber and ensure an
accurate record, we request, if possible,
that each person who speaks at a public
hearing provide us with a written copy
of his or her comments. The public
hearing will continue on the specified
date until everyone scheduled to speak
has been given an opportunity to be
heard. If you are in the audience and
have not been scheduled to speak and
wish to do so, you will be allowed to
speak after those who have been
scheduled. We will end the hearing after
everyone scheduled to speak and others
present in the audience who wish to
speak, have been heard.
Public Meeting
If there is only limited interest in
participating in a public hearing, we
may hold a public meeting rather than
a public hearing. If you wish to meet
with us to discuss the submission,
please request a meeting by contacting
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings
are open to the public and, if possible,
we will post notices of meetings at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. We
will make a written summary of each
meeting a part of the administrative
record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16715
Other Laws and Executive Orders
Affecting Rulemaking
When a State submits a program
amendment to OSM for review, our
regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require
us to publish a notice in the Federal
Register indicating receipt of the
proposed amendment, its text or a
summary of its terms, and an
opportunity for public comment. We
conclude our review of the proposed
amendment after the close of the public
comment period and determine whether
the amendment should be approved,
approved in part, or not approved. At
that time, we will also make the
determinations and certifications
required by the various laws and
executive orders governing the
rulemaking process and include them in
the final rule.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: January 31, 2011.
Thomas D. Shope,
Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
[FR Doc. 2011–7107 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
16716
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2010–1117 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
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.
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 gary.kassof@uscg.mil. 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:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 (https://
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 https://
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Mar 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
https://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 81⁄2 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
https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Mar 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
joe.m.arca@uscg.mil 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16717
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
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
16718
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 § 117.702 to read as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Mar 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1036–201062; FRL–
9286–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Georgia: Atlanta;
Determination of Attainment for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
determine that the Atlanta, Georgia
nonattainment area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) based on
quality assured, quality controlled
monitoring data from 2008–2010. The
Atlanta, Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’) is comprised of
Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee,
Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas,
Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall,
Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale,
Spalding and Walton Counties in
Georgia. If this proposed determination
is made final, the requirement for the
State of Georgia to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) analysis, a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency
measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the Atlanta, Georgia 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area, shall be
suspended for as long as the Atlanta
Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2010–1036 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25MRP1.SGM
25MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16715-16718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://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
gary.kassof@uscg.mil. 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 https://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 (https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 joe.m.arca@uscg.mil 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
