Regulated Navigation Area-New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River, Mill River, New Haven, CT; Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Interstate 95) Construction, 47331-47334 [2012-19378]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules
investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. Since the proposed AD was
issued, we have received new data
indicating that the existing AD
addresses that safety concern, but also
introduces a different unsafe condition.
Accordingly, the proposed AD is
withdrawn.
You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://www.
regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed rule, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
address for the Docket Office (phone:
800–647–5527) is the Document
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6509;
fax: (425) 917–6590; email: Rebel.
Nichols@faa.gov.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 of with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede AD
2009–22–13, Amendment 39–16066 (74
FR 55755, October 29, 2009). That AD
applies to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 14, 2011 (76 FR
13534). That NPRM would have
continued to require an inspection to
determine if certain motor operated
valve actuators for the fuel tanks are
installed, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. That
proposed AD would have added
airplanes and, for certain airplanes,
required additional inspections to
determine if certain motor operated
valve actuators for the fuel tanks are
installed, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. That
NPRM resulted from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer.
The proposed actions were intended to
prevent an ignition source inside the
fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in a
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss
of the airplane.
13:49 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR
13534, March 14, 2011), we discovered
that the corrective action mandated by
AD 2009–22–13, Amendment 39–16066
(74 FR 55755, October 29, 2009), and
subsequently the corrective actions
proposed by the NPRM, address that
safety concern, but also introduce a
different unsafe condition. The
manufacturer is developing a more
complete solution to address both
unsafe conditions.
Accordingly, we have determined that
the NPRM (76 FR 13534, March 14,
2011), must be withdrawn. In addition,
we are considering further rulemaking
to rescind AD 2009–22–13, Amendment
39–16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29,
2009), and will consider requiring a new
solution once it is developed, approved,
and available for accomplishment.
Coast Guard
FAA’s Conclusions
Upon further consideration, we have
determined that the existing AD does
not properly address the safety concern.
Accordingly, the NPRM (76 FR 13534,
March 14, 2011) is withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the NPRM (76 FR
13534, March 14, 2011) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another
related action or commit the FAA to any
course of action in the future.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Actions Since NPRM (76 FR 13534,
March 14, 2011) Was Issued
47331
Regulatory Impact
Since this action only withdraws an
NPRM (76 FR 13534, March 14, 2011),
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule
and therefore is not covered under
Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM,
Docket No. FAA–2011–0158, Directorate
Identifier 2010–NM–118–AD, which
was published in the Federal Register
on March 14, 2011 (76 FR 13534).
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31,
2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–19244 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0343]
RIN 1625–AA11
Regulated Navigation Area—New
Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River, Mill
River, New Haven, CT; Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge (Interstate 95)
Construction
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
changes to the existing regulated
navigation area in the navigable waters
of New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River
and Mill River. The current RNA
pertains only to the operation of tugs
and barges. The changes would allow
periodic, temporary closure of the area
which will be needed during
construction of the new Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge, and which could be
needed at other times as well. This
proposed revision would allow the
Coast Guard to suspend all vessel traffic
through the RNA during periods of
temporary closure. This rule is
necessary to provide for the safety of life
in the regulated area.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before September 7, 2012.
Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before
August 20, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2012–0343 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking 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 four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
47332
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph
Graun, Prevention Department, U. S.
Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound,
(203) 468–4544,
Joseph.L.Graun@uscg.mil; or Lieutenant
Isaac M. Slavitt, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
First District, (617) 223–8385. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. 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.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2012–0343),
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 (via 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
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 email 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, type the
docket number (USCG–2012–0343) in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:49 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
comments 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.
2. 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, type the
docket number ‘‘USCG–2012–0343’’ in
the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’
Click and Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this rulemaking.
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.
3. 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).
4. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one on or before August 20, 2012
using one of the 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.
B. Basis and Purpose
Under the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act, the Coast Guard has the authority
to establish RNAs in defined water areas
that are hazardous or in which
hazardous conditions are determined to
exist. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this proposed
rulemaking is to provide for safety on
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the navigable waters in the regulated
area, and to update some of the
terminology used in describing the
boundaries of the RNA.
C. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 165.150, the regulation that
establishes the New Haven Harbor,
Quinnipiac River, and Mill River RNA.
The proposed amendment would give
the Captain of the Port Sector Long
Island Sound (COTP) the authority to
temporarily close the RNA to vessel
traffic in any circumstance, whether
currently planned or unforeseen, that
the COTP determines creates an
imminent hazard to waterway users in
the RNA. Waterway closures would be
made with as much advance notice as
possible and, when a closure is planned,
at least ten days in advance. During
closures, mariners may request
permission from the COTP to transit
through the RNA.
The proposed rule was prompted by
(but is not limited to) the navigation
safety situation created by
reconstruction of the Pearl Harbor
Memorial Bridge (sometimes referred to
as the I–95 Bridge, Quinnipiac Bridge,
or ‘‘Q’’ Bridge). This bridge carries
Interstate 95 (Connecticut Turnpike)
over the Quinnipiac River in New
Haven. The present bridge was built in
the 1950s and designed with a 50 year
life span. The bridge has surpassed its
useable life span and the Connecticut
Department of Transportation (CDOT)
has contracted H. W. Lochner INC.
(Lochner) to construct a replacement
bridge. Lochner has begun bridge
construction and is scheduled to
complete the project in 2015.
The Coast Guard has discussed this
project at length with CDOT and
Lochner to determine whether the
project can be completed without
channel closures and, if possible, what
impact that would have on the project
timeline. Through these discussions, it
became clear that while the majority of
construction activities during the span
of this project would not require
waterway closures, there are certain
tasks that can only be completed in the
channel and will require closing the
waterway. Specifically, this includes the
demolition of steel support beams.
These large and extremely heavy steel
support beams are suspended 60 feet
above the water; to demolish them, they
must be cut into small sections and
lowered on to a barge below. This
process will be extremely complex and
presents many safety hazards including
overhead crane operations, overhead
cutting operations, potential falling
debris, and barges positioned in the
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules
channel with a restricted ability to
maneuver.
In an email to the U.S. Coast Guard
dated January 20, 2012, Lochner
outlined three phases of operations that
require in-channel work, two of which
will require waterway closures. Lochner
will notify the Coast Guard as far in
advance as possible if additional
closures are needed.
The first planned closure period will
be two days during the fall of 2012. The
purpose of this closure is to remove the
steel support beams of the existing Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge northbound
span. The two days will be weekdays
and the closure will be in effect for the
full 48 hours.
The second planned closure period
will be two days during the fall of 2013.
The purpose of this closure is to remove
the steel support beams of the existing
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge
southbound span. The two days will be
weekdays and the closure will be in
effect for the full 48 hours.
In addition to the revisions discussed
above, the Coast Guard is proposing
several wording updates in the
description of the RNA. The updates
would reflect the current names of local
landmarks to make them more easily
identifiable for mariners, but do not
change the location or dimensions of the
RNA.
D. 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.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. 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, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory 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 determined that this
rulemaking would not be a significant
regulatory action for the following
reasons: vessel traffic would only be
restricted from the RNA for limited
durations and the RNA covers only a
small portion of the navigable
waterways. Furthermore, entry into this
RNA during a closure may be
authorized by the COTP Sector Long
Island Sound or designated
representative.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:49 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Advanced public notifications will
also be made to local mariners through
appropriate means, which will include
but are not limited to the Local Notice
to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
2. Impact on 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 rule will affect the
following entities, some of which may
be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit, anchor or moor within the
regulated areas during a vessel
restriction period.
The RNA will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the
following reasons: the RNA will be of
limited size and any waterway closures
will be of short duration, and entry into
this RNA during a closure is possible if
the vessel has Coast Guard
authorization. Additionally, before the
effective period of a waterway closure,
notifications will be made to local
mariners through appropriate means.
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.
3. 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 Petty Officer
Joseph Graun, Prevention Department,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island
Sound, (203) 468–4544,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47333
Joseph.L.Graun@uscg.mil. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
47334
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use 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.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide 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
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 involves restricting vessel
movement within a regulated navigation
area. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:49 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. 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 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
revise 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
any vessel or equipment within the
RNA. To assure wide advance notice of
each closure among affected mariners,
the COTP will use means including, but
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
The COTP will announce the dates and
times of the closure and whether
exceptions will be authorized for
emergency or other specific vessel
traffic.
Dated: July 19, 2012.
D. B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012–19378 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 165.150 revise paragraphs (a)
and (b)(8), and add new paragraph (b)(9)
to read as follows:
§ 165.150 New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac
River, Mill River.
(a) Boundaries. The following is a
regulated navigation area: The waters
surrounding the Tomlinson Bridge and
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (I–95
Bridge) located within a line extending
from a point A at 41°17′50″ N,
072°54′36″ W (the southeast corner of
the Magellan Pink Tanks Terminal
dock) thence along a line 126°T to point
B at 41°17′42″ N, 072°54′21″ W (the
southwest corner of the Gulf facility)
thence north along the shoreline to
point C at 41°17′57″ N, 072°54′06″ W
(the northwest corner of the R & H
Terminal dock) thence along a line
303°T to point D at 41°18′05″ N,
072°54′23″ W (the west bank of the
mouth of the Mill River) thence south
along the shoreline to point of origin.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(8) The Captain of the Port Sector
Long Island Sound (COTP) may issue an
authorization to deviate from any
regulation in paragraph (b) of this
section if the COTP determines that an
alternate operation can be done safely.
(9) The COTP may temporarily close
the RNA for any situation the COTP
determines would create an imminent
hazard to waterway users in the RNA.
Entry into the RNA during temporary
closure is prohibited unless authorized
by the COTP or the COTP’s designated
representative. The COTP or designated
representative may order the removal of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2012–0694]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Red Bull Flugtag,
Delaware River; Camden, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a safety zone for the ‘‘Red Bull
Flugtag Camden’’, a marine event to be
held on September 15, 2012 from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m., in an area of the
Delaware River, Camden, NJ, described
as North of the Wiggins Park Marina and
South of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
This safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of life on navigable waters
during the event. This action is
intended to restrict vessel traffic on a
portion of the Delaware River during the
event.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47331-47334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19378]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2012-0343]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area--New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River,
Mill River, New Haven, CT; Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Interstate 95)
Construction
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing changes to the existing regulated
navigation area in the navigable waters of New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac
River and Mill River. The current RNA pertains only to the operation of
tugs and barges. The changes would allow periodic, temporary closure of
the area which will be needed during construction of the new Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge, and which could be needed at other times as
well. This proposed revision would allow the Coast Guard to suspend all
vessel traffic through the RNA during periods of temporary closure.
This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life in the
regulated area.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 7, 2012.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 20, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0343 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking 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 four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
[[Page 47332]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph Graun, Prevention Department,
U. S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203) 468-4544,
Joseph.L.Graun@uscg.mil; or Lieutenant Isaac M. Slavitt, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard First District, (617) 223-8385.
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:
Table of Acronyms
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. 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.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0343), 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 (via 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 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 email 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0343) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
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 comments 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.
2. 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,
type the docket number ``USCG-2012-0343'' in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``Search.'' Click and Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rulemaking. 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.
3. 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).
4. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before August 20, 2012 using one of the 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.
B. Basis and Purpose
Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are hazardous
or in which hazardous conditions are determined to exist. See 33 U.S.C.
1231 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to provide for safety on
the navigable waters in the regulated area, and to update some of the
terminology used in describing the boundaries of the RNA.
C. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.150, the regulation
that establishes the New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River, and Mill River
RNA. The proposed amendment would give the Captain of the Port Sector
Long Island Sound (COTP) the authority to temporarily close the RNA to
vessel traffic in any circumstance, whether currently planned or
unforeseen, that the COTP determines creates an imminent hazard to
waterway users in the RNA. Waterway closures would be made with as much
advance notice as possible and, when a closure is planned, at least ten
days in advance. During closures, mariners may request permission from
the COTP to transit through the RNA.
The proposed rule was prompted by (but is not limited to) the
navigation safety situation created by reconstruction of the Pearl
Harbor Memorial Bridge (sometimes referred to as the I-95 Bridge,
Quinnipiac Bridge, or ``Q'' Bridge). This bridge carries Interstate 95
(Connecticut Turnpike) over the Quinnipiac River in New Haven. The
present bridge was built in the 1950s and designed with a 50 year life
span. The bridge has surpassed its useable life span and the
Connecticut Department of Transportation (CDOT) has contracted H. W.
Lochner INC. (Lochner) to construct a replacement bridge. Lochner has
begun bridge construction and is scheduled to complete the project in
2015.
The Coast Guard has discussed this project at length with CDOT and
Lochner to determine whether the project can be completed without
channel closures and, if possible, what impact that would have on the
project timeline. Through these discussions, it became clear that while
the majority of construction activities during the span of this project
would not require waterway closures, there are certain tasks that can
only be completed in the channel and will require closing the waterway.
Specifically, this includes the demolition of steel support beams.
These large and extremely heavy steel support beams are suspended 60
feet above the water; to demolish them, they must be cut into small
sections and lowered on to a barge below. This process will be
extremely complex and presents many safety hazards including overhead
crane operations, overhead cutting operations, potential falling
debris, and barges positioned in the
[[Page 47333]]
channel with a restricted ability to maneuver.
In an email to the U.S. Coast Guard dated January 20, 2012, Lochner
outlined three phases of operations that require in-channel work, two
of which will require waterway closures. Lochner will notify the Coast
Guard as far in advance as possible if additional closures are needed.
The first planned closure period will be two days during the fall
of 2012. The purpose of this closure is to remove the steel support
beams of the existing Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge northbound span. The
two days will be weekdays and the closure will be in effect for the
full 48 hours.
The second planned closure period will be two days during the fall
of 2013. The purpose of this closure is to remove the steel support
beams of the existing Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge southbound span. The
two days will be weekdays and the closure will be in effect for the
full 48 hours.
In addition to the revisions discussed above, the Coast Guard is
proposing several wording updates in the description of the RNA. The
updates would reflect the current names of local landmarks to make them
more easily identifiable for mariners, but do not change the location
or dimensions of the RNA.
D. 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.
1. 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,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory 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 determined that this rulemaking would not be a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: vessel traffic
would only be restricted from the RNA for limited durations and the RNA
covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore,
entry into this RNA during a closure may be authorized by the COTP
Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
Advanced public notifications will also be made to local mariners
through appropriate means, which will include but are not limited to
the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
2. Impact on 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 rule will affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated areas
during a vessel restriction period.
The RNA will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the RNA
will be of limited size and any waterway closures will be of short
duration, and entry into this RNA during a closure is possible if the
vessel has Coast Guard authorization. Additionally, before the
effective period of a waterway closure, notifications will be made to
local mariners through appropriate means.
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.
3. 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 Petty Officer Joseph Graun,
Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203)
468-4544, Joseph.L.Graun@uscg.mil. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
[[Page 47334]]
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 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.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide 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 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
involves restricting vessel movement within a regulated navigation
area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. 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 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to revise 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In Sec. 165.150 revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(8), and add new
paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.150 New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac River, Mill River.
(a) Boundaries. The following is a regulated navigation area: The
waters surrounding the Tomlinson Bridge and Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge (I-95 Bridge) located within a line extending from a point A at
41[deg]17'50'' N, 072[deg]54'36'' W (the southeast corner of the
Magellan Pink Tanks Terminal dock) thence along a line 126[deg]T to
point B at 41[deg]17'42'' N, 072[deg]54'21'' W (the southwest corner of
the Gulf facility) thence north along the shoreline to point C at
41[deg]17'57'' N, 072[deg]54'06'' W (the northwest corner of the R & H
Terminal dock) thence along a line 303[deg]T to point D at
41[deg]18'05'' N, 072[deg]54'23'' W (the west bank of the mouth of the
Mill River) thence south along the shoreline to point of origin.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) The Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound (COTP) may
issue an authorization to deviate from any regulation in paragraph (b)
of this section if the COTP determines that an alternate operation can
be done safely.
(9) The COTP may temporarily close the RNA for any situation the
COTP determines would create an imminent hazard to waterway users in
the RNA. Entry into the RNA during temporary closure is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
The COTP or designated representative may order the removal of any
vessel or equipment within the RNA. To assure wide advance notice of
each closure among affected mariners, the COTP will use means
including, but not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local
Notice to Mariners. The COTP will announce the dates and times of the
closure and whether exceptions will be authorized for emergency or
other specific vessel traffic.
Dated: July 19, 2012.
D. B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-19378 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P