Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT, 19094-19097 [2016-07662]
Download as PDF
19094
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
intermediaries that are currently
registered with the SEC may choose to
register as brokers to act as
intermediaries for transactions made in
reliance on section 4(a)(6). In addition,
approximately 50 intermediaries per
year that are registered as brokers with
the SEC would choose to add to their
service offerings by also becoming
crowdfunding intermediaries or funding
portals.
3. Estimated Average Annual Burden
Hours Per Affected Financial
Institutions, Estimated Total Annual
Burden
As this is a new requirement, the
estimated average burden associated
with the recordkeeping requirement in
this proposed rule is three hours for
development of a written program. A
one hour per year burden is recognized
for annual maintenance and update.
FinCEN believes funding portals would
establish policies and procedures to
achieve compliance with the BSA
requirements at the same time as it is
establishing policies and procedures to
comply with the JOBS Act. This would
reduce the overall burden on funding
portals as all issues concerning the
establishment of policies and
procedures could be addressed
simultaneously. Nevertheless, the
proposed rules would not impose any
additional burden on funding portals to
those currently imposed on brokers or
dealers. Therefore, the burden on
funding portals would be the same as
the existing burden for broker-dealers,
and would be included within those
estimates FinCEN provided to OMB for
brokers or dealers.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Parts 1010
and 1023
Authority delegations (Government
agencies), Banks and banking, Currency,
Investigations, Law enforcement,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority and Issuance
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, parts 1010 and 1023 of
Chapter X of title 31 of the Code of
Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 1010—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1010
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–
1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314, 5316–5332; title
III, section 314, Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307.
2. Amend § 1010.100 by revising
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Apr 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 1010.100
General definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Broker or dealer in securities. A
broker or dealer in securities means:
(1) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a broker or dealer with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.), except persons who register
pursuant to section 15(b)(11) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)); or
(2) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a funding portal with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77d(a)(6));
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 1010.605 by revising
paragraphs (e)(1)(viii) and (e)(2)(viii) to
read as follows:
§ 1010.605
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) A broker or dealer in securities
means:
(A) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a broker or dealer with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.), except persons who register
pursuant to section 15(b)(11) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)); or
(B) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a funding portal with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77d(a)(6));
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(viii) A broker or dealer in securities
means:
(A) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a broker or dealer with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.), except persons who register
pursuant to section 15(b)(11) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)); or
(B) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a funding portal with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77d(a)(6)).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PART 1023—RULES FOR BROKERS
OR DEALERS IN SECURITIES
4. The authority citation for part 1023
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–
1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314, 5316–5332; title
III, section 314, Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307.
5. Amend § 1023.100 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 1023.100
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Broker or dealer in securities or
broker-dealer means:
(1) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a broker or dealer with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.), except persons who register
pursuant to section 15(b)(11) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)); or
(2) A person registered, or required to
be registered, as a funding portal with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission under section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77d(a)(6)).
Jennifer Shasky Calvery,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network.
[FR Doc. 2016–07345 Filed 4–1–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2014–1057]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental Notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the Metro-North WALK Bridge
across the Norwalk River, mile 0.1, at
Norwalk, Connecticut. The bridge
owner submitted a request to require a
greater advance notice for bridge
openings and to increase time periods
the bridge remains in the closed
position during the weekday morning
and evening rush hours. It is expected
that this change to the regulations will
create efficiency in drawbridge
operations while continuing to meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2014–1057 using Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this
supplemental proposed rule, call or
email Mr. Chris Bisignano, Project
officer, First Coast Guard District,
telephone 212–514–4331, email
Christopher.j.bisignano@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Table of Abbreviations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On August 31, 2015, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled, Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk,
CT, in the Federal Register (80 FR
52423), soliciting comments on the
proposed rule through October 30, 2015.
In addition, Commander (dpb), First
Coast Guard District published Public
Notice 1–149 dated September 21, 2015.
We received four submissions on the
proposed rule, which will be addressed
in Section III, below.
The Metro-North WALK Bridge, mile
0.1, across the Norwalk River at
Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 16
feet at mean high water and 23 feet at
mean low water. The drawbridge
operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.217(b). The waterway users are
seasonal recreational vessels and
commercial vessels of various sizes.
The owner of the bridge, Connecticut
Department of Transportation (CDOT),
requested a change to the Drawbridge
Operation Regulations because the
volume of train traffic across the bridge
during the peak commuting hours
makes bridge openings impractical
under the current schedule. As a result,
bridge openings that occur during peak
commuter train hours cause significant
delays to commuter rail traffic.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Apr 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
The NPRM published in August 2015
would have permanently changed the
operating hours during the Monday–
Friday, excluding holidays, timeframes
to operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal
between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at
least a two hour advance notice is given;
except that, from 4:30 a.m. through 9:30
a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 9 p.m.,
Monday through Friday excluding
holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an
emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal after at least
a four hour advance notice is given.
In response to the comments received
and after further review of bridge logs
and train schedules, the Coast Guard
now proposes to modify the NPRM by
adjusting when the draw will be
available to open Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal
between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at
least a two hour advance notice is given;
except that, from 5:45 a.m. through 9:45
a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m.,
Monday through Friday excluding
holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an
emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal after at least
a four hour advance notice is given.
III. Discussion of Comments and
Change
We received four submissions
commenting on the NPRM. Three
submissions opposed and one
submission supported the proposed
changes. Some submissions commented
on multiple aspects of the proposed
regulation. The Coast Guard considered
all comments and the responses from
CDOT in creation of this supplemental
alternative proposal.
One comment suggested a meeting to
deliberate the changes proposed in this
rulemaking. The Coast Guard met with
all parties that expressed interest in this
rulemaking on May 11, 2015. The Coast
Guard does not see a need to hold
additional public meetings at this time.
One comment requested that any
modification to the existing rule should
not be extended past the initiation of
construction of a new replacement
bridge. The Coast Guard disagrees. A
replacement bridge is only in the
planning stage at CDOT. Design and
construction of a replacement project for
a bridge of this scale typically takes
several years. As the timeline of a
potential bridge replacement is
uncertain, the Coast Guard cannot
consider it within this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19095
One comment suggested that any
change in the operating regulations for
the Metro-North WALK bridge should
take into consideration the operating
rule of the downstream SR136
(Washington Street) Bridge to facilitate
the movement of waterborne commerce.
The Coast Guard agrees that the
operating schedule of the SR136 Bridge
is relevant and considered the operating
schedule for SR136 when drafting this
supplemental rulemaking.
One comment recommended that the
Coast Guard consider revising the 4:30
a.m. to 9:30 a.m. opening schedule,
Monday through Friday, as only two
trains cross the bridge from 9 a.m. to
9:30 a.m. In response to this comment,
the Coast Guard expanded its analysis of
train traffic densities; this analysis
contributed to the adjustments made in
this supplemental rule compared to the
proposed rule. These adjustments
shorten from five to four hours the a.m.
and p.m. periods provided for in the
‘‘except that’’ language in paragraph
(b)(1) of the regulation, but also shifts
the a.m. period to end later in the day.
Two commenters noted that the
added restrictions to opening times of
the bridge would negatively impact
aggregate deliveries and require
alternative deliveries by truck, thereby
stressing the road system in the area.
Even under the more restrictive test
deviation conducted from January 1,
2015, to June 28, 2015, as discussed in
the NPRM, Metro-North was able to
accommodate all of the requests for
bridge openings. Further, review of the
bridge logs revealed that in 2014, prior
to the aforementioned test deviation and
NPRM, as compared to 2015 during the
test deviation and the NPRM, the
difference in the number of requested
bridge openings was negligible. The
Coast Guard also reviewed tidal data for
this area in consideration of the types of
commercial traffic known to use this
waterway. The combination of these
factors contributed to the adjustments
made in this supplemental rule
compared to the proposed rule.
The Coast Guard believes the
supplemental changes balance the needs
of rail and vessel traffic. The proposed
changes enhance rail traffic without
significantly affecting vessel traffic.
In review of the proposed rule and
stakeholder comments, the Coast Guard
noted that the term ‘‘emergency,’’ as
used within the existing and proposed
regulation, was not specifically
discussed. The term and associated
required actions by the bridge owner are
as defined within 33 CFR 117.31. This
proposed rule makes no changes to
regulations under that section. However,
the Coast Guard notes that there may be
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
19096
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
instances in which emergent conditions
beyond those explicitly listed therein
could merit a special opening of the
bridge for draft constrained vessels
when tides and the bridge schedule
interfere. For example, if the inventory
of seasonally critical home heating oil or
road salt at a facility upstream of the
bridge that serves as the primary supply
within the local area is or will soon be
exhausted, and a commercial vessel
transit to replenish inventory must
occur during an allowed-closed period
of the bridge, this condition may also
reasonably be expected to require a
special opening of the bridge to support
public safety. In such cases, the Coast
Guard expects that the bridge owner,
and involved local municipality or
commercial entity can make special
arrangements as needed.
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Based on further review of bridge logs
and scheduled train crossings, the Coast
Guard now proposes to modify the
NPRM, specifically changing the
‘‘except that’’ language in paragraph
(b)(1) of the regulation as indicated
above in Section II. This slight
modification would better serve the
freedom of navigation without
significantly impacted rail traffic.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders and discuss First Amendment
rights of protestors.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed
rule has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the fact that vessels can still
transit the bridge given advanced notice.
The vertical clearance under the bridge
in the closed position is relatively high
enough to accommodate most vessel
traffic during the time periods the draw
is closed during the morning and
evening commuter rush hours.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Apr 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. The term
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section V.A above, this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.
3. 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.).
4. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Government
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.
5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
6. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, 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
that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further
review, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
7. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
VI. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this notice,
and all public comments, are in our
online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
instructions. Additionally, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. In § 117.217, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Apr 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 117.217
Norwalk River.
19097
Comments’’ portion of the
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The draw of the Metro-North
‘‘WALK’’ Bridge, mile 0.1, at Norwalk,
shall operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal
between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at
least a two hour advance notice is given;
except that, from 5:45 a.m. through 9:45
a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m.,
Monday through Friday excluding
holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an
emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal after at least
a four hour advance notice is given.
(3) A delay in opening the draw not
to exceed 10 minutes may occur when
a train scheduled to cross the bridge
without stopping has entered the
drawbridge lock.
(4) Requests for bridge openings may
be made by calling the bridge via marine
radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the
telephone number posted at the bridge.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–07662 Filed 4–1–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0026]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm;
Rhode Island Sound, RI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
If
you have questions about this rule, call
or email Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Chief
of the Waterways Management Division
at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England, telephone 401–435–2351,
email Edward.G.LeBlanc@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On
February 16, 2016, the Coast Guard
published the proposed rule ‘‘Safety
Zone, Block Island Wind Farm’’ in the
Federal Register (81 FR 7718). The
Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500yard safety zone around each of five
locations where the Block Island Wind
Farm (BIWF) wind turbine generator
(WTG) towers, nacelles, blades and
subsea cables will be installed in the
navigable waters of the Rhode Island
Sound, RI, from April 1 to October 31,
2016. These safety zones are intended to
safeguard mariners from the hazards
associated with construction of the
BIWF. Vessels would be prohibited from
entering into, transiting through,
mooring, or anchoring within these
safety zones while construction vessels
and associated equipment are present at
any of the BIWF WTG sites, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP), Southeastern New England or
the COTP’s designated representative.
The original deadline to submit
comments was March 17, 2016. This
action extends the deadline for 30 days.
Written comments must now be
received by April 17, 2016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 22, 2016.
J.T. Kondratowicz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Southeastern New England.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2016–07659 Filed 4–1–16; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
The Coast Guard is extending
the comment period for the proposed
safety zone. In response to public
requests, the Coast Guard is extending
the comment period until April 17,
2016.
SUMMARY:
The comment period for the
proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on February 16, 2016 (81 FR
7718) is reopened. Comments must be
received on or before April 17, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0026 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189; FRL–9944–42–
Region 6]
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Arkansas; Regional Haze and
Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan; Reopening of
Comment Period and Notice of
Availability
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19094-19097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07662]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2014-1057]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Metro-North WALK Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.1,
at Norwalk, Connecticut. The bridge owner submitted a request to
require a greater advance notice for bridge openings and to increase
time periods the bridge remains in the closed position during the
weekday morning and evening rush hours. It is expected that this change
to the regulations will create efficiency in drawbridge operations
while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
[[Page 19095]]
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-1057 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
supplemental proposed rule, call or email Mr. Chris Bisignano, Project
officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 212-514-4331, email
Christopher.j.bisignano@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On August 31, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River,
Norwalk, CT, in the Federal Register (80 FR 52423), soliciting comments
on the proposed rule through October 30, 2015. In addition, Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District published Public Notice 1-149 dated
September 21, 2015. We received four submissions on the proposed rule,
which will be addressed in Section III, below.
The Metro-North WALK Bridge, mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River at
Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position
of 16 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(b). The
waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels
of various sizes.
The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation
(CDOT), requested a change to the Drawbridge Operation Regulations
because the volume of train traffic across the bridge during the peak
commuting hours makes bridge openings impractical under the current
schedule. As a result, bridge openings that occur during peak commuter
train hours cause significant delays to commuter rail traffic.
The NPRM published in August 2015 would have permanently changed
the operating hours during the Monday-Friday, excluding holidays,
timeframes to operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.
after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from
4:30 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 9 p.m., Monday
through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
after at least a four hour advance notice is given.
In response to the comments received and after further review of
bridge logs and train schedules, the Coast Guard now proposes to modify
the NPRM by adjusting when the draw will be available to open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.
after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from
5:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m., Monday
through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
after at least a four hour advance notice is given.
III. Discussion of Comments and Change
We received four submissions commenting on the NPRM. Three
submissions opposed and one submission supported the proposed changes.
Some submissions commented on multiple aspects of the proposed
regulation. The Coast Guard considered all comments and the responses
from CDOT in creation of this supplemental alternative proposal.
One comment suggested a meeting to deliberate the changes proposed
in this rulemaking. The Coast Guard met with all parties that expressed
interest in this rulemaking on May 11, 2015. The Coast Guard does not
see a need to hold additional public meetings at this time.
One comment requested that any modification to the existing rule
should not be extended past the initiation of construction of a new
replacement bridge. The Coast Guard disagrees. A replacement bridge is
only in the planning stage at CDOT. Design and construction of a
replacement project for a bridge of this scale typically takes several
years. As the timeline of a potential bridge replacement is uncertain,
the Coast Guard cannot consider it within this rulemaking.
One comment suggested that any change in the operating regulations
for the Metro-North WALK bridge should take into consideration the
operating rule of the downstream SR136 (Washington Street) Bridge to
facilitate the movement of waterborne commerce. The Coast Guard agrees
that the operating schedule of the SR136 Bridge is relevant and
considered the operating schedule for SR136 when drafting this
supplemental rulemaking.
One comment recommended that the Coast Guard consider revising the
4:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. opening schedule, Monday through Friday, as only
two trains cross the bridge from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. In response to
this comment, the Coast Guard expanded its analysis of train traffic
densities; this analysis contributed to the adjustments made in this
supplemental rule compared to the proposed rule. These adjustments
shorten from five to four hours the a.m. and p.m. periods provided for
in the ``except that'' language in paragraph (b)(1) of the regulation,
but also shifts the a.m. period to end later in the day.
Two commenters noted that the added restrictions to opening times
of the bridge would negatively impact aggregate deliveries and require
alternative deliveries by truck, thereby stressing the road system in
the area. Even under the more restrictive test deviation conducted from
January 1, 2015, to June 28, 2015, as discussed in the NPRM, Metro-
North was able to accommodate all of the requests for bridge openings.
Further, review of the bridge logs revealed that in 2014, prior to the
aforementioned test deviation and NPRM, as compared to 2015 during the
test deviation and the NPRM, the difference in the number of requested
bridge openings was negligible. The Coast Guard also reviewed tidal
data for this area in consideration of the types of commercial traffic
known to use this waterway. The combination of these factors
contributed to the adjustments made in this supplemental rule compared
to the proposed rule.
The Coast Guard believes the supplemental changes balance the needs
of rail and vessel traffic. The proposed changes enhance rail traffic
without significantly affecting vessel traffic.
In review of the proposed rule and stakeholder comments, the Coast
Guard noted that the term ``emergency,'' as used within the existing
and proposed regulation, was not specifically discussed. The term and
associated required actions by the bridge owner are as defined within
33 CFR 117.31. This proposed rule makes no changes to regulations under
that section. However, the Coast Guard notes that there may be
[[Page 19096]]
instances in which emergent conditions beyond those explicitly listed
therein could merit a special opening of the bridge for draft
constrained vessels when tides and the bridge schedule interfere. For
example, if the inventory of seasonally critical home heating oil or
road salt at a facility upstream of the bridge that serves as the
primary supply within the local area is or will soon be exhausted, and
a commercial vessel transit to replenish inventory must occur during an
allowed-closed period of the bridge, this condition may also reasonably
be expected to require a special opening of the bridge to support
public safety. In such cases, the Coast Guard expects that the bridge
owner, and involved local municipality or commercial entity can make
special arrangements as needed.
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Based on further review of bridge logs and scheduled train
crossings, the Coast Guard now proposes to modify the NPRM,
specifically changing the ``except that'' language in paragraph (b)(1)
of the regulation as indicated above in Section II. This slight
modification would better serve the freedom of navigation without
significantly impacted rail traffic.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice. The
vertical clearance under the bridge in the closed position is
relatively high enough to accommodate most vessel traffic during the
time periods the draw is closed during the morning and evening commuter
rush hours.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.
3. 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.).
4. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
6. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, 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 that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
7. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
[[Page 19097]]
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.
VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 117.217, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.217 Norwalk River.
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the Metro-North ``WALK'' Bridge, mile 0.1, at
Norwalk, shall operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.
after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from
5:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m., Monday
through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
after at least a four hour advance notice is given.
(3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur
when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered
the drawbridge lock.
(4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge
via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at
the bridge.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-07662 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P