81 FR 19094 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 64 (April 4, 2016)

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.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19094-19097]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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 http://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 
[email protected].

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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://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 http://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 http://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