Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Miami River, North Fork, Miami, FL
| Published date | 15 July 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-15233 |
| Citation | 89 FR 57379 |
| Court | Coast Guard |
| Section | Proposed rules |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 135 (Monday, July 15, 2024)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57379-57381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15233]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2024-0379]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Miami River, North Fork, Miami,
FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove the operating schedule that
governs the FDOT Railroad Bridge, across the Miami River, North Fork,
mile 5.3, at Miami, FL. The railroad bridge is being replaced with a
fixed bridge. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 14, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2024-0379 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking with its plain-
language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be available in
this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Jennifer Zercher, Bridge Management Specialist,
Seventh Coast Guard District; telephone 571-607-5951, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The FDOT Railroad Bridge, across the Miami River, North Fork, mile
5.3, at Miami, FL, is a single bascule bridge with a 6-foot vertical
clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal
operating schedule is set forth in 33 CFR 117.307.
FDOT applied for and received a Coast Guard Bridge Permit to
replace the existing moveable railroad bridge with a fixed railroad
bridge. FDOT has requested the drawbridge operation regulation be
removed and the bridge be allowed to remain closed to navigation in
anticipation of phase one of the bridge replacement project, converting
the moveable bridge to a fixed bridge, beginning August 2024.
The Miami River, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, is a federal navigation project channel. On December 21,
2020, the U.S. Congress approved the deauthorization of navigational
rights for the portion of the Miami River between the FDOT Railroad
Bridge and the S-26 SFWMD structure with the Miami Rivel Canal
provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (12/21/2020).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, the FDOT Railroad Bridge would be allowed
to remain closed to navigation until the bridge replacement project is
completed. The waterway from the railroad bridge to the water control
structure has been deauthorized of navigational rights, therefore,
impacts to navigation are not expected. Vessels that can pass beneath
the bridge without an opening would be able to so at any time.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
[[Page 57380]]
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels able to transit the bridge without an opening may do so at any
time.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2024-0379 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, 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 of any posting or updates to the docket.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
[[Page 57381]]
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
Sec. 117.307 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 117.307.
Dated: July 07, 2024.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh
District.
[FR Doc. 2024-15233 Filed 7-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
