Drawbridge operations: Florida,
[Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46139-46141]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05au03-22]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-03-088]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Miami River, North Fork, Miami, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations and the name of the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge, across the Miami River, mile 5.3, Miami, Florida. The proposed rule would require the bridge to open only after a 48-hour advance notice to the owner. In addition, the Coast Guard is proposing a name change, from Seaboard System Railroad Bridge to CSX Railroad Bridge, to reflect the current owner of the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 6, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket [CGD07-03-088] and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 909 SE. 1st Avenue Miami, Florida 33131, telephone number 305-415-6743.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-03- 088], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us,
[[Page 46140]]
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131, explaining why one 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.
Background and Purpose
The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Miami River, mile 5.3, is a railroad bridge with a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 60 feet. The current operating regulations published in 33 CFR 117.307 require the bridge to open on signal from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. At all other times, the draw must open on signal if at least three hours notice is given. The last time the bridge was opened for vessel traffic, however, was December 2, 2001, though a full time bridge tender is on site. The proposed rule would improve the efficiency of the bridge system and meet the reasonable needs of navigation by providing for openings with a 48-hour advance notice to the CSX System Operating Headquarters, at (800) 232-0144, and would still meet the reasonable needs of navigation. In addition, the owner is requesting that the Coast Guard change the name of the bridge, which has been sold, from the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge to the CSX Railroad Bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under the proposed rule, the bridge would open only with a 48-hour advance notice to the CSX System Operating Headquarters, at (800) 232- 0144. The bridge is the last moveable bridge on the waterway approximately 1000 yards from a salinity dam, which marks the end of navigability on the waterway of the Miami River. The bridge has not opened for navigation since December 2, 2001, and, except for normal maintenance, experienced the same pattern of no openings for the year 2002. Accordingly, this proposed schedule would meet the reasonable needs of navigation. Moreover, in order to accurately refer to the bridge, this proposed rule would change the name from Seaboard System Railroad Bridge to the CSX Railroad Bridge.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, because the proposed rule would provide for openings with advanced notice.
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, because the past few years of the bridge's history indicates that it rarely opens. The proposed rule provides for openings and meets the reasonable needs of navigation.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this 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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their 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 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.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
[[Page 46141]]
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order, because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
-
The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
-
Section 117.307 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.307 Miami River, North Fork.
The draw of the CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 5.3 at Miami, shall open on signal if at least forty-eight hours notice is given to CSX System Operating Headquarters at (800) 232-0144.
Dated: July 25, 2003 H.E. Johnson, Jr., Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 03-19900 Filed 8-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
