[Federal Register: December 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 233)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72126-72128]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de02-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-02-099]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Miami Beach Channel and Indian
Creek, Miami-Dade County, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing
the operation of the East 79th Street and the East Venetian Causeway
bridges across Miami Beach Channel, and the 63rd Street bridge across
Indian Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida by allowing these bridges to
remain closed during peak vehicular rush hour traffic. We anticipate
that this proposed rule would reduce vehicle traffic congestion on
Miami Beach during the rush hours while providing for the reasonable
needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 3, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Ave, Room 406, Miami,
FL 33131. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in the preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of (CGD07-02-099) and are available for inspection or copying
at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue,
Room 432, Miami, FL 33131 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch, 909 SE. 1st Ave Miami, FL 33131,
telephone number 305-415-6744.
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 (CGD07-02-
099), 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, 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
A public meeting has not been scheduled. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard
District, 909 SE. 1st Ave, Room 432, Miami, FL 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 City of Miami Beach has requested that the Coast Guard consider
changing the existing regulations for the East 79th Street, East
Venetian Causeway, and the 63rd Street bridges that lead into the City
of Miami Beach because of the vehicle gridlock within the city each
time the bridges are opened during rush hours. Based on the limited
number of requested bridge openings during the proposed time window,
the Coast Guard believes it can accommodate the request while still
providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.
The East 79th Street, the East Venetian Causeway, and the 63rd
Street bridges are located between Miami and Miami Beach. The current
regulations in 33 CFR 117.5 require the East 79th Street and the 63rd
Street bridges to open on signal. The current East Venetian Causeway
bridge regulation in 33 CFR 117.269 requires this bridge to open on
signal; except that, from November 1 through April 30 from 7:15 a.m. to
8:45 a.m. and from 4:45 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, the
draw need not be opened. However, the draw must open at 7:45 a.m., 8:15
a.m., 5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m., if any vessels are waiting to pass. The
draw must open on signal on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year's
Day, and Washington's Birthday. The draw must open at any time for
public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows, regularly
scheduled cruise vessels, and vessels in distress.
We believe that this proposed rule would lessen vehicular traffic
congestion during the workday rush hours. This proposed rule would
modify the current regulation for the East Venetian Causeway bridge by
requiring ``regularly scheduled cruise vessels'' to comply with the
regulation's opening schedule by eliminating the language that
currently excepts them from the existing rule. This proposed rule would
modify the existing regulation of the East Venetian Causeway bridge by
requiring the bridge to open on signal during all Federal holidays, not
just the holidays enumerated in the rule. This proposed rule would also
slightly modify the existing times when the East Venetian Causeway
bridge need not open during the morning and evening rush hours, and
would allow the East 79th Street and the 63rd Street bridges to remain
closed from 7 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.; and from 4:10 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the existing bridge operating
regulations and create a permanent rule that would allow the East 79th
Street and the East Venetian Causeway bridges across Miami Beach
Channel, and the 63rd Street bridge across Indian Creek, to remain
closed from 7 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.; and from 4:10 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Public vessels of the United
States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress would be passed at
anytime.
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
Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the
economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary because there have been limited
numbers of requests for openings during
[[Page 72127]]
these time periods and this proposed rule still provides for regular
openings throughout the day.
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 there have been limited openings
during these time periods and this proposed rule still provides for
regular openings throughout the day.
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 to the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain 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 consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We also have a point of contact
for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. 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 not specifically required by law. 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. Although 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.
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.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. Revise Sec. 117.269 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.269 Biscayne Bay.
The East 79th Street and the East Venetian Causeway bridges across
Miami Beach Channel, and the 63rd Street bridge across Indian Creek,
need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.; and from 4:10 p.m. to 6 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Public vessels of the
United States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress shall be passed
at anytime.
[[Page 72128]]
Dated: November 12, 2002.
James S. Carmichael,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 02-30739 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P