[Federal Register: August 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47522-47524]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au03-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-03-094]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations
of the CSX Railroad Swingbridge, across Rice Creek, mile 0.8, Putnam
County, Florida. The proposed rule would require the bridge to open on
signal during the day and to open with a 24-hour advance notice at all
other times. This proposed rule would meet the reasonable needs of
navigation on Rice Creek.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 10, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Ave, Room 432, Miami,
Florida 33131. Commander (obr) maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in the preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket 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 Ave. Miami, FL 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-
094), 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
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. 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, 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 CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek, mile 0.8, is a railroad
swingbridge with a vertical clearance of 2 feet at mean high water and
a horizontal clearance of 30 feet. The current operating regulations
published
[[Page 47523]]
in 33 CFR 117.5 require the bridge to open on signal. This regulatory
proposal would ease the burden of having a full time bridge tender on
site. For the last three years, requests to open the bridge have been
for intermittent tug and barge traffic between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m. The
CSX Railroad, and the tug and barge companies that pass through the
bridge service the same customer upstream from the bridge and are able
to coordinate their operating schedules for timely bridge openings.
This proposed rule would continue to meet the reasonable needs of
navigation for this Bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would require the bridge to open on signal from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., the bridge need open only
with a 24-hour advance notice by calling 1-800-232-0142. This schedule
would meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
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 under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The proposed rule would provide
for openings on signal during the most heavily traveled time periods
and not differ from the current regulations governing the operation of
this Bridge. The Bridge would open with advanced notice during all
other times.
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 proposed rule still provides for
daily openings on signal during the most heavily traveled time periods.
The rest of the time, the Bridge would open with a 24-hour advance
notice. Accordingly, the only impact of this proposed rule would be
that a vessel would need to provide notice that it required passage
between the hours of 4:01 p.m. and 7:59 a.m.
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 proposed 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. 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 have 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 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 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.
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
[[Page 47524]]
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 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), of
the Instruction, 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
1. 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.
2. Section 117.324 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.324 Rice Creek.
The CSX Railroad Swingbridge, mile 0.8, in Putnam County, shall
open on signal from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59
a.m., daily, the Bridge shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to 1-
800-232-0142.
Dated: July 28, 2003.
F.M. Rosa,
Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 03-20336 Filed 8-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P