[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44553-44555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16754]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-01-143]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 
Mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach, Broward County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the operating 
regulations of the Dania Beach Boulevard bridge across the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach, Florida, from July 
31, 2002 to November 15, 2002. This temporary rule allows this bridge 
to only open a single leaf of the bridge on a regular schedule. Double 
leaf openings will be provided during certain times. This action is 
necessary to facilitate repairs to the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:01 p.m. on July 31, 2002 until 6 
p.m. on November 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket 
are part of docket [CGD07-01-143] and are available for inspection or 
copying at room 432, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 909 
S.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33130-3050, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Project Officer, 
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone 305-415-6744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On February 21, 2002 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Dania Beach 
Boulevard Drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Florida'' in the 
Federal Register (67 FR 7991).
    On April 16, 2002, PCL Constructors, who were hired by Florida 
Department of Transportation, notified the Coast Guard that due to a 
safety issue involving the welding of deck plates, the bridge should be 
put on a single leaf opening schedule as soon as possible, and 
requested this be done to facilitate repairs. The Coast Guard met with 
Florida Department of Transportation representatives on April 22, 2002 
to discuss this request. After this meeting the Coast Guard determined 
that to best facilitate the needs of navigation and bridge repair, the 
bridge would be put on a 20-minute, single leaf opening schedule with 
double leaf openings available with 2 hours advance notice to the 
bridge tender. On June 13, 2002 the Coast Guard published a notice of 
temporary deviation from regulations entitled ``Drawbridge Operation 
Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 1069.4 at Dania 
Beach, Broward County, FL'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 40606). This 
deviation allows the bridge operator to only open a single leaf of the 
bridge from June 4, 2002 until July 31, 2002 with double leaf openings 
available with 2 hours advanced notice to the bridge tender.

Background and Purpose

    The Dania Beach Boulevard bridge, mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach, 
Broward County, Florida, has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean 
high water and a horizontal clearance of 45 feet between fenders. The 
existing operating regulations in 33 CFR 117 require the bridge to open 
on signal.
    On November 7, 2001, the Coast Guard met with the Florida 
Department of Transportation representative, URS to discuss altering 
the Dania Beach Boulevard bridge regulations to facilitate a major 
rehabilitation of the bridge. The representatives stated that due to 
the comprehensive nature of the repairs, which includes rebalancing the 
bascules, they would only be able to open a single span of the bridge 
for a period of 45 days during the months of September and October. URS 
requested the bridge be allowed to only open a single leaf of the 
bridge on the quarter hour and three-quarter hour during these 45 days. 
Double leaf openings would not be available during this time period 
because one span will be inoperable. Since the notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published, URS determined that the 45 days will begin on 
September 5, 2002 and end on October 19, 2002.
    On April 16, 2002, PCL Contractors notified the Coast Guard that 
the work on the bridge bascules had started and due to safety issues 
involving welding deck plates, the current on-demand bridge schedule 
raised safety concerns and impeded their work. As a result, they 
requested a 20-minute, single leaf, opening schedule. On April 22, 
2002, the Coast Guard contacted URS to discuss this request. As a 
result of that meeting, the Coast Guard determined that operational and 
safety concerns justified a 20-minute, single leaf, opening schedule. 
Double-leaf openings

[[Page 44554]]

will be available with 2 hours advance notice to the bridge tender. 
This action is necessary to facilitate worker safety during repairs to 
the bridge without significantly hindering navigation. This schedule 
will run from July 31, 2002 until September 5, 2002 and then again from 
October 19, 2002 until November 15, 2002.
    Although this schedule will run for a longer period of time than 
that proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, safety issues that 
were only discovered after work commenced justified this additional 
single leaf schedule. The schedule for the additional time still 
provides for single leaf openings 3 times an hour and provides for 
double leaf openings with 2 hours advance notice.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 2 written comments and one verbal comment to the notice 
of proposed rulemaking. The Florida Department of State found that the 
project would not affect historic properties. The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration stated that any adverse effects that may 
occur on the marine and anadromous fishery resources and essential fish 
habitat would be minimal so did not have any comments. A representative 
from Marine Industries of Fort Lauderdale verbally told the Seventh 
Coast Guard District Bridge Branch staff that he did not oppose the 
proposed bridge operating schedule. The Coast Guard has not received 
any comments on the notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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). The Coast Guard expects the 
economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory 
Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and 
procedures of DOT is unnecessary because this rule only temporarily 
modifies the bridge's operating schedule and still provides for regular 
single leaf openings.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard has considered whether this rule will have a significant economic 
effect upon 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 rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because this rule only temporarily modifies the bridge's 
operating schedule and still provides for regular single leaf openings. 
We are only aware of one vessel that will be unable to pass through the 
bridge when double leaf openings are unavailable from September 5, 2002 
until October 14, 2002. The vessel operator has agreed to moor on the 
other side of the bridge during this period.

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 rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 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 rule calls for no new collection of information requirements 
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 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 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 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 rule will 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Execute Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this 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 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

[[Page 44555]]

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.

Environment

    The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this 
action and has concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e) of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' is available in the docket we have indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
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. A new temporary Sec. 117.261(rr) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 117.261  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to 
Key Largo.

* * * * *
    (rr) Dania Beach Boulevard bridge, mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach, FL. 
(1) The Dania Beach Boulevard bridge, mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach, FL 
need only open a single leaf of the bridge on the hour, 20-minutes 
after the hour, and 40-minutes after the hour from 8:01 p.m. on July 
31, 2002 until 12:01 a.m. on September 5, 2002 and from 11:59 p.m. on 
October 19, 2002 until 6 p.m. on November 15, 2002. A double-leaf 
opening will be available if 2 hours advance notice is provided to the 
bridge tender.
    (2) From 12:02 a.m. on September 5, 2002 until 11:58 p.m. on 
October 19, 2002, the Dania Beach Boulevard bridge, mile 1069.4 at 
Dania Beach, FL need only open a single leaf of the bridge on the 
quarter hour and three-quarter hour.

    Dated: June 26, 2002.
J.W. Stark,
Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-16754 Filed 7-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P