[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63255-63259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-02-091]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Miami River, Miami-Dade County, 
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the operating 
regulations of all the drawbridges on the Miami River from the mouth of 
the River to, and including, the NW 27th Avenue Bridge, mile 3.7, 
Miami, Florida, to allow tugs and tugs with tows to pass through these 
bridges, except the new Second Avenue Bridge, upon proper signal to the 
bridge tender at all times, including during the normal rush hour 
traffic curfew periods. This rule allows the new Second Avenue Bridge 
to keep a single leaf in the horizontal (down) position for up to nine 
hours each day except Wednesdays, beginning three hours after one of 
the two daily high tides. This rule is intended to facilitate 
construction of the new Second Avenue Bridge and provide increased 
relief for tugs and tugs with tows on the Miami River. The construction 
is scheduled to be accomplished in two phases, the first running from 
October 7, 2002 to November 18, 2002. The second is scheduled from 
approximately December 16, 2002 to January 27, 2003. This temporary 
rule covers the entire period from October 7, 2002 to January 27, 2003, 
but leaves open the potential for the Coast Guard to change this rule 
based on comments received.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 7, 2002 until 
11:59 p.m. on January 27, 2003. Comments must be received by November 
18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, Room 432, 909 SE 1st Ave., Miami, 
FL 33131-3050.
    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 [CGD07-02-091] and are available for inspection or copying at 
the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, located at the above 
address, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, 
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone 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 [CGD07-02-
091], indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. The Coast Guard 
is interested in comments that, among other issues, detail specific 
economic impact to stakeholders on the Miami River. 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 rule in view of them.

Regulatory Information

    On August 6, 2002 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Miami River, Miami-
Dade County, Florida'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 50842). We 
received twenty-three letters commenting on the proposed rule. A public 
meeting was requested; none was held for reasons discussed later in 
this preamble.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard is making this 
rule effective on October 7, 2002 because the contractor will solicit 
input weekly from the tugboat companies responsible for moving large 
commercial vessels on the Miami River to develop a coordinated 
construction schedule to minimize disruption to the large vessel and 
construction schedules of the Miami River and Second Avenue Bridge, 
respectively. Allowing the rule to go into effect in less than 30 days 
will allow construction to begin closer to the scheduled start, thus 
expediting the completion of the Second Avenue Bridge and elimination 
of obstructions to navigation due to its construction.

Background and Purpose

    On August 6, 2002 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) outlining a request from the Florida Department of 
Transportation (FDOT)

[[Page 63256]]

(the bridge owner) and Gilbert Southern Corp. (GSC) (the bridge 
contractor) to keep a single-leaf of the Second Avenue Bridge in the 
closed position for periods of time not to exceed eighteen hours daily 
to facilitate installation of the two bridge leaves.
    At an August 21, 2002 meeting, the Coast Guard briefed the bridge 
owner and contractor of the negative tone of the comments to the 
proposed rule the Coast Guard had in the docket at that point. Based on 
this meeting, the owner and contractor met with key stakeholders and 
requested the Coast Guard change the window originally requested, 
allowing a single leaf opening of the Second Avenue Bridge for not more 
than nine hours per day, three hours after one of the two daily high 
tides. This temporary rule allows this each day except Wednesdays, 
because that is the busiest day for shipping on the Miami River. The 
temporary rule better provides for the reasonable needs of navigation 
while still allowing installation of the two leaves, and thus 
completion of the bridge, to progress. Additionally, because the 
comments indicated that large ship movements on the Miami River can 
only occur on the high tide, the temporary rule reduces the negative 
economic impact to commercial users of the Miami River by allowing use 
of one, and part of the second, daily high tide on the River to 
facilitate large vessel movement. This temporary rule is an effort to 
meet the reasonable needs of navigation and provide for the 
construction of the Second Avenue Bridge, which will ultimately improve 
the navigability of the Miami River.

Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received twenty-one comments on the proposed rule; 
four were in support of it, while seventeen were opposed to it.

Supporting Comments

    Comments in support of the proposed rule were by submitted FDOT, 
the City of Miami City Manager's Office, the Miami-Dade County Public 
Works Department, and Miami-Dade County Manager's Office. The comment 
submitted by FDOT listed eight coordination meetings with various Miami 
River interests, along with the general attendees and discussion topics 
at the meetings to show the level of attempted coordination between 
FDOT and various Miami River stakeholders. The Coast Guard acknowledges 
these comments, but for reasons stated in the ``Background and 
Purpose'' section, has modified the original proposed rule and has 
implemented this temporary rule.
    The proposed rule also had a provision temporarily eliminating the 
operating regulations that allowed Miami River bridges to not open 
during morning and afternoon vehicle traffic rush hours. Four comments 
were also in favor of this aspect of the proposed rule and requested it 
be made permanent. Thus, the Coast Guard kept this provision of the 
temporary rule. However, the permanency of this elimination is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking.

Opposing Comments

    Seventeen comments were opposed to the provision of the proposed 
rule that would allow the bridge owner and contractor to keep a single-
span of the Second Avenue Bridge in the horizontal (down) position 
daily from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Coast Guard changed this provision in 
this temporary rule as detailed throughout this document.
    Eleven comments were in general opposition to allowing a single 
leaf of the bridge to be in the horizontal (down) position for a 
maximum of eighteen-hour timeframe. Some comments cited the general 
negative economic impact that allowing a single leaf of the Second 
Avenue Bridge to remain in the horizontal (down) position would have on 
the Miami River cargo industry (two comments) and indirect negative 
impact on the commenters' businesses because they rely on the larger 
vessel traffic flow for their businesses (seven comments). One comment 
asserted that shipping must get ``the priority use'' of rivers. One 
comment suggested that the obstruction of the Miami River due to 
installation of the Second Avenue Bridge leafs be limited to eight 
hours and any time beyond those eight hours where the Miami River is 
obstructed be mitigated by a financial subsidy from the bridge 
contractor to companies negatively impacted. The Coast Guard has no 
authority to require a subsidy of this type. Thus, it was not 
incorporated into the temporary rule.
    Nine comments cited the negative economic impact that the proposed 
rule would likely have on the Miami River cargo shipping industry, 
which uses large vessels to ship goods.
    The Coast Guard has considered these comments, and has changed the 
proposed rule based in part on them, in part on the comments from the 
bridge owner and contractor requesting to halve the maximum eighteen 
hour window reflected in the NPRM (see ``Background and Purpose''), and 
in part on other more detailed comments discussed below regarding the 
proposed rule. This temporary rule allows the Second Avenue Bridge to 
have single leaf openings six days a week for a maximum of nine hours 
per day, starting three hours after one of the two daily high tides. 
The rule requires both leaves of the Second Avenue Bridge to open on 
Wednesdays because Wednesdays are the busiest day for shipping on the 
Miami River. These changes directly address the comments about the 
economic impacts of the rule and will insure that the reasonable needs 
of navigation are met.

Construction Methodology

    Two comments commented on the construction method of the Second 
Avenue Bridge, declaring that construction of the bridge in the 
horizontal position is unreasonable and that construction of the bridge 
must be done in the upright position. In June 2001, July 2002, and 
August 2002 representatives from the Coast Guard Seventh District 
Bridge Branch met with representatives of the bridge owner and 
contractor. The bridge owner and contractor explained the construction 
methodology behind the bridge and that it could not be practically 
constructed with leaves in the vertical (upright) position due to the 
sheer size of each bridge leaf and due to safety concerns for bridge 
construction workers. Miami River vessel traffic would be impacted for 
an equal amount of time if the bridge leaves were installed in the 
vertical (up) position as it would in the horizontal (down) position 
because of the safety hazard over the waterway that would exist while 
installing the leaves.

Construction Methodology

    Two comments commented on the construction method of the Second 
Avenue Bridge, declaring that construction of the bridge in the 
horizontal position is unreasonable and that construction of the bridge 
must be done in the upright position. In June 2001, July 2002, and 
August 2002 representatives from the Coast Guard Seventh District 
Bridge Branch met with representatives of the bridge owner and 
contractor. The bridge owner and contractor explained the construction 
methodology behind the bridge and that it could not be practically 
constructed with leaves in the vertical (upright) position due to the 
sheer size of each bridge leaf and due to safety concerns for bridge 
construction workers. The Coast Guard notes that Miami River vessel 
traffic would be impacted for an equal amount of time if the bridge 
leaves were installed in the vertical (up) position as it would in the 
horizontal (down) position because of the safety hazard that would 
exist over the waterway requiring the limitation of the

[[Page 63257]]

River's horizontal clearance while installing the leaves. Two 
commenters requested a public meeting to provide a forum to review the 
assertion that the Second Avenue Bridge could not be constructed in the 
vertical (up) position because of the bridge's size and design. Because 
safety hazards would still exist on the waterway requiring a similar 
reduction in the horizontal clearance of the Miami River, the Coast 
Guard sees no new issues arising from a public meeting on this topic, 
so none was held.

The Proposed Rule Will Shut Down Shipping on the Miami River

    Seven comments were opposed to the proposed rule's six-hour time 
window that the Second Avenue Bridge be open to all traffic because it 
was too small of a period to have unimpeded vessel traffic flow on the 
Miami River. Five comments declared that the proposed rule would 
``basically shut down the river'' to all vessel traffic for the 
duration the rule would be in effect. Two comments cited the tug 
bottleneck that the proposed rule would create because the six-hour 
window would force all larger vessel traffic into that window for 
transiting the Miami River, and traffic would necessarily be delayed. 
The Coast Guard considered the impact of the proposed rule on the Miami 
River vessel traffic, noting that large vessel traffic flow is one way 
on the River due to the limited available width. Two comments mention 
that the period described in the proposed rule is the ``peak season'' 
on the Miami River, and thus would have ``devastating'' effects on the 
commerce that runs on the Miami River. One comment discussed Miami 
River tidal patterns and that at best there would be one high tide and 
one low tide during the six-hour window from 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. every 
six days, and large commercial vessel traffic is restricted to 
movements corresponding with the high tides. The changes in this 
temporary rule creates a fifteen-hour window that should reduce the 
traffic concerns that resulted from the limited six-hour window of 
unimpeded River navigability contained in the original proposed rule.
    One of the comments from a marine terminal on the River asserted 
that the proposed rule would create an additional $2K to $5K expense 
per vessel. This terminal had over 100 sailings last year. As discussed 
in detail below, the Coast Guard has adopted a temporary rule that 
makes explicit the intent to obstruct the Miami River for not more than 
nine hours per day, six days per week. This should mitigate the 
economic impact to this terminal because large vessels will be able to 
use one high tide daily, and part of the second, for movements on the 
River. Also, the schedule will be published in advance, and should 
allow for flexibility in scheduling for parties involved on either side 
of this issue. The temporary rule should also reduce the bottleneck 
concern. Additionally, the Coast Guard will continue to accept comments 
on the temporary rule through the first construction phase, and may 
change it depending on the comments. Comments detailing specific 
economic impacts such as the one in this paragraph are particularly 
helpful in evaluating this rule.

The Proposed Rule Was Unfair to Shipping Industry

    Three comments stated the proposed rule was unfair to the Miami 
River shipping industry. The comments state that the proposed rule 
would instill economic woes on the River shipping industry to benefit 
the bridge contractor, that it would be unfair to allow the bridge 
contractor and owner to reap benefits from this planned bridge 
construction despite their poor planning with local River stakeholders, 
that the marine industry is severely penalized by bridge design and 
building contracts that are beyond their control, and that the Coast 
Guard has chosen to sacrifice an important economic engine in favor of 
the bridge contractor's prospective profit.
    One comment alleged bias shown by the Coast Guard in favor of 
construction of the Second Avenue Bridge over the needs of navigation.
    The Coast Guard uses the ``reasonable needs of navigation'' as the 
standard when evaluating projects that potentially impact navigation. 
The bridge owner and contractor requested the proposed rule. The Coast 
Guard's view was that to better determine what the needs of navigation 
were, the proposed rule should be released to solicit comments which 
would provide the Coast Guard with a basis to determine the reasonable 
needs of navigation. The Coast Guard has considered these comments and, 
as noted above, has changed the proposed rule to mitigate the impact to 
commercial navigation. Through the additional comment period, the Coast 
Guard encourages comments on this temporary rule, and may make further 
changes in light of them.

Bridge Owner's Requested Revision

    On 21 August 2002 the Coast Guard met with representatives of the 
bridge owner and contractor and made them aware of the generally 
negative tone of the comments in the docket at that time. Based on 
these objections, the bridge owner and contractor modified their 
request and put forth a proposal that cut in half the amount of time 
the Miami River could be obstructed by the Second Avenue Bridge. They 
requested that the Coast Guard revise the proposed rule to allow the 
Second Avenue Bridge to have one leaf in the down position for not more 
than nine hours starting three hours after one of the two daily high 
tides that occur on the Miami River. At all other times, both leaves 
would open on signal. GSC, as bridge contractor, and on behalf of the 
bridge owner, in consultation with the two major tug companies that 
assist in large vessel movements on the River, will submit a 
coordinated construction schedule to the Coast Guard, specifically, the 
Captain of the Port of Miami (COTP). The schedule will be reviewed by 
the COTP, who will promptly announce the schedule through broadcast 
local notices to mariners and local notices to mariners.

Commenters' Requested Changes

    One tug operator on the Miami River commented that the proposed 
rule should not allow the Second Avenue Bridge to be in the horizontal 
(down) position for more than six hours, that it should fluctuate with 
the tidal cycles, that tug operators and GSC must coordinate when the 
Miami River would be obstructed by the single leaf in the horizontal 
(down) position, and that on Wednesdays the Miami River must remain 
unobstructed. The Miami River Commission (MRC), an entity created by 
the State of Florida to be an official clearinghouse for all public 
policy and projects on the Miami River, recommended similar provisions. 
The MRC's comment, however, included a six to ten hour daily window 
where the Miami River would be obstructed by the single leaf of the 
Second Avenue Bridge in the horizontal (down) position. Additionally, 
the MRC reiterates the bridge contractor's comment that details two 
separate six-week periods where bridge construction would occur. The 
Miami River Marine Group, a port cooperative trade association made up 
of stakeholders of the Miami River, commented that the leaf should be 
in the horizontal (down) position for not more than eight hours per 
day.
    The Coast Guard has considered these comments in conjunction with 
the comment by the bridge owner and contractor to revise the proposed 
rule. The Coast Guard notes that MRC's proposal leaves open the option 
for a maximum ten-hour window daily period where the Miami River would 
be obstructed due to construction, and the

[[Page 63258]]

bridge contractor's stated commitment to working with Miami River 
stakeholders to minimize the impact to commercial marine interests, who 
necessarily rely on larger vessels that require both leaves to be in 
the vertical (up) position. The bridge owner and contractor indicated 
in the August 21, 2002 meeting that they required one hour at either 
end of their work day to set up and then secure. The Coast Guard has 
determined, based on all comments received, that nine hours is an 
appropriate maximum window to allow the installation of the Second 
Avenue Bridge leaves, which necessarily must be done in the horizontal 
(down) position, thus restricting the Miami River to an approximately 
70-foot horizontal navigation clearance.

Changes to the Proposed Rule

    After reviewing the comments received from the NPRM, the Coast 
Guard has revised the proposed rule to allow GSC to keep a single-leaf 
of the bridge in the horizontal (down) position nine hours each day 
except Wednesdays, starting three hours after one of the two daily high 
tides, generally the first daily high tide. The COTP will review and 
broadcast the bridge schedule. The bridge owner has agreed to publish 
the schedule each week, with a proposed schedule for the following 
week. In addition, tugs and tugs with tows will be exempt from the rush 
hour curfews on the drawbridges from the mouth of the Miami River to 
and including the N.W. 27th Avenue Bridge, except the new Second Avenue 
Bridge.
    The bridge owner and contractors' requested revision includes two 
separate time windows of approximately six weeks each when they would 
install the two bridge leaves. The bridge contractor anticipates 
approximately one month between the two time windows. During the 
approximately one month period between the two construction windows, 
the Coast Guard does not anticipate the need to approve any schedule 
that requires the Second Avenue Bridge to impede navigability on the 
Miami River. The Coast Guard is also allowing an additional comment 
period and may change this rule based on comments received, and will 
terminate the rule early if construction is completed early.
    This temporary rule incorporates the changes requested by the 
bridge owner and contractor, those recommended by the MRC as the State 
of Florida legislated clearinghouse for Miami River issues, and some 
requested changes from the Miami River Group as a representative entity 
of stakeholders on the Miami River. The Coast Guard regulates bridges 
across waterways to provide for the ``reasonable needs of navigation.'' 
The Coast Guard must ensure the public right of navigation is preserved 
while maintaining a reasonable balance between the competing needs of 
land and waterborne modes of transportation. The Coast Guard strives to 
promote and expedite projects that facilitate commerce and provide for 
the reasonable needs of present and prospective land and marine 
transportation. In this temporary rule the Coast Guard meets the 
reasonable needs of navigation while still permitting the construction 
of the Second Avenue Bridge, which will ultimately assist with 
navigation and the movement of vessel commerce on the Miami River. This 
temporary rule reduces the Second Avenue Bridge single leaf operations 
to not more than nine hours per day, six days a week. The Coast Guard 
may also allow minor deviations to the nine-hour maximum single leaf 
operation if large vessel traffic will not be affected by the 
deviation. Expansion of the construction windows through minor 
deviations should expedite bridge construction ultimately reducing the 
length of time that large commercial navigation will be potentially 
obstructed.

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 requires a multi-
interest coordinated schedule based on the high tides that provides for 
fifteen hours of daily unobstructed vessel flow on the Miami River and 
use of at least part of both high tides by vessel traffic, the Miami 
River will be unimpeded by the Second Avenue Bridge on Wednesdays (the 
busiest day for cargo shipping on the River), approximately seventy 
feet of horizontal clearance be available twenty four hours each day 
(although short periods of under one hour with less horizontal 
clearance are possible due to temporary safety hazards), and the rule 
only temporarily restricts the waterway.

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 requires a multi-interest coordinated 
schedule based on the high tides that provides for fifteen hours of 
daily unobstructed vessel flow on the Miami River and use of at least 
part of both high tides by large vessel traffic, the Miami River will 
be unimpeded by the Second Avenue Bridge on Wednesdays (the busiest day 
for cargo shipping on the River), approximately seventy feet of 
horizontal clearance will be available twenty four hours each day 
(although short periods of under one hour with less horizontal 
clearance are possible due to temporary safety hazards), and the rule 
only temporarily restricts the waterway.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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. The Coast Guard has created an additional 
comment period for this temporary rule, and is particularly interested 
in comments describing specific economic impacts to small entities. 
This will allow the Coast Guard to better evaluate impacts to small 
entities. 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

[[Page 63259]]

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 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.


Sec.  117.305  [Suspended]

    2. From 12:01 a.m. October 7, 2002 until 11:59 p.m. on January 27, 
2003, temporarily suspend Sec.  117.305.

    3. From 12:01 a.m. October 7, 2002 until 11:59 p.m. on January 27, 
2003, add a new Sec.  117.T306 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.T306  Miami River, Florida.

    (a) The draws of each bridge from the mouth of the Miami River to 
and including N.W. 27th Avenue bridge, mile 3.7 at Miami, but excluding 
the new Second Avenue bridge, mile 0.5, Miami, Florida, shall open on 
signal; except that, from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., 
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draws need not open 
for the passage of vessels other than public vessels of the United 
States, tugs and tugs with tows, and vessels in an emergency involving 
danger to life or property, which shall be passed at any time.
    (b) The new Second Avenue Bridge, mile 0.5, Miami Florida, need 
open only a single-leaf of the bridge nine (9) hours per day, starting 
three (3) hours after one of the two high tides, every day except 
Wednesday. The Captain of the Port of Miami will review and announce a 
weekly schedule coordinated between the bridge contractor and tugboat 
operators on the Miami River. At all other times, including all day on 
Wednesdays, the bridge will open on signal.

    Dated: October 1, 2002.
James S. Carmichael,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 02-25930 Filed 10-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P