[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72126-72128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30739]


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

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