[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17571-17573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-03-007]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apalachicola River, River 
Junction, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a drawbridge operation 
regulation for the draw of the CSX Railroad swing bridge across the 
Apalachicola River, mile 105.9, at River Junction (near Chattahoochee), 
Florida. The regulation will allow for the bridge to be unmanned and 
remain closed during hours of infrequent traffic with

[[Page 17572]]

an advance notification requirement to open the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 9, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obc), Eighth Coast Guard District, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70130-3396, or deliver them to room 1313 at the same address 
above between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 
Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents 
indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will 
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying by appointment at the Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth 
Coast Guard District between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration 
Branch, at the address given above or telephone (504) 589-2965.

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 (CGD08-03-
007), 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 
that 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 public meeting by writing to the Commander, 
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch at the 
address under ADDRESSES explaining why a public meeting 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 swing bridge across the Apalachicola River, mile 105.9, 
presently opens on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge owner 
has requested to change the operation regulations so that the bridge be 
required to open on signal only from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through 
Friday. At all other times, the bridge would open on signal if at least 
four hours advanced notification is given. The request was made based 
upon a documented decrease in the number of requests for openings in 
the last three years. In 2000, the bridge opened 63 times for the 
passage of vessels. In 2001, the bridge opened 38 times for the passage 
of vessels. In the first five months of 2002, the bridge opened 15 
times for the passage of vessels. Information gathered regarding the 
decrease in vessel movements indicates that the closure of a sand and 
gravel facility above the bridge and a prolonged drought are the main 
contributing factors. While water elevations may return to their pre-
drought levels, there is presently no evidence that the number of 
requests for bridge openings will increase in the future due to limited 
industrial development along the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule will have no effect on the existing operation of 
the bridge between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday when the 
bridge will open on signal to accommodate marine traffic. At all other 
times the bridge will only open if four hours advance notice is 
provided. This change is proposed to reduce the financial burden on the 
drawbridge operator of maintaining bridge tenders at times that there 
is little or no vessel traffic.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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.
    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.
    Prior to proposing this rule, the Coast Guard analyzed the bridge 
usage records and determined that requiring four hours notice during 
off peak periods would have minimal impact on commercial vessel 
traffic. This proposed rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit 
this waterway during normal weekdays and with minimal notification at 
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. The proposed rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners and 
operators of vessels requiring a vertical clearance of greater than 
17.4 feet above Ordinary High Water and needing to transit the bridge 
outside of the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekday time frame. The impacts to 
small entities will not be significant because of the limited number of 
openings required by these vessels.
    This is not considered to have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 (Public Law 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 the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Bridge 
Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District at the address 
above.

[[Page 17573]]

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 cost of compliance on them. 
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and 
have determined that this proposed rule 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 affect 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 proposed rule is not economically significant 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. 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

    We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this proposed rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. This action is categorically 
excluded under paragraph 32(e) as it is for the purpose of promulgating 
an operation regulation for this drawbridge. A ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 
Stat. 5039.

    2. Sec.  117.258 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  117.258  Apalachicola River.

    The draw of the CSX Railroad bridge, mile 105.9, at River Junction 
shall open on signal Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. At 
all other times, the bridge will open on signal if at least 4 hours 
notice is given.

    Dated: March 27, 2003.
Roy J. Casto,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, , Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 03-8690 Filed 4-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P