[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47522-47524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20336]


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

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