[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 43 (Thursday, March 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10183-10185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-04-015]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; CSX Railroad, Manatee River, 
Mile 4.5, Bradenton, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing 
the operation of the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Manatee River, mile 
4.5, Bradenton, Florida. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to 
operate using an automated system, without an onsite bridge tender. 
Currently, the bridge is required to open on signal.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Ave., Room 432, 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 docket (CGD07-04-015) 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. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Branch, telephone number (305) 415-6743.

[[Page 10184]]


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 (CGD07-04-
015), 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, 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 CSX Railroad owner has requested that the Coast Guard remove 
the existing regulations governing the operation of the CSX Railroad 
Bridge over the Manatee River and allow the bridge to operate utilizing 
an automated system. The request is made because there are only four 
short train transits per day. Under the proposed rule, the bridge would 
remain in the open position to vessel traffic at all other times.
    The CSX Railroad Bridge is located on the Manatee River, mile 4.5, 
Bradenton, Florida. The current regulation governing the operation of 
the CSX Railroad Bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.5 and requires the 
bridge to open on signal.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations of the 
CSX Railroad Bridge so that the bridge can operate automatically. There 
are only four train transits per day across this bridge. The proposed 
action would remove the requirement that a bridge tender be present to 
open the bridge on signal for vessel traffic. The bridge would remain 
in the open position until a train approaches to cross the bridge. When 
a train approaches, the CSX signal department will send an electronic 
signal to the bridge to order the closure sequence to begin. The bridge 
control system will activate a series of scanners along the water level 
to detect any marine traffic within the bridge closure area. The bridge 
control system will turn off the green channel markers, turn on the red 
bridge warning strobe lights, and simultaneously sound a signal, which 
will last throughout the entire closing period. The bridge shall remain 
in the closed position to vessel traffic until the train has 
sufficiently cleared the bridge area. When the train has cleared, the 
bridge control system will again sound a signal for the entire period 
the bridge is opening. When the bridge is in the fully open position, 
the red bridge warning strobe lights will turn off, and the green 
channel marker lights will relight. The bridge will remain in the open 
to vessel traffic position until the next train crossing.
    If at any time during the opening or closing sequence, the scanners 
detect a vessel within the bridge structure, the opening or closing 
sequence will automatically be halted until the vessel clears the 
structure. Additional strobe lighting will be placed on the structure 
to warn vessels of impending closure.
    Signs will be posted on both sides of the navigation channel 
indicating, ``Caution; this bridge operates by remote control.'' A 
toll-free, CSX contact telephone number will be posted on the signs for 
emergencies.

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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the policies and 
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary. 
Vessel traffic will be able to transit under the bridge with the 
exception of the short closure periods required for the trains to 
transit over the bridge.

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 will affect vessel traffic 
under the bridge and daily train crossings over the bridge. However, 
the proposed rule will not change the number of times the bridge will 
need to be in a closed position for trains. Additionally, the bridge 
will remain in the open to navigation position at all other times for 
the benefit of vessel traffic.
    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 (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 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 comment 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

[[Page 10185]]

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 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. 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 have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed 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.

Regulations

    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.


Sec.  117.300  [Redesignated as Sec.  117.299]

    2. Redesignate Sec.  117.300 as Sec.  117.299.
    3. Add a new Sec.  117.300 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.300  Manatee River.

    The draw of the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Manatee River, mile 
4.5 at Bradenton, operates as follows:
    (a) The bridge is not tended.
    (b) The draw is normally in the fully open position, displaying 
green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
    (c) As a train approaches, provided the scanners do not detect a 
vessel under the draw, the lights change to flashing red and a horn 
continuously sounds while the draw closes. The draw remains closed 
until the train passes.
    (d) After the train clears the bridge, the lights continue to flash 
red and the horn again continuously sounds while the draw opens, until 
the draw is fully open and the lights return to green.

    Dated: February 23, 2004.
Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-4781 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P