[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11351-11353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-04-010]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Palm Beach County Bridges, 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach County, Florida

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing 
the operation of most of the Palm Beach County bridges across the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach County, Florida. The 
proposed rule would require these bridges to open twice an hour with 
the Boca Club, Camino Real bridge opening three times per hour. The 
proposed schedule is based on a test the Coast Guard held from March, 
2003, until June, 2003. The proposed schedules would meet the 
reasonable needs of navigation while accommodating increased vehicular 
traffic throughout the county.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, 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 this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of [CGD07-04-010] and will be available for 
inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 
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.

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-
010], 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, at the address under ADDRESSES, 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 Coast Guard performed a test of the proposed schedule on the 
Palm Beach County bridges in the spring of 2003 that was published in 
the Federal Register, March 19, 2003, (68 FR 13227)(CGD07-03-031). The 
test was for 90 days to collect data to determine the feasibility of 
changing the regulations on most of the bridges in Palm Beach County to 
meet the increased demands of vehicular traffic but still provide for 
the reasonable needs of navigation. The test results indicated that the 
proposed schedule would improve vehicular traffic flow while still 
meeting the reasonable needs of navigation. During the test period, 
vessel requests for openings remained at or below an average of two per 
hour with the exception of Camino Real bridge. A computer modeling of 
that bridge prescribed an opening schedule of three times per hour as 
an optimum for a combination of vehicular and vessel traffic. The 
schedules allowed both vehicular and vessel traffic the opportunity to 
predict on a scheduled basis, when the bridges would possibly be in the 
open position. We received 2,541 comments, 1,560 were in favor of the 
test schedules, 965 were in favor of keeping the existing schedules and 
16 comments provided an optional modification of existing schedules. 
Two petitions were received with 1,018 signatures for the new test 
schedule, 840 were opposed to the new test schedule. We received one 
form letter from 138 commentors who were for the new test schedule. We 
received 9 comments for the new schedule from local government agencies 
and 529 from individual citizens, 404 were for the new schedules and 
125 were opposed to the new schedule. Of all the comments,

[[Page 11352]]

1,958 specifically concerned the Boca Club, Camino Real bridge. The 
remaining comments were general in nature and were not directed at a 
specific bridge in the test. The commentors for the new schedules 
represented vehicular operators and those against the new schedule were 
vessel operators.
    The change in operating regulations was requested by various Palm 
Beach County public officials to ease vehicular traffic, which has 
overburdened roadways, and to standardize bridge openings throughout 
the county for vessel traffic. The proposed rule would allow most of 
the bridges in Palm Beach County to operate on a standardized schedule, 
which would meet the reasonable needs of navigation and improve 
vehicular traffic movement. The proposed rule would provide for 
staggered schedules in order to facilitate the movement of vessels from 
bridge to bridge along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
    The existing regulations governing the operation of the Palm Beach 
County bridges are published in 33 CFR 117.5 and 117.261. This proposed 
rule includes all bridges across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in 
Palm Beach County, except Jupiter Lighthouse bridge, mile 1004.1, and 
Jupiter Federal bridge, mile 1004.8. These two bridges would continue 
to operate on their current schedules.
    Based on the results of the test that was conducted during the 
spring of 2003 and a computer modeling of the Palmetto Park and Camino 
Real bridges, the proposed rule would not adversely affect the 
reasonable needs of navigation.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations of 
most of the bridges in Palm Beach County that cross the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway. This proposed rule includes all bridges across 
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County, except Jupiter 
Lighthouse bridge, mile 1004.1, and Jupiter Federal bridge, mile 
1004.8. The proposed rule would allow the following bridges to operate 
as indicated:

Open on Signal--
    Lake Avenue, mile 1028.8
    Woolbright Road, mile 1035.8
Open on the hour and half hour--
    Indiantown Road, mile 1006.2
    Donald Ross, mile 1009.3
    PGA Boulevard, mile 1012.6
    Royal Park (SR 704), mile 1022.6
    Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80), mile 1024.7
    Ocean Avenue (Lantana), mile 1031.1
    Ocean Avenue (Boynton Beach), mile 1035.0
    N.E. 8th Street (George Bush), mile 1038.7
    Spanish River, mile 1044.9
    Palmetto Park, mile 1047.5
Open on the quarter hour and three quarter hour--
    Parker (US 1), mile 1013.7
    Flagler Memorial (SR A1A), mile 1021.9
    Atlantic Avenue (SR 806), mile 1039.6
    Linton Boulevard, mile 1041.1
Open on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour and 40 minutes past the 
hour--
    Boca Club, Camino Real, mile 1048.2

     This proposed rule does not affect the Jupiter Lighthouse bridge, 
mile 1004.1, and the Jupiter Federal bridge, mile 1004.8, which would 
continue to operate on their current schedules. Public vessels of the 
United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress will 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 
Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects 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. The proposed rule would provide timed openings 
for vehicular traffic and sequenced openings for vessel traffic and 
would have little, if any, economic impact.

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.
    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 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 contact the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 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 will 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.

[[Page 11353]]

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 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), 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. In Sec.  117.261 add paragraphs (q) and (y); revise paragraphs 
(r) through (x) and (z) and paragraphs (aa) and (aa-1); and add new 
paragraphs (z-1), (z-2) and (z-3) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.261  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to 
Key Largo.

* * * * *
    (q) Indiantown Road bridge, mile 1006.2. The draw shall open on the 
hour and half-hour.
    (r) Donald Ross bridge, mile 1009.3, at North Palm Beach. The draw 
shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (s) PGA Boulevard bridge, mile 1012.6, at North Palm Beach. The 
draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (t) Parker (US-1) bridge, mile 1013.7, at Riviera Beach. The draw 
shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.
    (u) Flagler Memorial (SR A1A) bridge, mile 1020.9, at Palm Beach. 
The draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.
    (v) Royal Park (SR 704) bridge, mile 1022.6, at Palm Beach. The 
draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (w) Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) bridge, mile 1024.7, at Palm 
Beach. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (x) Ocean Avenue bridge, mile 1031.0, at Lantana. The draw shall 
open on the hour and half-hour.
    (y) Ocean Avenue bridge, mile 1035.0, at Boynton Beach. The draw 
shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (z) N.E. 8th Street (George Bush) bridge, mile 1038.7, at Delray 
Beach. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (z-1) Atlantic Avenue (SR 806) bridge, mile 1039.6, at Delray 
Beach. The draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter-hour.
    (z-2) Linton Boulevard bridge, mile 1041.1, at Delray Beach. The 
draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.
    (z-3) Spanish River bridge, mile 1044.9, at Boca Raton. The draw 
shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (aa) Palmetto Park bridge, mile 1047.5, at Boca Raton. The draw 
shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (aa-1) Boca Club, Camino Real bridge, mile 1048.2, at Boca Raton. 
The draw shall open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty 
minutes past the hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 24, 2004.
Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-5348 Filed 3-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P