[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 17, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12601-12603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-04-037]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hobe Sound Bridge (SR 708), 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 996.0, Hobe Sound, Martin County, 
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations 
of the Hobe Sound Bridge (SR 708) across the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway, mile 996.0 in Hobe Sound, Florida. This proposed rule would 
require the drawbridge to open on a 20-minute schedule from 7 a.m. to 6 
p.m., daily. This proposed action would improve the movement of 
vehicular traffic while not unreasonably interfering with the movement 
of vessel traffic.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, 
Miami, FL, 33131, who 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 are available for inspection or copying 
at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Project Officer, 
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (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 [CGD07-04-
037], 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

[[Page 12602]]

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. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Bridge Branch 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 existing regulations of the Hobe Sound Bridge (SR 708), mile 
996.0, at Hobe Sound, published in 33 CFR 117.5 require the draw to 
open on signal.
    On June 18, 2002, the Town of Jupiter Island requested that the 
Coast Guard review the existing regulations governing the operation of 
the Hobe Sound Bridge, because the Town contended that those 
regulations were not meeting the needs of vehicle and vessel traffic.
    On August 28, 2002, the Coast Guard issued a test deviation 
published in the Federal Register (67 FR 55115). This test deviation 
was effective from November 1, 2002, until January 27, 2003. The test 
deviation allowed a change to the current bridge regulations by 
allowing the bridge to open on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 
40 minutes after the hour from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. We received 67 
comments in reference to this deviation. Sixty comments were for the 20 
minute schedule; three comments requested that the schedule be changed 
to an hour and half-hour; two comments were against the proposed 
schedule; and one of those requested that, if it were to be made 
permanent, it be limited to the winter season. One comment requested a 
permanent exemption from the regulations for all commercial vessels and 
one comment suggested enforcement of current regulations.
    The Coast Guard proposes to make the 20-minute schedule published 
in the test deviation permanent, based on prior bridge logs, which 
indicated that the bridge opened two to three times an hour, and 
comments received from the public during the test deviation period. 
This proposed schedule may benefit both vessel and vehicle traffic by 
allowing for the opportunity to plan trips in conjunction with the 20-
minute scheduled bridge openings. The hour and half schedule suggested 
by three comments appears to place additional unnecessary restrictions 
on navigation. The need for a seasonal summer and winter schedule does 
not appear to have any additional benefits for either vehicle or vessel 
traffic in this area as the prior traffic counts did not significantly 
differ between the summer and winter seasons. However, we may request 
additional traffic counts based on comments related to this NPRM. One 
comment requested an exemption for commercial vessels. However, with 
the exception of tugs and tugs with tows and Public Vessels of the 
United States, the Coast Guard does not normally exempt classes of 
vessels from regulations governing bridge operations.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would require the Hobe Sound Bridge (SR 708), 
mile 996.0, at Hobe Sound to open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. 
to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour, 20 minutes after the 
hour, and 40 minutes after the hour.

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. This proposed rule would modify 
the existing bridge schedule to allow for efficient vehicle traffic 
flow and provide scheduled openings for vessel traffic.

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 business, 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. This proposed rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators 
of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity 
of Hobe Sound Bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge and 
nearby business owners. The proposed rule offers frequent, scheduled 
openings for vessel traffic, 3 times per hour from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., 
and will meet the reasonable needs of navigation throughout the 
affected times. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area 
will benefit from the increased traffic flow that regularly scheduled 
openings will offer this area.
    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 the 
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 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

[[Page 12603]]

$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.

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 
M16475.1D, 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 
proposed 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 the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. Add Sec.  117.261(q) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (q) Hobe Sound Bridge (SR 708), mile 996.0, at Hobe Sound. The draw 
shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need 
open only on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after 
the hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 13, 2004.
Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-6049 Filed 3-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P