Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broward County Bridges, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Broward County, FL, 36993-36995 [E6-10252]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 125 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36993-36995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-04-136]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Broward County Bridges, Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, Broward County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulations governing the 
operation of all Broward County drawbridges across the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, Broward County, Florida. This rule will require 
these drawbridges to open twice an hour. This schedule will meet the 
reasonable needs of navigation while accommodating increased vehicular 
traffic flow throughout the county.

DATES: This rule is effective July 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket [CGD07-04-136] and are available for inspection or 
copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st 
Ave., Ste 432 Miami, Florida 33131-3050 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gwin Tate, Seventh Coast Guard 
District Bridge Branch, (305) 415-6747.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 16, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Broward County 
Bridges, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Broward County, Florida in the 
Federal Register (70 FR 157). We received 86 letters commenting on the 
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held

Background and Purpose

    At the request of Broward County, the Coast Guard published a 
temporary deviation as a test regulation for Broward County drawbridges 
in the Federal Register (69 FR 67055). The test was conducted for 
approximately 90 days to collect data to determine the feasibility of 
changing the regulations on all drawbridges in Broward County crossing 
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, to meet the increased demands of 
vehicular traffic and still provide for the reasonable needs of 
navigation. The test results indicated that the proposed schedule 
allowed both vehicular and vessel traffic the opportunity to predict, 
on a scheduled basis, when the bridges might be in the open position. 
We received 205 comments, 182 were in favor of the test schedules, 13 
were in favor of keeping the existing schedules, 8 comments provided 
other recommended opening schedules, and 2 were general in nature.
    In light of the test period, the Coast Guard published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 
48088) [CGD07-04-136], delineating this proposed new schedule. Due to 
the active hurricane season and lack of public comments to the previous 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we issued a Supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on January 31, 2006 (71 FR 
5030) [CGD07-04-136]. We received 89 comments: 2 petitions with 58 
signatures in favor of the schedules, 79 letters from individual 
citizens in favor of the schedules, 2 letters from municipalities in 
favor of the schedules, 5 letters from condominium associations in 
favor of the schedules, and 1 letter opposing the new schedules.
    The change in operating regulations was requested by Broward County 
to reduce burdens on county roadways and to standardize drawbridge 
openings throughout the county. The rule will allow all drawbridges 
crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Broward County to 
operate on a standardized schedule that would meet the reasonable needs 
of navigation and address vehicular traffic congestion.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 89 comments: 2 petitions with 58 signatures in favor of 
the schedules, 79 letters from individual

[[Page 36994]]

citizens in favor of the schedules, 2 letters from municipalities in 
favor of the schedules, 5 letters from condominium associations in 
favor of the schedules, and 1 letter opposing the new schedules. One 
commenter felt that changing on-demand openings to timed openings would 
be hazardous to vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees, as the previous 
test period and extensive study disclosed that having the bridges 
placed on a schedule would enable vessel traffic to predict when a 
drawbridge might open, thereby allowing trips to be timed so as to 
reach a drawbridge when it is in the open position.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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 rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary. The rule will provide timed openings for 
vehicular traffic and sequenced openings for vessel traffic and should 
have little economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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 rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, as the rule will provide timed openings for vehicular traffic 
and sequenced openings for vessel traffic.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 rule calls 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 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 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 rule will 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 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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does 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 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 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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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

[[Page 36995]]

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) (3), 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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  117.261, remove and reserve paragraphs (cc), (dd), (ee), 
(ff), (gg), (hh), (jj), and (kk) and revise paragraph (bb) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  117.261  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Mary's River to 
Key Largo.

* * * * *
    (bb) Broward County (1) Hillsboro Boulevard bridge (SR 810), mile 
1050.0 at Deerfield Beach. The draw shall open on the hour and half-
hour.
    (2) NE 14th Street bridge, mile 1055.0 at Pompano. The draw shall 
open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour.
    (3) Atlantic Boulevard (SR 814) bridge, mile 1056.0 at Pompano. The 
draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (4) Commercial Boulevard (SR 870) bridge, mile 1059.0, at 
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (5) Oakland Park Boulevard bridge, mile 1060.5 at Fort Lauderdale. 
The draw shall open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour.
    (6) East Sunrise Boulevard (SR 838) bridge, mile 1062.6, at Fort 
Lauderdale. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour. On the first 
weekend in May, the draw need not open from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m on Saturday 
and Sunday, and, on the first Saturday in May, the draw need not open 
from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.
    (7) East Las Olas bridge, mile 1064 at Fort Lauderdale. The draw 
shall open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour. On the first 
weekend in May, the draw need not open from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m on Saturday 
and Sunday, and, on the first Saturday in May, the draw need not open 
from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.
    (8) SE 17th Street (Brooks Memorial) bridge, mile 1065.9 at Fort 
Lauderdale. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (9) Dania Beach Boulevard bridge, mile 1069.4 at Dania Beach. The 
draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (10) Sheridan Street bridge, mile 1070.5, at Fort Lauderdale. The 
draw shall open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour.
    (11) Hollywood Beach Boulevard (SR 820) bridge, mile 1072.2 at 
Hollywood. The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.
    (12) Hallandale Beach Boulevard (SR 824) bridge, mile 1074.0 at 
Hallandale. The draw shall open on the quarter-hour and three-quarter 
hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 20, 2006.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
 [FR Doc. E6-10252 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P