Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL, 8168-8170 [2016-03262]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8168
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in
Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA–
2016–0464; Directorate Identifier 2015–
NM–046–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by April 4,
2016.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V.
Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial
numbers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:30 Feb 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by the need for
more restrictive airworthiness limitations.
We are issuing this AD to reduce the
potential for significant failure conditions
and consequent loss of controllability of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Maintenance Program Revision
(1) Within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, revise the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the certification maintenance
requirements (CMR) specified in Fokker
Services B.V. Engineering Report,
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS),
‘‘Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance
Requirements,’’ of Fokker Services B.V.
Engineering Report SE–473, Issue 11,
released January 19, 2015.
(2) Do the applicable initial CMR
inspection at the time specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable,
as specified in Fokker Services B.V.
Engineering ALS, ‘‘Fokker 70/100
Certification Maintenance Requirements,’’
Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE–
473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015. If
any discrepancy is found during any
inspection, repair using a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency; or
Fokker B.V. Service’s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). Repair any
discrepancy before further flight.
(i) For CMR inspection 783100–CM–01:
Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, but not later than 12,000 flight hours
after accomplishing MRB task 783100–00–04.
(ii) For CMR inspection 783500–CM–01:
Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, but not later than 10,000 flight hours
after accomplishing MRB task 783100–01–01.
(h) No Alternative Inspections or Inspection
Intervals
After accomplishment of the actions
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and
intervals, may be used, unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
(i) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356;
telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149.
Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.’s EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
(j) Related Information
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2015–0027, dated February 20,
2015, for related information. This MCAI
may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–
2016–0464.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V.,
Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357,
2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands;
telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31
(0)88–6280–111; email technicalservices@
fokker.com; Internet https://
www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
6, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–03136 Filed 2–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0940]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
Coast Guard, DHS.
18FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the 63rd Street Bridge across
Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach,
FL. This proposed rule implements
restrictions that allow the bridge to not
open for vessels during peak vehicle
traffic times. Bridge openings during
peak vehicle traffic times cause major
traffic jams that may be avoided without
negatively impacting vessel traffic on
the Indian Creek. Modifying the bridge
operating schedule will reduce major
vehicle traffic issues during rush hour
times.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2015–0940 using Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with
the Coast Guard; telephone 305–415–
6989, email rodney.j.elkins@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
On March 11th, 2015 the Miami
Beach City Commission held a public
meeting to discuss appropriate action
for modifying the bridge operations.
Additionally, the City conducted traffic
studies and reviewed the bridge logs
which showed a 45% increase in
vehicular traffic from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m.
and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. with no
corresponding increase in vessel traffic
during those time periods. Input from
the public meeting and the traffic data
was used to develop the proposed rule.
That data will be included in the
electronic docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
63rd Street Bridge across Indian
Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, FL is
a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a
vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean
high water in the closed position and a
horizontal clearance of 50 feet.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:30 Feb 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR
117.5, the 63rd Street Bridge is required
to open on signal for the passage of
vessels. The City of Miami Beach and
Miami Dade County determined that
restricting bridge openings during peak
traffic hours will significantly reduce
traffic congestion. Based on this
determination, the City of Miami Beach
requested this action to alleviate
additional traffic congestion created by
bridge openings during peak hours.
In addition to proposing a schedule
that will allow for limited openings
during the regular work week, the Coast
Guard is proposing a regulation change
that will apply during the annual boat
show. Every year in mid-February the
City of Miami Beach hosts the Yacht
and Brokerage Show which creates
unusually high vehicle and vessel traffic
during the weeks before and after the
show. The Coast Guard typically issues
temporary deviations to the 63rd Street
Bridge operations that help balance
vessel and vehicle needs during those
times. The Coast Guard proposes
adopting the annual temporary
deviation as part of this bridge
regulation.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to add a
new regulation for the operations of the
63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile
4.0, at Miami Beach. The proposed
regulation would implement three
closure periods, which would allow the
bridge to not open for vessels during
morning and afternoon peak vehicle
traffic times. The following schedule is
proposed: (1) From Monday through
Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the bridge
would only open on the hour and half
hour; (2) from 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and
4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. Monday through
Friday, the bridge would remain closed;
and (3) from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. the seven
days before and the four days following
the City of Miami Beach Yacht and
Brokerage Show the second week of
February, the bridge would only open
for ten minutes at the top of the hour.
For federal holidays, weekends, and
other times the bridge would continue
to open for vessels on signal.
These proposed changes will still
allow vessels to pass through the bridge
while taking into account the reasonable
needs of other modes of transportation.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and
E.O.s and we also discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8169
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the limited impact that it is
anticipated to have on vessel traffic on
the Indian Creek while taking into
account the needs of vehicular traffic.
Vessels that can transit under the bridge
without an opening may do so. Other
vessels can transit during non closure
period times, and emergency vessels
and tugs with tows can still request
openings at any time.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
8170
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
C. 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.).
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Government
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.
E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:30 Feb 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further
review, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Documents mentioned in this notice,
and all public comments, are in our
online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
instructions. Additionally, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
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; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
■
2. Add § 117.293 to read as follows:
§ 117.293
Indian Creek.
The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge,
Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami Beach,
shall open on signal except as follows:
(a) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays,
the draw need open only on the hour
and half-hour.
(b) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and
4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through
Friday except Federal holidays, the
draw need not open for the passage of
vessels.
(c) In February of each year during the
period seven days prior to the City of
Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage
Show and the four days following the
show, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the
bridge need not open except for 10
minutes at the top of the hour. At all
other times the bridge shall operate on
its normal schedule.
Dated: February 11, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–03262 Filed 2–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8168-8170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03262]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2015-0940]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
[[Page 8169]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami
Beach, FL. This proposed rule implements restrictions that allow the
bridge to not open for vessels during peak vehicle traffic times.
Bridge openings during peak vehicle traffic times cause major traffic
jams that may be avoided without negatively impacting vessel traffic on
the Indian Creek. Modifying the bridge operating schedule will reduce
major vehicle traffic issues during rush hour times.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0940 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-
415-6989, email rodney.j.elkins@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
On March 11th, 2015 the Miami Beach City Commission held a public
meeting to discuss appropriate action for modifying the bridge
operations. Additionally, the City conducted traffic studies and
reviewed the bridge logs which showed a 45% increase in vehicular
traffic from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. with no
corresponding increase in vessel traffic during those time periods.
Input from the public meeting and the traffic data was used to develop
the proposed rule. That data will be included in the electronic docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach,
FL is a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 11
feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal
clearance of 50 feet.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the 63rd Street Bridge
is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels. The City of
Miami Beach and Miami Dade County determined that restricting bridge
openings during peak traffic hours will significantly reduce traffic
congestion. Based on this determination, the City of Miami Beach
requested this action to alleviate additional traffic congestion
created by bridge openings during peak hours.
In addition to proposing a schedule that will allow for limited
openings during the regular work week, the Coast Guard is proposing a
regulation change that will apply during the annual boat show. Every
year in mid-February the City of Miami Beach hosts the Yacht and
Brokerage Show which creates unusually high vehicle and vessel traffic
during the weeks before and after the show. The Coast Guard typically
issues temporary deviations to the 63rd Street Bridge operations that
help balance vessel and vehicle needs during those times. The Coast
Guard proposes adopting the annual temporary deviation as part of this
bridge regulation.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to add a new regulation for the operations
of the 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami Beach. The
proposed regulation would implement three closure periods, which would
allow the bridge to not open for vessels during morning and afternoon
peak vehicle traffic times. The following schedule is proposed: (1)
From Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the bridge would only
open on the hour and half hour; (2) from 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and
4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. Monday through Friday, the bridge would remain
closed; and (3) from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. the seven days before and the
four days following the City of Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show
the second week of February, the bridge would only open for ten minutes
at the top of the hour. For federal holidays, weekends, and other times
the bridge would continue to open for vessels on signal.
These proposed changes will still allow vessels to pass through the
bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of
transportation.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.s and we also discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited impact
that it is anticipated to have on vessel traffic on the Indian Creek
while taking into account the needs of vehicular traffic. Vessels that
can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so. Other
vessels can transit during non closure period times, and emergency
vessels and tugs with tows can still request openings at any time.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for
[[Page 8170]]
compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. 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.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 117.293 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.293 Indian Creek.
The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami
Beach, shall open on signal except as follows:
(a) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal
holidays, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.
(b) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessels.
(c) In February of each year during the period seven days prior to
the City of Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show and the four days
following the show, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the bridge need not
open except for 10 minutes at the top of the hour. At all other times
the bridge shall operate on its normal schedule.
Dated: February 11, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-03262 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
