Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL, 73808-73810 [2023-23757]
Download as PDF
73808
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2023–0658]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the Roosevelt (US1) Bridge,
across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile
7.5, at Stuart, FL. This action is
necessary to allow the drawbridge to
operate on demand as outlined in the
Record of Decision for the high-level
fixed US1 Roosevelt Bridge which was
constructed in 1997. Additionally, with
the anticipated increase in railway
activity on the adjacent railroad bridge,
this proposed modification will allow
the bridges to operate in concert. The
drawbridge name in the regulation is
incorrect and will be changed. We invite
your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 27, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2023–0658 using Federal Decision
Making 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.
DATES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e- mail Ms. Jennifer Zercher,
Bridge Management Specialist, Seventh
Coast Guard District; telephone 305–
415–6740, email Jennifer.N.Zercher@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
FDOT Florida Department of
Transportation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Oct 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
The Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, across
the OWW, mile 7.5, at Stuart, Florida,
is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a
14-foot vertical clearance at mean high
water in the closed position. The normal
operating schedule for the bridge is
found in 33 CFR 117.317(d). Navigation
on the waterway is commercial and
recreational.
The Coast Guard is proposing to
modify the drawbridge operating
schedule to allow the drawbridge to
operate on demand as outlined in the
Record of Decision for the high-level
fixed US1 Roosevelt Bridge which was
constructed in 1997. Additionally, with
the anticipated increase in railway
activity on the adjacent railroad bridge,
this proposed modification will allow
the bridges to operate in concert. The
drawbridge name in the regulation,
Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, is incorrect and
will be permanently changed in the CFR
and referred to for the remainder of the
NPRM as SR 707 (Dixie Highway)
Bridge.
The SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge
was included in previously published
notices and a general deviation with a
request for comments in the Federal
Register, under docket number USCG–
2022–0222. These actions were taken to
gather comments on waterway usage
and the operation of the Florida East
Coast Railroad Bridge and the SR 707
(Dixie Highway) Bridge at Stuart, FL.
On May 3, 2022, the Coast Guard
published a Notification of Inquiry
entitled, ‘‘Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway,
Stuart, FL’’ in the Federal Register (87
FR 26145). On June 10, 2022, a
Supplemental Notification of Inquiry
entitled, ‘‘Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway,
Stuart, FL’’ was published in the
Federal Register (87 FR 35472). We
received a total 2358 comments on those
publications.
The Coast Guard asked the public if
the SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge
opening schedule should mirror the
operating schedule of the FEC Railroad
Bridge. 172 comments were received
regarding this question. 97 comments
stated the SR 707 (Dixie Highway)
Bridge and the FEC Railroad Bridge
should have similar coordinated
scheduled openings. We have
determined that placing the highway
bridge on demand will allow the bridges
to coordinate openings given the unique
operation of the railroad bridge. The
difference in navigational clearances
requires the railroad bridge to be open
for specific lengths of times and when
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
trains are not crossing. The highway
bridge is not as restrictive to navigation
and does not require a stricter operating
schedule. 52 comments stated the
highway bridge should operate on
demand with the railroad bridge
operating the same. Railway operations
are dynamic and on demand openings
are not sustainable for the rail industry.
The anticipated increase in railway
activity necessitates this proposed
change in the operating schedule for the
highway bridge to allow the bridges to
operate in concert. Seven comments
recommended the highway bridge
remain unchanged and the railroad
bridge should operate per the highway
bridge regulation. The highway bridge
no longer requires the published
operating schedule since the US1
Roosevelt Bridge was constructed and
open to vehicle traffic. Again, railway
operations are dynamic and on demand
openings are not sustainable for the rail
industry. The remaining comments were
not considered as the responses
included the highway bridge should be
permanently removed, the operating
schedules should be the same if the
railroad bridge was rebuilt at a higher
vertical clearance and the operating
schedule of either bridge was not known
so a response could not be provided.
On June 8, 2023, the Coast Guard
published a Temporary Deviation
entitled, ‘‘Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway,
Stuart, FL’’ in the Federal Register (88
FR 37470). The comment period ended
on August 4, 2023, with 342 comments
received.
The comments received were not
specific to the SR 707 (Dixie Highway)
Bridge but directed toward the
operation of the railroad bridge. Given
the dynamic and uncertain nature of the
operation of the railroad bridge, the SR
707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge has been
removed from docket number USCG–
2022–0222 to allow separate rulemaking
for the highway bridge to operate on
demand.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, the SR 707
(Dixie Highway) Bridge will open on
demand except when the adjacent
railroad bridge is in the closed position,
the drawbridge need not open. The
draw must open immediately upon
opening of the railroad bridge to pass all
accumulated vessels which request an
opening. Vessels that can pass beneath
the bridge without an opening may do
so at any time.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM
27OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 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.
This proposed rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review). This NPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination
is based on the ability that vessels can
transit the bridge on demand and
vessels able to pass without an opening
may do so 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
proposed rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Oct 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. 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
Governments
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 Executive Order 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.
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 rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01, Rev.1,
associated implementing instructions,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73809
and Environmental Planning Policy
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which
guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–
4370f). The Coast Guard has determined
that this action is one of a category of
actions that 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 paragraph L49, of Chapter
3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning
Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental
Consideration nor a Memorandum for
the Record are 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.
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.
Submitting comments. We encourage
you to submit comments through the
Federal Decision Making Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. To do so,
go to https://www.regulations.gov, type
USCG–2023–0658 in the search box and
click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this
document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the
Comment option. 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.
Viewing material in docket. To view
documents mentioned in this proposed
rule as being available in the docket,
find the docket as described in the
previous paragraph, and then select
‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the
Document Type column. Public
comments will also be placed in our
online docket and can be viewed by
following instructions on the https://
www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM
27OCP1
73810
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
comments are posted, or a final rule is
published of any posting or updates to
the docket.
We review all comments received, but
we will only post comments that
address the topic of the proposed rule.
We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments
that we receive.
Personal information. We accept
anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will
include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy
and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
ACTION:
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:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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;
and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision
No.01.3
2. Amend § 117.317 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 117.317
Okeechobee Waterway
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The SR 707 (Dixie Highway)
Bridge, mile 7.5 at Stuart, shall open on
signal; except when the adjacent
railroad bridge is in the closed position,
the draw need not open. The draw must
open immediately upon opening of the
railroad bridge to pass all accumulated
vessels requesting an opening.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: October 13, 2023.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard Seventh District.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the
preamble to a proposed rule published
in the Federal Register of September 29,
2023, concerning implementation of
certain allocation decisions from the
Final Acts of the World
Radiocommunication Conference 2015.
The document provided an incorrect
comment date and reply comment date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Jamie
Coleman of the Office of Engineering
and Technology, Policy and Rules
Division, Spectrum Policy Branch, at
(202) 418–2705 or Jamie.Coleman@
fcc.gov.
SUMMARY:
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan; 2024 Specifications
and Management Measures
Corrections
This rule proposes to correct
2024 harvest specifications for several
species of groundfish where the
numerical values were mathematically
calculated incorrectly and do not
accurately reflect the harvest policy
recommendations of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council). These
harvest specifications are for groundfish
caught in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone seaward of Washington, Oregon,
and California, consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan (PCGFMP). This proposed rule
would revise harvest limits or
allocations that were calculated based
on incorrect annual catch limits. This
action would implement corrected
numerical values that align with the
Council’s intended harvest policy
decisions and considers the most recent
fishery information available at the time
those policies were recommended.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than November 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on
the proposed rule identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2023–0108, by the following
method:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
NOAA–NMFS–2023–0108 in the Search
box. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by the above method to
ensure that the comments are received,
documented, and considered by NMFS.
Comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and NMFS will post for
public viewing on https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender is publicly
accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
Electronic Access
This rulemaking is accessible via the
internet at the Office of the Federal
Register website at https://
Correction
In the Federal Register of September
29, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023–19383, on
page 67160, in the third column, correct
the DATES caption to read:
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before November 28,
2023; and reply comments on or before
December 28, 2023. All filings must
refer to ET Docket No. 23–120.
This is a summary of the
Commission’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No.
23–120; FCC 23–26, adopted on April
18, 2023, and released on April 21,
2023. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection online at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-23-26A1.pdf.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–23673 Filed 10–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[FR Doc. 2023–23757 Filed 10–26–23; 8:45 am]
50 CFR Part 660
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
[Docket No. 231023–0250]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
RIN 0648–BM60
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 74, 78, 90, 97, and
101
[ET Docket No. 23–120; FCC 23–26; FR ID
181076]
Implementation of the Final Acts of the
2015 World Radio Communication
Conference; Correction
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:56 Oct 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
Proposed rule; request for
comments.
ACTION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27OCP1.SGM
27OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73808-73810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23757]
[[Page 73808]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0658]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, across the Okeechobee Waterway,
mile 7.5, at Stuart, FL. This action is necessary to allow the
drawbridge to operate on demand as outlined in the Record of Decision
for the high-level fixed US1 Roosevelt Bridge which was constructed in
1997. Additionally, with the anticipated increase in railway activity
on the adjacent railroad bridge, this proposed modification will allow
the bridges to operate in concert. The drawbridge name in the
regulation is incorrect and will be changed. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 27, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0658 using Federal Decision Making 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 e- mail Ms. Jennifer Zercher, Bridge Management
Specialist, Seventh Coast Guard District; telephone 305-415-6740, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
FL Florida
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, across the OWW, mile 7.5, at Stuart,
Florida, is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a 14-foot vertical
clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal
operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.317(d).
Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the drawbridge operating
schedule to allow the drawbridge to operate on demand as outlined in
the Record of Decision for the high-level fixed US1 Roosevelt Bridge
which was constructed in 1997. Additionally, with the anticipated
increase in railway activity on the adjacent railroad bridge, this
proposed modification will allow the bridges to operate in concert. The
drawbridge name in the regulation, Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, is incorrect
and will be permanently changed in the CFR and referred to for the
remainder of the NPRM as SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge.
The SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge was included in previously
published notices and a general deviation with a request for comments
in the Federal Register, under docket number USCG-2022-0222. These
actions were taken to gather comments on waterway usage and the
operation of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge and the SR 707
(Dixie Highway) Bridge at Stuart, FL.
On May 3, 2022, the Coast Guard published a Notification of Inquiry
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway,
Stuart, FL'' in the Federal Register (87 FR 26145). On June 10, 2022, a
Supplemental Notification of Inquiry entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL'' was published in the
Federal Register (87 FR 35472). We received a total 2358 comments on
those publications.
The Coast Guard asked the public if the SR 707 (Dixie Highway)
Bridge opening schedule should mirror the operating schedule of the FEC
Railroad Bridge. 172 comments were received regarding this question. 97
comments stated the SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge and the FEC Railroad
Bridge should have similar coordinated scheduled openings. We have
determined that placing the highway bridge on demand will allow the
bridges to coordinate openings given the unique operation of the
railroad bridge. The difference in navigational clearances requires the
railroad bridge to be open for specific lengths of times and when
trains are not crossing. The highway bridge is not as restrictive to
navigation and does not require a stricter operating schedule. 52
comments stated the highway bridge should operate on demand with the
railroad bridge operating the same. Railway operations are dynamic and
on demand openings are not sustainable for the rail industry. The
anticipated increase in railway activity necessitates this proposed
change in the operating schedule for the highway bridge to allow the
bridges to operate in concert. Seven comments recommended the highway
bridge remain unchanged and the railroad bridge should operate per the
highway bridge regulation. The highway bridge no longer requires the
published operating schedule since the US1 Roosevelt Bridge was
constructed and open to vehicle traffic. Again, railway operations are
dynamic and on demand openings are not sustainable for the rail
industry. The remaining comments were not considered as the responses
included the highway bridge should be permanently removed, the
operating schedules should be the same if the railroad bridge was
rebuilt at a higher vertical clearance and the operating schedule of
either bridge was not known so a response could not be provided.
On June 8, 2023, the Coast Guard published a Temporary Deviation
entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway,
Stuart, FL'' in the Federal Register (88 FR 37470). The comment period
ended on August 4, 2023, with 342 comments received.
The comments received were not specific to the SR 707 (Dixie
Highway) Bridge but directed toward the operation of the railroad
bridge. Given the dynamic and uncertain nature of the operation of the
railroad bridge, the SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge has been removed
from docket number USCG-2022-0222 to allow separate rulemaking for the
highway bridge to operate on demand.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, the SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge will
open on demand except when the adjacent railroad bridge is in the
closed position, the drawbridge need not open. The draw must open
immediately upon opening of the railroad bridge to pass all accumulated
vessels which request an opening. Vessels that can pass beneath the
bridge without an opening may do so at any time.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and
[[Page 73809]]
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive Orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 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. This proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can transit the bridge on demand and vessels able to pass
without an opening may do so 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 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 in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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 Governments
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 Executive Order
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.
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 rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that 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 paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are 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.
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.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0658 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. 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.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when
[[Page 73810]]
comments are posted, or a final rule is published of any posting or
updates to the docket.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
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; and DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No.01.3
0
2. Amend Sec. 117.317 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.317 Okeechobee Waterway
* * * * *
(d) The SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge, mile 7.5 at Stuart, shall
open on signal; except when the adjacent railroad bridge is in the
closed position, the draw need not open. The draw must open immediately
upon opening of the railroad bridge to pass all accumulated vessels
requesting an opening.
* * * * *
Dated: October 13, 2023.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh
District.
[FR Doc. 2023-23757 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P