Proposed Rule2023-23757
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 27, 2023
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39735c5757505f5c4b177717635c4b5a515c4b794c4a5a5e17545055"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bff5dad1d1d6d9dacd91f191e5dacddcd7dacdffcaccdcd891d2d6d3">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
do so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 27, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.