Jump to main content.

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Oklawaha River, Marion County, FLa

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 
[Federal Register: March 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13736-13737]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr02-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-02-008]
RIN 2115-AE47
 
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Oklawaha River, Marion County, 
FLa

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing 
the operation of the Muclan Farms swingbridge across the Oklawaha 
River, mile 63.9, Marion County, Florida by allowing the span to remain 
permanently in the closed position. The bridge has not received a 
request for an opening since 1998. This action should accommodate the 
needs of the bridgeowner and provide for the reasonable needs of 
navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Ave, Room 406, Miami, 
FL 33131. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in the preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of [CGD07-02-008]
and are available for inspection or copying 
at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, 
Room 406, Miami, FL 33131 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Bridge Branch, 909 
S.E. 1st Ave Miami, FL 33130 Coast Guard, telephone number 305-415-
6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-02-
008], indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic 
means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 
but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you 
submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, 
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they 
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard 
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place 
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Muclan Farms swingbridge is located in a rural section of 
Marion County. The current regulations in 33 CFR 117.319 require the 
swingbridge to open if 3 hours advance notice is given to the St. Johns 
River Water Management District. The Water Management District has not 
received any requests for an opening since 1998. The Water Management 
District requested the Coast Guard change the current regulation to 
allow the bridge to remain closed. The Water Management District is 
currently negotiating a contract to repair the swingbridge. If the 
swingbridge is allowed to remain closed, moveable parts may not need to 
be repaired and the repair costs will decrease. There are obstructions 
in the waterway and the waterway is not being maintained for 
navigation.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to create a permanent rule allowing the 
Muclan Farms swingbridge to permanently remain closed. The reference to 
the Muclan Farms swingbridge in the current regulation at 33 CFR 
117.319(a) would be deleted. A new subparagraph at 33 CFR 117.39(c) 
would be created for the Muclan Farms swingbridge regulation. We will 
reconsider this proposed rule if navigation on the River resumes.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not

[[Page 13737]]

``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We 
expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that 
a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary because there have been 
no bridge openings since 1998.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small 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 because there have been no bridge openings 
since 1998. 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 to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how 
and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions, please 
consult the person listed under: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory 
actions not specifically required by law. 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 proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' 
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 
117.255 also issued under authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 
5039.
    2. In Sec. 117.319, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraph (c) to 
read as follows:

Sec. 117.319  Oklawaha River.

    (a) The draw of the Sharpes Ferry (SR 40) bridge, mile 55.1, shall 
open on signal if at least three hours notice is given.
    (b) * * *
    (c) The draw of the Muclan Farms bridge, mile 63.9, need not open 
for the passage of vessels.

    Dated: March 11, 2002.
John E. Crowley, Jr.,
Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-7229 Filed 3-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.