9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2024-0379]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Miami River, North Fork, Miami, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove the operating schedule that governs
the FDOT Railroad Bridge, across the Miami River, North Fork, mile 5.3, at Miami, FL.
The railroad bridge is being replaced with a fixed bridge. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before
[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-20240379 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. This notice of proposed rulemaking with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less
proposed rule summary will be available in this same docket.
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 571-607-5951, email
Jennifer.N.Zercher@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR
DHS
FR
OMB
NPRM
§
U.S.C.
FL
FDOT

Code of Federal Regulations
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Register
Office of Management and Budget
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Section
United States Code
Florida
Florida Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The FDOT Railroad Bridge, across the Miami River, North Fork, mile 5.3, at
Miami, FL, is a single bascule bridge with a 6-foot vertical clearance at mean high water
in the closed position. The normal operating schedule is set forth in 33 CFR 117.307.
FDOT applied for and received a Coast Guard Bridge Permit to replace the
existing moveable railroad bridge with a fixed railroad bridge. FDOT has requested the
drawbridge operation regulation be removed and the bridge be allowed to remain closed
to navigation in anticipation of phase one of the bridge replacement project, converting
the moveable bridge to a fixed bridge, beginning August 2024.
The Miami River, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a
federal navigation project channel. On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Congress approved
the deauthorization of navigational rights for the portion of the Miami River between the
FDOT Railroad Bridge and the S-26 SFWMD structure with the Miami Rivel Canal
provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (12/21/2020).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this proposed rule, the FDOT Railroad Bridge would be allowed to remain
closed to navigation until the bridge replacement project is completed. The waterway

from the railroad bridge to the water control structure has been deauthorized of
navigational rights, therefore, impacts to navigation are not expected. Vessels that can
pass beneath the bridge without an opening would be able to so at any time.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and
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). 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 able to
transit the bridge 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 (Public Law 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. 43214370f). 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- 2024-0379 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 webpage.
Also, 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 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
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.
§ 117.307 [Removed]
2. Remove § 117.307.
Dated: July 07, 2024.
Douglas M. Schofield,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,
Commander, Coast Guard Seventh District.

[FR Doc. 2024-15233 Filed: 7/12/2024 8:45 am; Publication Date: 7/15/2024]