FR 2025-04918

The document is a notice of proposed rulemaking from the Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, seeking to alter the operating schedule of the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway in Stuart, Florida. The changes aim to address increased railway activity and provide a more reliable and predictable schedule for drawbridge operations. The intention is to strike a balance between the needs of different transportation modes, such as rail and maritime traffic. The document invites public comments to help shape the decision-making process.

General Summary

In an effort to manage the intersection of train and waterway traffic, the Coast Guard proposes a structured schedule where the bridge remains open to allow vessels passage, except when closed for trains. A key feature is a fixed 10-minute bridge opening every hour to ensure that boat traffic can pass through regularly. The proposal follows several temporary measures and a study of marine traffic to assess and refine bridge operations.

Significant Issues or Concerns

The document contains complex and technical regulatory language that may be difficult for a layperson to fully understand, particularly sections discussing regulatory analyses and environmental considerations. Additionally, while the document mentions efforts to mitigate potential impacts on local businesses and small entities, it lacks clarity on how these concerns will be addressed practically.

Another concern is the financial aspect of the proposed changes. The document does not clearly articulate the financial implications or funding sources for implementing these new operating regulations. Moreover, the introduction of a mobile app to inform about bridge schedules raises questions about the development, funding, and maintenance of such technology.

Furthermore, the document assumes that allowing a 10-minute opening period each hour is sufficient for all stakeholders without robust evidence. This assumption might not cater to all needs, potentially overlooking the nuances of local traffic patterns and stakeholder concerns.

Impact on the Public

The proposed rule aims to provide a structured operational schedule that benefits maritime users by ensuring predictable openings. For recreational boaters or commercial vessels, this could reduce wait times and planning uncertainty, which is a positive change.

However, local businesses might face indirect challenges if the new schedule impacts business operations or customer traffic patterns. Despite analyses suggesting mitigation of these concerns, the practical impact on the local economy is yet uncertain, pending further stakeholder consultation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For vessel operators, particularly those in recreational boater communities, the new schedule promises more predictable and potentially reduced wait times, contributing positively to their activities.

On the other hand, stakeholders like local businesses and small entities have voiced concerns about the unpredictability of the bridge's operation. While the new rule aims to address this through a fixed schedule, actual impacts might vary based on local conditions that the document does not thoroughly explore.

Transport operators on the railway side would benefit from a standardized schedule, potentially maximizing throughput while minimizing waterway disruptions.

In conclusion, while the Coast Guard’s proposed rule reflects an ongoing effort to balance the needs of rail and maritime transportation, significant areas of concern remain. Public participation through comments may address these concerns, leading to a rule that effectively manages stakeholder interests and promotes smoother transportation coordination.

The document proposes changes in the operating schedule for the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway in Stuart, FL. A primary focus of the proposal is to ensure the drawbridge operates on a predictable schedule, balancing the needs of various transportation modes. While financial implications are not the central subject, the document alludes to potential costs and financial considerations.

Financial References and Implications

One key financial reference in the document is the potential expenditure by public and private entities. The document mentions that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act addresses any federal action that might lead to expenditures exceeding $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in a single year by state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector. However, the document clarifies that this proposed rule is not expected to result in expenses of such magnitude. This serves to reassure stakeholders that the financial burden of implementing the new bridge operating regulations should not be overwhelmingly high.

The document also references the possible economic impact on small entities. While the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to evaluate impacts on small businesses and similar entities, the Coast Guard certifies that the proposed rule is anticipated not to cause significant economic disruptions. Concerns related to local businesses and their relation to increased rail traffic have apparently been addressed in temporary deviations and the interim rule, mitigating previous uncertainties.

Issues Connected to Financial References

The document does not explicitly discuss how the mobile application mentioned for scheduling bridge openings will be funded, developed, or maintained. This absence of clarity connects to one of the identified issues: potential favoritism in contracting this task to a specific organization without transparency. Detailed information about the funding source and the process for selecting contractors could alleviate concerns and ensure fair bidding processes.

Another issue concerns the implications for local businesses and small entities. The analysis section attempts to mitigate these concerns by suggesting that the operating requirements and interim rule adjustments should alleviate such burdens. However, the document lacks clear articulation on how financial considerations for these businesses are factored into the overall regulatory changes.

Conclusion

While the document provides some reassurance regarding the financial implications of the proposed bridge operation regulations, it leaves certain financial aspects, such as the funding and development of supporting technology, underexplored. This gap in detail perpetuates concerns about transparency and fairness in financial allocations and the potential economic impact on small entities, despite assertions to the contrary. Addressing these gaps could foster trust and understanding among stakeholders affected by the proposed regulatory changes.