8168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA– 

2016–0464; Directorate Identifier 2015– 

NM–046–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 4, 

2016. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. 

Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, 

certificated in any category, all serial 

numbers. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance 

Checks. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by the need for 

more restrictive airworthiness limitations. 

We are issuing this AD to reduce the 

potential for significant failure conditions 

and consequent loss of controllability of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Maintenance Program Revision 

(1) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, to 

incorporate the certification maintenance 

requirements (CMR) specified in Fokker 

Services B.V. Engineering Report, 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), 

‘‘Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance 

Requirements,’’ of Fokker Services B.V. 

Engineering Report SE–473, Issue 11, 

released January 19, 2015. 

(2) Do the applicable initial CMR 

inspection at the time specified in paragraph 

(g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, 

as specified in Fokker Services B.V. 

Engineering ALS, ‘‘Fokker 70/100 

Certification Maintenance Requirements,’’ 

Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE– 

473, Issue 11, released January 19, 2015. If 

any discrepancy is found during any 

inspection, repair using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency; or 

Fokker B.V. Service’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). Repair any 

discrepancy before further flight. 

(i) For CMR inspection 783100–CM–01: 

Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, but not later than 12,000 flight hours 

after accomplishing MRB task 783100–00–04. 

(ii) For CMR inspection 783500–CM–01: 

Within 1 year or 3,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, but not later than 10,000 flight hours 

after accomplishing MRB task 783100–01–01. 

(h) No Alternative Inspections or Inspection 

Intervals 

After accomplishment of the actions 

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, no 

alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and 

intervals, may be used, unless the actions or 

intervals are approved as an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1137; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using 

any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.’s EASA 

Design Organization Approval (DOA). If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2015–0027, dated February 20, 

2015, for related information. This MCAI 

may be found in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– 

2016–0464. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., 

Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 

2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; 

telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 

(0)88–6280–111; email technicalservices@

fokker.com; Internet http://

www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

6, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03136 Filed 2–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0940] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8169 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the 63rd Street Bridge across 

Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, 

FL. This proposed rule implements 

restrictions that allow the bridge to not 

open for vessels during peak vehicle 

traffic times. Bridge openings during 

peak vehicle traffic times cause major 

traffic jams that may be avoided without 

negatively impacting vessel traffic on 

the Indian Creek. Modifying the bridge 

operating schedule will reduce major 

vehicle traffic issues during rush hour 

times. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2015–0940 using Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://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 email Mr. Rod Elkins with 

the Coast Guard; telephone 305–415– 

6989, email rodney.j.elkins@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive Order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

On March 11th, 2015 the Miami 

Beach City Commission held a public 

meeting to discuss appropriate action 

for modifying the bridge operations. 

Additionally, the City conducted traffic 

studies and reviewed the bridge logs 

which showed a 45% increase in 

vehicular traffic from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. with no 

corresponding increase in vessel traffic 

during those time periods. Input from 

the public meeting and the traffic data 

was used to develop the proposed rule. 

That data will be included in the 

electronic docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

63rd Street Bridge across Indian 

Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, FL is 

a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a 

vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean 

high water in the closed position and a 

horizontal clearance of 50 feet. 

Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 

117.5, the 63rd Street Bridge is required 

to open on signal for the passage of 

vessels. The City of Miami Beach and 

Miami Dade County determined that 

restricting bridge openings during peak 

traffic hours will significantly reduce 

traffic congestion. Based on this 

determination, the City of Miami Beach 

requested this action to alleviate 

additional traffic congestion created by 

bridge openings during peak hours. 

In addition to proposing a schedule 

that will allow for limited openings 

during the regular work week, the Coast 

Guard is proposing a regulation change 

that will apply during the annual boat 

show. Every year in mid-February the 

City of Miami Beach hosts the Yacht 

and Brokerage Show which creates 

unusually high vehicle and vessel traffic 

during the weeks before and after the 

show. The Coast Guard typically issues 

temporary deviations to the 63rd Street 

Bridge operations that help balance 

vessel and vehicle needs during those 

times. The Coast Guard proposes 

adopting the annual temporary 

deviation as part of this bridge 

regulation. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to add a 

new regulation for the operations of the 

63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile 

4.0, at Miami Beach. The proposed 

regulation would implement three 

closure periods, which would allow the 

bridge to not open for vessels during 

morning and afternoon peak vehicle 

traffic times. The following schedule is 

proposed: (1) From Monday through 

Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the bridge 

would only open on the hour and half 

hour; (2) from 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 

4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, the bridge would remain closed; 

and (3) from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. the seven 

days before and the four days following 

the City of Miami Beach Yacht and 

Brokerage Show the second week of 

February, the bridge would only open 

for ten minutes at the top of the hour. 

For federal holidays, weekends, and 

other times the bridge would continue 

to open for vessels on signal. 

These proposed changes will still 

allow vessels to pass through the bridge 

while taking into account the reasonable 

needs of other modes of transportation. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders (E.O.s) related to 

rulemaking. Below we summarize our 

analyses based on these statutes and 

E.O.s and we also discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

E.O.s 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This NPRM has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the limited impact that it is 

anticipated to have on vessel traffic on 

the Indian Creek while taking into 

account the needs of vehicular traffic. 

Vessels that can transit under the bridge 

without an opening may do so. Other 

vessels can transit during non closure 

period times, and emergency vessels 

and tugs with tows can still request 

openings 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 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. 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 

Government 

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 E.O. 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 above. 

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 proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which 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 figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

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. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

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. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this notice, 

and all public comments, are in our 

online docket at http://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following that Web site’s 

instructions. Additionally, 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. 

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; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 117.293 to read as follows: 

§ 117.293 Indian Creek. 

The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge, 

Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, 

shall open on signal except as follows: 

(a) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday 

through Friday except Federal holidays, 

the draw need open only on the hour 

and half-hour. 

(b) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 

4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through 

Friday except Federal holidays, the 

draw need not open for the passage of 

vessels. 

(c) In February of each year during the 

period seven days prior to the City of 

Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage 

Show and the four days following the 

show, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the 

bridge need not open except for 10 

minutes at the top of the hour. At all 

other times the bridge shall operate on 

its normal schedule. 

Dated: February 11, 2016. 

S.A. Buschman, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03262 Filed 2–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS