Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72415 

for the same harm that is the subject of 

the medical malpractice claim. DoD has 

the burden to establish the applicability 

and amount of any offsets. 

* * * * * 

(c) Present value of future payments 

and benefits. In determining offsets 

under this section from economic 

damages, DoD will use the present value 

of future payments and benefits. * * * 

(d) Information considered. * * * 

Claimants must provide information not 

available to DoD, but requested by DoD, 

for the purpose of determining offsets. 

(e) Benefits and payments that may be 

considered as potential offsets. The 

general rule is that potential damages 

calculated under this part may be offset 

only by DoD or VA payments and 

benefits that are primarily funded by 

Government appropriations. Potential 

damages calculated under this part are 

not offset by U.S. Government payments 

and benefits that are substantially 

funded by the military member. The 

following examples are provided for 

illustrative purposes only, are not allinclusive, and are subject to adjustment 

as appropriate. 

(1) The following DoD and VA 

payments and benefits are primarily 

funded from Government 

appropriations and will be offset: 

(i) Disability retired pay in the case of 

retirement due to the disability caused 

by the alleged medical malpractice. 

(ii) Disability severance pay in the 

case of non-retirement disability 

separation caused by the alleged 

medical malpractice. 

(iii) Incapacitation pay. 

(iv) Involuntary and voluntary 

separation pays and incentives. 

(v) Death gratuity. 

(vi) Housing allowance continuation. 

(vii) Survivor Benefit Plan. 

(vii) VA disability compensation, to 

include Special Monthly Compensation, 

attributable to the disability resulting 

from the malpractice. 

(ix) VA Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation, attributable to the 

disability resulting from the 

malpractice. 

(x) Special Survivor Indemnity 

Allowance. 

(xi) Special Compensation for 

Assistance with Activities of Daily 

Living. 

(xii) Program of Comprehensive 

Assistance for Family Caregivers. 

(xiii) Fry Scholarship. 

(xiv) TRICARE coverage, including 

TRICARE-for-Life, for a disability 

retiree, family, or survivors. Future 

TRICARE coverage is part of the 

Government’s compensation package for 

a disability retiree or survivor. 

(2) The following U.S. Government 

payments and benefits are substantially 

funded by the military members or are 

otherwise generally not eligible for 

consideration as potential offsets: 

(i) Servicemembers Group Life 

Insurance. 

(ii) Traumatic Servicemembers Group 

Life Insurance. 

(iii) Social Security disability benefits. 

(iv) Social Security survivor benefits. 

(v) Prior Government contributions to 

a Thrift Savings Plan. 

(vi) Commissary, exchange, and 

morale, welfare, and recreation facility 

access. 

(vii) Value of legal assistance and 

other services provided by DoD. 

(viii) Medical care provided while in 

active service or in an active status prior 

to death, retirement, or separation. 

Dated: October 12, 2023. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23013 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2023–0652] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, at 

Jupiter, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily modify the operating 

schedule that governs the Indiantown 

Road Bridge across the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), mile 

1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida. This action is 

necessary to alleviate vehicle traffic 

congestion on the Indiantown Road 

Bridge caused by the replacement and 

closure of a nearby bridge. Once 

construction of the nearby bridge has 

been completed, the Indiantown Road 

Drawbridge will return to normally 

scheduled operations. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 20, 2023. 

The Coast Guard anticipates that this 

proposed rule will be effective from 

12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023, 

through 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2023–0652 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Leonard Newsom, 

Seventh District Bridge Branch, Coast 

Guard; telephone (305) 415–6946, email 

Leonard.D.Newsom@uscg.mil. 

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) 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

FL Florida 

AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

FDOT Florida Department of 

Transportation 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

Indiantown Road Bridge across the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), 

mile 1006.2, at Jupiter, Florida, is a 

double-leaf bascule bridge with 35 feet 

of vertical clearance in the closed 

position. The normal operating schedule 

for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 

117.261(q). Navigation on the waterway 

consists of recreational and commercial 

mariners. 

The bridge owner, Florida Department 

of Transportation (FDOT), requested the 

Coast Guard consider allowing this 

change during the replacement and 

closure of a nearby bridge. The closing 

of the nearby bridge has resulted in 

significant increase in vehicle traffic 

congestion of the area. The only 

alternate route for land traffic to access 

the mainland is via the Donald Ross 

Bridge approximately 4.5 miles south of 

the Indiantown Road Bridge. This 

proposed temporary rule will reduce the 

number of drawbridge openings which 

will subsequently allow local vehicle 

traffic to flow with reduced obstructions 

and delays. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed temporary rule will 

allow the drawbridge to remain closed 

to navigation during weekday vehicle 

commuting hours. Under this proposed 

temporary rule, the drawbridge would 

remain closed to vessel traffic daily 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
72416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 

p.m. At all other times the bridge would 

open on the hour and half hour. 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 

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 fact that vessels can still 

transit the bridge at designated times 

throughout the day, and vessels that can 

transit under the bridge without an 

opening may do so at any time. This 

proposed temporary rule will further 

meet the reasonable needs of navigation 

while taking into consideration the 

reasonable needs of vehicular traffic. 

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 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2023–0652 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules 72417 

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 web page. Also, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted, or a temporary 

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; 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1. Revision No. 

01.3. 

■ 2. Stay § 117.261(q) from 12:01 a.m. 

on December 30, 2023, through 11:59 

p.m. on August 31, 2025. 

■ 3. Add temporary § 117.261(p) from 

12:01 a.m. on December 30, 2023, 

through 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2025, 

to read as follows: 

§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

from St. Marys River to Key Largo. 

* * * * * 

(p) Indiantown Road Bridge, mile 

1006.2, at Jupiter. The draw shall open 

on the hour and half hour except that 

the draw need not open daily from 7 

a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 13, 2023. 

Douglas M. Schofield, 

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

Coast Guard Seventh District. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23259 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 23–336; RM–11967; DA 23– 

936; FR ID 177970] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Wittenberg and Shawano, Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Video Division, Media 

Bureau (Bureau) has before it a petition 

for rulemaking filed by TV–49, Inc. 

(Petitioner or TV–49), the permittee of 

an unbuilt television station on channel 

31 allotted to Wittenberg, Wisconsin. 

TV–49 requests an amendment of the 

Table of TV Allotments to delete 

channel 31 at Wittenberg and substitute 

channel 31 at Shawano, Wisconsin, 

consistent with the technical parameters 

set forth in the Petition, as amended. 

The Petitioner further requests 

modification of its construction permit 

to specify Shawano as its community of 

license. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 20, 2023 and reply 

comments on or before December 4, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 

Matthew S. Delnero, Esq., Covington & 

Burling, LLP, 850 Tenth Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has stated that it will apply 

the modification procedure in section 

1.420(i) of the rules, which provides 

that the Commission may, in connection 

with a rulemaking proceeding to amend 

the Table of TV Allotments, modify a 

station’s license or construction permit 

to specify a new community of license 

without affording other interested 

parties an opportunity to file competing 

expressions of interest, where the new 

allotment will be mutually exclusive 

with a station’s existing allotment. The 

Technical Exhibit submitted with the 

Amended Petition demonstrates that the 

proposed allotment of channel 31 at 

Shawano is mutually exclusive with the 

current allotment at Wittenberg, and is 

otherwise in compliance with all of our 

technical rules. The Petitioner also 

emphasizes that Wittenberg will not 

lose any existing service because as a 

permittee, TV–49 has not commenced 

operations in Wittenberg, and thus no 

viewers have come to rely on any 

existing service, a factor the 

Commission has found to be mitigating 

in the context of whether it would 

remove the sole channel allotted to a 

community. Moreover, the Petitioner 

states that the communities are only 

thirty miles apart and Wittenberg will 

still be within the noise limited contour 

of the channel 31 facility constructed at 

Shawano. The Petitioner further asserts 

that providing Shawano, the county seat 

of Shawano County and a community 

that is nine times larger than 

Wittenberg, with its first local television 

service is the type of rare circumstance 

which justifies a waiver of the general 

prohibition on the removal of a 

community’s sole first local service. 

According to the Petitioner, Shawano’s 

Census 2020 population is 9,243 people, 

while Wittenberg’s Census 2020 

population is 1,015. Shawano is 

governed by a mayor and six 

alderpersons, who collectively comprise 

its Common Council. The Shawano 

school district operates five public 

schools, there are also three religiouslyaffiliated private schools in Shawano, 

and Northeast Wisconsin Technical 

College also operates a Regional 

Learning Campus in Shawano. Shawano 

also provides a number of municipal 

services through the Shawano-Bonduel 

Municipal Court, the Shawano 

Department of Public Works, the 

Shawano Police Department, and the 

Shawano Municipal Utilities. Petitioner 

states that given the foregoing, it is clear 

that Shawano has the population and 

public services indicative of a 

community deserving of its own 

television station. Moreover, the 

Petitioner asserts that six licensed full 

power television stations currently 

provide noise-limited service to all of 

Wittenberg and the Petitioner 

demonstrates that once the Station 

commences operations it will also 

provide noise-limited service to 

Wittenberg. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 23–336; 

RM–11967; DA 23–936, adopted 

October 6, 2023, and released October 6, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1