This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

32602 

Vol. 83, No. 135 

Friday, July 13, 2018 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG 2018–0473] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Anacostia River, Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the Frederick Douglass 

Memorial Bridge across the Anacostia 

River, mile 1.2, in Washington, DC. This 

proposal is to allow the existing 

drawbridge to remain closed-tonavigation. This proposal is necessary to 

accommodate the construction of a new 

fixed bridge on an alignment 18 feet 

south of the existing drawbridge and the 

removal of the existing drawbridge. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

August 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG 

2018–0473 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. Martin A. 

Bridges, Fifth Coast Guard District 

(dpb), telephone (757) 398–6422, email 

Martin.A.Bridges@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

The District of Columbia Department 

of Transportation, who owns and 

operates the Frederick Douglass 

Memorial Bridge, has requested a rule to 

allow the existing drawbridge to remain 

in the closed-to-navigation position 

during the construction of a new fixed 

bridge on an alignment 18 feet south of 

the existing drawbridge and the removal 

of the existing drawbridge. 

The existing Frederick Douglass 

Memorial Bridge across the Anacostia 

River, mile 1.2, in Washington, DC, has 

a vertical clearance of 40 feet above 

mean high water in the closed-tonavigation position. The current 

operating schedule for the existing 

drawbridge is published in 33 CFR 

117.253 (a). The current rule will be 

replaced in its entirety. 

On December 4, 2017, the Coast 

Guard signed Bridge Permit (2–17–5) 

authorizing the replacement of the 

existing drawbridge with a fixed bridge 

with a vertical clearance of 42 feet above 

mean high water on an alignment 18 

feet south of the existing drawbridge. 

Issuance of the bridge permit followed 

a multi-year process involving 

completion of an environmental impact 

statement and Coast Guard Record of 

Decision; completion of a navigation 

impact report; public meetings held on 

March 4, 2008, April 28, 2011, July 30, 

2013, May 5, 2014, and January 22, 

2015, and publication of a preliminary 

public notice for navigation on 

November 4, 2013, and public notice for 

the bridge permit application on 

October 20, 2017. 

On February 2, 2018, we published a 

notice of deviation from drawbridge 

regulation entitled ‘‘Drawbridge 

Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, 

Washington, DC’’ in the Federal 

Register (83 FR 4845). The deviation is 

necessary to accommodate the 

construction and replacement of the 

existing Frederick Douglass Memorial 

Bridge with a fixed bridge on an 

alignment 18 feet south of the existing 

drawbridge. This temporary deviation 

allows the bridge to remain in the 

closed-to-navigation position during 

construction and is effective from 6 a.m. 

on February 2, 2018, through 6 a.m. on 

August 1, 2018. 

This proposed modification of the 

operating schedule is designed to 

mitigate vehicular congestion and 

maintain public safety, and provide for 

safe, effective and efficient bridge 

construction and removal, while 

meeting the existing and future needs of 

navigation. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule will allow the 

drawbridge to be placed in the closedto-navigation position, while a fixed 

bridge with a navigational clearance of 

42 feet above mean high water on an 

alignment 18 feet south of the existing 

drawbridge is constructed, and during 

the removal of the existing drawbridge. 

Given the small difference in vertical 

clearances above mean high water 

between the existing drawbridge at 40 

feet and new fixed bridge at 42 feet, 

placing the existing drawbridge in the 

closed-to-navigation should not restrict 

present navigation from transiting 

through the bridge. There have been no 

requests for an opening of the existing 

drawbridge since the temporary 

deviation published on February 2, 

2018, with the exception of vessels 

engaged in bridge construction and 

removal. There are no alternative routes 

and vessels able to transit under the 

existing drawbridge without an opening 

may do so. 

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 and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

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. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. 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) and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This is not considered a significant 

regulatory action. This determination is 

based on the findings that: (1) The 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32603 

potential impact is small given the 

limited number of vessels requiring a 

bridge opening over the past 10 years, 

with no requests since 2013; (2) the 

small difference in vertical clearances 

above mean high water between the 

existing drawbridge at 40 feet and new 

fixed bridge at 42 feet; and (3) vessels 

will be able to transit through the 

drawbridge following removal of the 

draw span, after the new bridge opens 

to 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 rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on any vessel owner or operator. 

This rule is not expected to restrict 

present navigation from transiting 

through the bridge. 

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 

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 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 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 M16475.1 

(series), 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 simply 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. 

A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration and a 

Memorandum for the Record are not 

required for this proposed 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, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacynotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’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: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
32604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. Revise § 117.253(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.253 Anacostia River 

(a) The draw of the Frederick 

Douglass Memorial (South Capitol 

Street) bridge, mile 1.2, need not be 

opened for the passage of vessels. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 25, 2018. 

M.L. Austin, 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15050 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–0635] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Ski Show Sylvan Beach; 

Fish Creek, Oneida, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of Fish Creek during the 

Ski Show Sylvan Beach. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from being in the safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or a designated 

representative. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before August 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2018–0635 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email LCDR Michael 

Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; 

telephone 716–843–9322, email D09- 

SMB-SECBuffalo-WWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On April 8, 2018, Mohawk Valley Ski 

Club Inc. notified the Coast Guard that 

it would be conducting a ski show from 

12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on August 12, 

2018. The show will take place on Fish 

Creek where the creek meets Oneida 

Lake starting at position 43°11′36.6′′ N, 

75°43′53.8′′ W then South to 43°11′33.7′′ 

N, 75°43′51.2′′ W then East to 

43°11′42.4′′ N, 75°43′38.6′′ W then North 

to 43°11′44.5′′ N, 75°43′39.7′′ W then 

returning to the point of origin. The 

Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has 

determined that potential hazards 

associated with a Ski Show Sylvan 

Beach would be a safety concern for 

anyone within the aforementioned zone 

on Fish Creek. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

enhance the safety of vessels and racers 

on the navigable waters within the 

above stated points, before, during, and 

after the scheduled event. The Coast 

Guard proposes this rulemaking under 

authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP proposes to establish a 

temporary safety zone enforced from 

12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on August 12, 

2018 with breaks every 30 minutes to 

allow traffic to pass. The safety zone 

will cover all navigable waters starting 

at position 43°11′36.6′′ N, 75°43′53.8′′ W 

then South to 43°11′33.7′′ N, 75°43′51.2′′ 

W then East to 43°11′42.4′′ N, 

75°43′38.6′′ W then North to 43°11′44.5′′ 

N, 75°43′39.7′′ W then returning to the 

point of origin on Fish Creek, Oneida, 

NY. The duration of the zone is 

intended to enhance the safety of 

vessels and these navigable waters 

before, during, and after the scheduled 

12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ski Show. No 

vessel or person would be permitted to 

enter the safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. The 

regulatory text we are proposing appears 

at the end of this document. 

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 a number of these statutes and 

Executive Orders and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

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. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. 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), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, duration, 

and time-of-day of the safety zone. 

Vessel traffic would not be able to safely 

transit around this safety zone, which 

would impact a small designated area of 

Fish Creek. However, the Coast Guard 

would issue a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 

16 about the zone, and the rule would 

allow vessels to seek permission to enter 

the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 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 safety 

zone 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS