Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18753 

1 84 FR 51413. 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

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. 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. 

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 Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.1087 by adding 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 117.1087 Fox River. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) All drawbridges between mile 

37.52 and 58.01, are authorized to be 

operated remotely, and are required to 

operate and maintain a VHF–FM Marine 

Radio. 

* * * * * 

M.J. Johnston, 

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

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06803 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0062] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone, Saint Simons Sound, GA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to remove an existing temporary safety 

zone which was put in place in 

response to the grounding of the M/V 

GOLDEN RAY. Salvage operations 

pertaining to the M/V GOLDEN RAY 

have concluded, therefore a safety zone 

is no longer required. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0062 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

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 MST1 Ashley 

Schad, Marine Safety Unit Savannah 

Office of Waterways Management, Coast 

Guard, 912–652–4188 extension 242, or 

email Ashley.M.Schad@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

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 September 19, 2019, an emergency 

safety zone was put into place to protect 

vessels using the waterway from 

response and salvage operations 

pertaining to the capsizing of the M/V 

GOLDEN RAY.1 On January 25, 2022 

the Unified Command in charge of the 

M/V GOLDEN RAY response and 

salvage operations notified the COTP, 

Marine Safety Unit Savannah that 

salvage operations have concluded, 

therefore the safety zone in Saint 

Simons Sound is no longer required. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

remove the safety zone previously 

established in response to the capsizing 

of the M/V GOLDEN RAY. The Coast 

Guard is proposing this rulemaking 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP is proposing to remove the 

temporary safety zone which was put 

into place on September 19, 2019, in 

response to the grounding of the M/V 

GOLDEN RAY (located at 31°07′39.66 

North, 081°24′10.58 West, between 

Saint Simons Lighthouse and the north 

end of Jekyll Island, in the vicinity of 

green buoy #19). By removing the safety 

zone, all waterway users, including 

commercial, private, and recreational 

vessels would have unrestricted access 

to the waterway. The temporary zone 

was originally established with the 

intention that it would be removed once 

all response and salvage resources were 

demobilized and removed from the 

waterway pertaining to the capsizing of 

the M/V GOLDEN RAY. On January 25, 

2022, it was determined that all 

response and salvage resources and 

assests were no longer in the vicinity of 

the safety zone and removal of the M/ 

V GOLDEN RAY was complete. 

Removal of environmental protective 

barriers including cofferdams and 

precautionary containment boom were 

also completed. 

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. 

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 waterway usage and the 

temporary nature of the previously 

established safety zone. While the 

temporary safety zone that we are 

proposing for removal was in place for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18754 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

more than two years, it was never 

intended to be permanent. There were 

many obstructions and hazards in the 

waterway, including the M/V GOLDEN 

RAY and other artificial obstructions 

that were used in its salvage and the 

associated pollution prevention 

measures. These obstructions created a 

necessity for the temporary safety zone, 

but the obstructions have been removed, 

therefore there is no longer a need for 

the temporary safety zone. Once the 

temporary safety zone is removed, all 

waterway users will regain unrestricted 

access to the waterway. 

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. 

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator as full access 

to the waterway would be reestablished 

and would not prevent any vessel from 

entering the previously esbatlished 

safety zone. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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 call or email 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 not call for 

a 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 call or email 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 would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

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 involves removing a previously 

established temporary safety zone. 

Normally such actions are categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L(60b) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email 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. 

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– 2022–0062 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 you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

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 web page. 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 to the docket in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18755 

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 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

§ 165.T07–0794 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 165.T07–0794. 

Dated: March 8, 2022. 

K.A Broyles, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Savannah, GA. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06797 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0139] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Columbia River, Richland, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of the Columbia River. 

This action is necessary to provide for 

the safety of participants and the 

maritime public during a high-speed 

boat race. This proposed rulemaking 

would prohibit non-participant persons 

and vessel from being in the safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Columbia River 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 May 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0139 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

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 Sean 

Morrison, Waterways Management 

Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, 

U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503–240– 

9319, email D13-SMBMSUPortlandWWM@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 

COTP Captain of the Port Columbia River 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On November 3, 2021, Northwest 

Powerboat Association notified the 

Coast Guard that it will be conducting 

a high-speed boat race from 8 a.m. to 7 

p.m. on June 24, 2022 through June 26, 

2022. These boats will be traveling at a 

rate of speed greater than usual boat 

traffic, and will be utilizing all of the 

wateryway in the vicinity of Howard 

Amon Park, between mile markers 337 

and 338. The Captain of the Port 

Columbia River (COTP) has determined 

that potential hazards associated with 

the high speed boat race would be a 

safety concern for anyone in the 

regulated area. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

protect personnel, vessels, and the 

marine environment in these navigable 

waters in the vicinity of Howard Amon 

Park, between mile markers 337 and 

338, for the duration of the 3-day event. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP is proposing to establish a 

safety zone that will be subject to 

enforcement from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. 

on June 24, 2022 through June 26, 2022. 

The safety zone will cover all navigable 

waters of the Columbia River from 

surface to bottom, in the vicinity of 

Howard Amon Park, between mile 

markers 337 and 338. The duration of 

the zone is intended to protect 

personnel, vessels, and the marine 

environment in these navigable waters 

for the duration of the 3-day event. No 

vessel or person would be permitted to 

enter the regulated area 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. 

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 based on the size, location, 

and duration of the safety zone. This 

regulatory action will only impact a 

small 1-mile section of the Columbia 

River. Moreover, the Coast Guard will 

issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 

VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the 

zone and the rule allows 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 proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1