Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18751 

Interested persons were originally 

given until April 11, 2022, to comment 

on this hearing. The Agency has 

received a request to allow interested 

persons additional time to comment. 

The request conveyed concern that the 

current 90-day comment period does 

not allow sufficient time to develop 

comprehensive comments. We have 

concluded that it is reasonable to extend 

the comment period for 60 days. The 

Agency believes that this extension 

allows adequate time for interested 

persons to submit comments. 

Dated: March 25, 2022. 

Andi Lipstein Fristedt, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, 

and International Affairs, U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06762 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0336] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox 

River, Oshkosh, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the Tayco Street Bridge, mile 

37.52, the Main Street Bridge, mile 

55.97, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 

56.22, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 

56.72, and the Congress Avenue Bridge, 

mile 58.01, all over the Fox River near 

Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This proposed rule 

will allow the bridges to operate 

remotely. We invite your comments on 

this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 31, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0336 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. Lee D. Soule, 

Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth 

Coast Guard District; telephone 216– 

902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@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 

WisDOT Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

On July 6, 2021, we published a 

temporary deviation in the Federal 

Register (86 FR 35402) to test the 

effectiveness of the remote bridge 

operations and to solicit public 

comments; public commenting closed 

on November 1, 2021. The Main Street 

Bridge, mile 55.97, provides a 

horizontal clearance of 89 feet and a 

vertical clearance 11 feet in the closed 

position, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 

56.22, provides a horizontal clearance of 

97 feet and a vertical clearance of 11 feet 

in the closed position, the Wisconsin 

Street Bridge, mile 56.72, provides a 

horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a 

vertical clearance of 12 feet in the 

closed position, the Congress Avenue 

Bridge, mile 58.01, provides a 

horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a 

vertical clearance of 13 feet in the 

closed position, and the Tayco Street 

Bridge provides a horizontal clearance 

of 63 feet and a vertical clearance of 3 

feet in the closed position. All of these 

bridges are over the Fox River and 

provide an unlimited clearance in the 

open position, and are governed by the 

regulations found in 33 CFR 117.1087. 

WisDOT has tested the capabilities of 

the remote operating system with live 

operators in the bridges and allowed the 

public to comment on the bridge 

operations before this proposed rule was 

published. 

This proposed rule will not change 

the operation of the bridges. WisDOT 

will provide weekly bridge opening data 

and approximate vehicle and pedestrian 

crossings at the end of the comment 

period. If the proposed rule is finalized, 

remote bridge operators will have the 

ability to communicate by visual or 

audio (two-way radio, loudspeaker, and 

telephone) means with vessels, 

including enough cameras to see above 

and below the bridge, including night 

vision cameras to monitor approaching 

river traffic in adverse weather 

conditions. 

The Coast Guard will also inform the 

users of the waterways through our 

Local Notice to Mariners when the 

comment period opens and how to leave 

comments. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The remote operations of the bridges 

will not affect the operations of the 

current regulations. During the test 

deviation, we received nine comments. 

In addition to the responses to the 

comments below, WisDOT took the 

opportunity to answer each comment, 

and we have added those responses to 

the docket. 

Most of the commenters described 

increased wait times for a remote bridge 

opening and indicated wait times were 

at least 30 minutes per bridge. Most of 

these delays were the result of 

challenges associated with training 

certain drawtenders on the new remote 

system. Moving forward, said 

drawtenders will be retrained to prevent 

delays beyond what users experience 

with live drawtenders. Further, WisDOT 

agreed that on certain weekends and 

holidays, when vessel and vehicle 

traffic will be the greatest, extra 

drawtenders will be provide to maintain 

a reliable level of safety for the public. 

Despite the comments discussed above, 

the data collected by WisDOT show that 

there were limited delays to boaters. 

In response to the safety concern, 

there is audio and video equipment to 

monitor the bridge, with cameras above 

and below the bridge to provide 

sufficient visualization of the areas 

surrounding the bridge. Further, we 

would like to note that from January to 

December 2020 there were five reported 

boating accidents while the bridges 

were operated by independent 

drawtenders. Out of the five accidents, 

one required advanced first aid. During 

the 2021 test deviation, there were no 

reported boating accidents. The test 

deviation covered June 30 to October 7, 

2021, when the waterways are the 

busiest. During 2021, during the period 

before and after the test deviation, no 

accidents were reported. 

We did not address the incident of the 

bicyclist accident on the Racine Street 

Bridge because it occurred during the 

July 4th celebrations in 2018, on a 

bridge not included in the NPRM, and 

the cause of the incident, according to 

police records, was the result of human 

negligence and wholly unrelated to 

bridge operations. 

The Tayco Street Bridge, mile 37.52 

was not included in the test deviation 

because its remote operations were not 

discovered until after the conclusion of 

the test deviation. WisDOT has been 

remotely operating this bridge since 

1984, after the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers abandoned the lock system 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
18752 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

and the U.S. Coast Guard stopped 

regulating bridges as the waterway 

could not engage in interstate 

commerce. Because the bridge has been 

operated remotely for 37 years we find 

no reason to repeat the test deviation to 

include this bridge for comments. 

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. 

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 proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action, as the bridges will 

open normally. 

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 

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. 

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 Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2021–0336 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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