Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DC, 32602-32604 [2018-15050]

Download as PDF 32602 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 135 Friday, July 13, 2018 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. 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 Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: 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. SUMMARY: 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: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM 13JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 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.). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 32603 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: E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM 13JYP1 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. * * * * * [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 Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: 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. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 Dated: June 25, 2018. M.L. Austin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. ACTION: U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716–843–9322, email D09SMB-SECBuffalo-WWM@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM 13JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32602-32604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15050]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 32602]]



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-to-navigation. 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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  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-to-navigation 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 
closed-to-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

[[Page 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:

[[Page 32604]]

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
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.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.253(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  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