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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
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 https://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 https://
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 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. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://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 https://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