Safety Zone; RICHLAND, Apra Harbor/Philippine Sea, GU, 2749-2751 [2016-00863]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
User assistance is available for
eLibrary and other aspects of FERC’s
Web site during normal business hours.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@
ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or
for TTY, contact (202) 502–8659.
Annual Update of Filing Fees
(Issued January 12, 2016)
The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) is issuing
this document to update filing fees that
the Commission assesses for specific
services and benefits provided to
identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 18
CFR 381.104, the Commission is
establishing updated fees on the basis of
the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2015
costs. The adjusted fees announced in
this document are effective February 18,
2016. The Commission has determined,
with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
the Office of Management and Budget,
that this final rule is not a major rule
within the meaning of section 251 of
Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C.
804(2). The Commission is submitting
this final rule to both houses of the
United States Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States.
The new fee schedule is as follows:
Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act
1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403) ................................................................
1.
2.
3.
4.
Fees Applicable to General Activities
Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) ..........
Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:
Amount in controversy
$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) .............................................................................................................................................
$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ..................................................................................................................................
$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a)) .................................................................................................................................
Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment:
Amount in controversy
$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) .............................................................................................................................................
$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ..................................................................................................................................
$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a)) .................................................................................................................................
Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a)) .........................................................
Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines
1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b)) ...........................................................
Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers
1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ............................................
2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ...............................................................
* This fee has not been changed.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381
§ 381.304
Electric power plants, Electric
utilities, Natural gas, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[Amended]
■
4. In § 381.304, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ‘‘$18,920’’ and
adding ‘‘$19,120’’ in its place.
Issued: January 12, 2016.
Anton C. Porter,
Executive Director.
§ 381.305
5. In § 381.305, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ‘‘$7,090’’ and
adding ‘‘$7,160’’ in its place.
PART 381—FEES
1. The authority citation for part 381
continues to read as follows:
§ 381.403
[Amended]
6. Section 381.403 is amended by
removing ‘‘$12,310’’ and adding
‘‘$12,430’’ in its place.
■
■
§ 381.505
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C.
791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App.
U.S.C. 1–85.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 381.302
[Amended]
2. In § 381.302, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ‘‘$24,730’’ and
adding ‘‘$24,980’’ in its place.
■
§ 381.303
[Amended]
7. In § 381.505, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ‘‘$21,260’’ and
adding ‘‘$21,480’’ in its place and by
removing ‘‘$24,070’’ and adding
‘‘$24,310’’ in its place.
■
[FR Doc. 2016–00842 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
[Amended]
3. In § 381.303, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ‘‘$36,100’’ and
adding ‘‘$36,460’’ in its place.
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
$12,430
$24,980
$100
$600
$36,460
$100
$600
$19,120
$7,160
* $1,000
$21,480
$24,310
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Amended]
■
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission amends part 381, chapter I,
title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
set forth below.
2749
Sfmt 4700
[Docket Number USCG–2015–1101]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; RICHLAND, Apra Harbor/
Philippine Sea, GU
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary moving safety
zone for navigable waters within a 1000yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND
and its towing vessel and 500 yards
abeam and 500 yards astern of the drydock. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment from potential
hazards created by the movement of the
drydock from Guam waters. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Guam.
DATES: This rule is effective without
actual notice from January 19, 2016
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
2750
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
through 6:00 p.m. January 31, 2016. For
the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 8:00 a.m.
December 30, 2015 through January 19,
2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015–
1101 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Chief Kristina Gauthier,
Waterways Management Office, Sector
Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
671–355–4866, email
Kristina.M.Gauthier@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing
so would be impracticable. The final
details for this removal of this dry-dock
were not known to the Coast Guard
until there was insufficient time
remaining before the operation to
publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be
impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard’s ability to protect
vessels and waterway users from the
hazards associated with this operation.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making it effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal
Register. For the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraph,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The
Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards
associated with the movement of the
Dry-Dock RICHLAND starting 8:00 a.m.
December 30, 2015 will be a safety
concern for anyone within 1000-yards
ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and
its towing vessel and 500 yards abeam
and 500 yards astern while transiting
Guam waters. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while the
Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing
vessel are in transit in Guam waters.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a safety zone
from 8:00 a.m. December 30, 2015
through 6:00 p.m. January 31, 2016. The
safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within 1000 yards ahead of the
Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing
vessel and 500 yards abeam and 500
yards astern while transiting Guam
waters. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these
navigable waters while the Dry-Dock
RICHLAND and its towing vessel are in
transit. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these
statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
it has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the size, location, and
duration of the safety zone. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
around this safety zone during the
majority of this evolution which will
impact a small designated area of Apra
Harbor, Guam and the Philippine Sea
for less than 24 hours. The transit
through the mouth of the entrance to
Apra Harbor will be the most restricted
portion due to the limited space for
maneuvering. Moreover, the Coast
Guard will issue 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 rule will 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 V.A. above,
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
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 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.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
C. Collection of Information
This rule will 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 E.O. 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 rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in
E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does 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 rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
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 rule involves a safety
zone to be enforced for less than 24
hours that will prohibit entry within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Jan 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
1000 yards ahead of the Dry-Dock
RICHLAND and its towing vessel and
500 yards abeam and 500 yards astern.
It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure
2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
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.
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:
2751
unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative thereof.
(e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer,
and any other COTP representative
permitted by law, may enforce these
temporary safety zones.
(f) Waiver. The COTP may waive any
of the requirements of this section for
any person, vessel, or class of vessel
upon finding that application of the
safety zone is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of maritime
security.
(g) Penalties. Vessels or persons
violating this rule are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and
50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: December 23, 2015.
James B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Guam.
[FR Doc. 2016–00863 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 13–249; FCC 15–142]
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
Revitalization of the AM Radio Service
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
■
AGENCY:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
SUMMARY:
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
2. Add § 165.T14–1101 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165. T14–1101 Safety Zone; RICHLAND,
Apra Harbor/Philippine Sea, GU.
(a) Location. The following areas,
within the Guam Captain of the Port
(COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70–15),
from the surface of the water to the
ocean floor, is a moving safety zone: All
navigable waters within 1000 yards
ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and
its towing vessel and 500 yards abeam
and 500 yards astern from departure
from Wharf ‘‘P’’ to 12 miles from Orote
Point, Guam.
(b) Effective period. This section is
effective from 8 a.m. on December 30,
2015 through 6 p.m. on January 31,
2016.
(c) Enforcement period. This section
is enforced from the time the vessel
departs Wharf ‘‘P’’ until it is 12 miles
from Orote Point, Guam.
(d) Regulations. The general
regulations governing safety zones
contained in § 165.23 apply. No vessels
may enter or transit the safety zone
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
In this document, the
Commission adopted a number of
procedures and procedural changes
designed to assist AM broadcasters to
better serve the public, thereby
advancing the Commission’s
fundamental goals of localism,
competition, and diversity in broadcast
media.
DATES: Effective February 18, 2016,
except for the amendment to 47 CFR
73.1560, which contains new or
modified information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), and which will become
effective after the Commission publishes
a document in the Federal Register
announcing such approval and the
relevant effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau,
Audio Division, (202) 418–2700 or
Peter.Doyle@fcc.gov; Thomas Nessinger,
Senior Counsel, Media Bureau, Audio
Division, (202) 418–2700 or
Thomas.Nessinger@fcc.gov. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM
19JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2749-2751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00863]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2015-1101]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; RICHLAND, Apra Harbor/Philippine Sea, GU
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
for navigable waters within a 1000-yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND
and its towing vessel and 500 yards abeam and 500 yards astern of the
dry-dock. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards created by the movement
of the drydock from Guam waters. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Guam.
DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 19,
2016
[[Page 2750]]
through 6:00 p.m. January 31, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 8:00 a.m. December 30, 2015 through
January 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1101 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Kristina Gauthier, Waterways Management Office,
Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-355-4866, email
Kristina.M.Gauthier@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this removal of this dry-dock were not known to the
Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the
operation to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this
rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because
it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect vessels and
waterway users from the hazards associated with this operation.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding
paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be
impracticable.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with the movement of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND starting
8:00 a.m. December 30, 2015 will be a safety concern for anyone within
1000-yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing vessel and 500
yards abeam and 500 yards astern while transiting Guam waters. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the
Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing vessel are in transit in Guam waters.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:00 a.m. December 30,
2015 through 6:00 p.m. January 31, 2016. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within 1000 yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and
its towing vessel and 500 yards abeam and 500 yards astern while
transiting Guam waters. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters while the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing vessel are in
transit. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able
to safely transit around this safety zone during the majority of this
evolution which will impact a small designated area of Apra Harbor,
Guam and the Philippine Sea for less than 24 hours. The transit through
the mouth of the entrance to Apra Harbor will be the most restricted
portion due to the limited space for maneuvering. Moreover, the Coast
Guard will issue 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 rule
will 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
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
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 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.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
[[Page 2751]]
C. Collection of Information
This rule will 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 E.O. 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 rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does 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 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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
rule involves a safety zone to be enforced for less than 24 hours that
will prohibit entry within 1000 yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND
and its towing vessel and 500 yards abeam and 500 yards astern. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
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.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.T14-1101 to read as follows:
Sec. 165. T14-1101 Safety Zone; RICHLAND, Apra Harbor/Philippine Sea,
GU.
(a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor, is a moving safety zone: All navigable waters within
1000 yards ahead of the Dry-Dock RICHLAND and its towing vessel and 500
yards abeam and 500 yards astern from departure from Wharf ``P'' to 12
miles from Orote Point, Guam.
(b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 a.m. on
December 30, 2015 through 6 p.m. on January 31, 2016.
(c) Enforcement period. This section is enforced from the time the
vessel departs Wharf ``P'' until it is 12 miles from Orote Point, Guam.
(d) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec. 165.23 apply. No vessels may enter or transit the
safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative thereof.
(e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce these temporary safety zones.
(f) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this
section for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
(g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: December 23, 2015.
James B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
[FR Doc. 2016-00863 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
