Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY, 23619-23621 [2018-10899]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 the 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 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by local notice to mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on July 4, 2018 from 8:45 p.m. until 10.15 p.m. Dated: May 16, 2018. J.W. Reed, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston. [FR Doc. 2018–10931 Filed 5–21–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Coast Guard ■ 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. 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0203 to read as follows: ■ amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 § 165.T07–0203 Safety Zone; Marshwalk Group Independence Day Fireworks, Murrells Inlet, SC. 16:16 May 21, 2018 Jkt 244001 [Docket Number USCG–2017–1081] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/ Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: Certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina within a 500-yard radius of Veterans Fishing Pier. (b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated representative’’ means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843–740– 7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request VerDate Sep<11>2014 33 CFR Part 165 ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport Security Zone. The modification of the security zone would expand the existing security zone boundary north along the Rikers Island Bridge to the intersecting point on the southern tip of Rikers Island then east to the western end of LaGuardia Airport. This expanded security zone is necessary to protect the port, waterfront facilities, and waters of the United States from terrorism, sabotage, or other subversive acts and incidents of a similar nature during visits to New York City by various dignitaries. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 23, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2017–1081 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 23619 Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Kristina Pundt, Sector New York Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718–354–4352, email Kristina.H.Pundt@ uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On September 29, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, ‘‘Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY’’ in the Federal Register (79 FR 58298). This NPRM proposed to disestablish three regulated navigation areas (RNAs) and replace each with a security zone. No comments nor requests for a public meeting were received. On December 30, 2014 the Coast Guard published a Final Rule titled, ‘‘Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY’’ in the Federal Register (79 FR 78308). This final rule disestablished the RNAs and replaced each with a security zone. One of the security zones established was the Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security zone. The purpose of this rulemaking is to modify the existing Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security zone. Due to location adjustments of security staging areas, the Coast Guard has determined that modification of the existing security zone is necessary to safeguard the port, waterfront facilities, and waters of the United States from terrorism, sabotage, or other subversive acts and incidents of a similar nature during visits by various dignitaries to New York City. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.164 by modifying the E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 23620 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules existing Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security zone. The modification of the security zone would expand the existing security zone boundary north along the Rikers Island Bridge to the intersecting point on the southern tip of Rikers Island then east to the western end of LaGuardia Airport. Due to location adjustments of security staging areas, the Coast Guard has determined that the existing security zone does not provide an adequate level of security. The proposed modification will allow enforcement of a security zone that will minimize threat exposure. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 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 limited size and enforcement of the proposed security zone. Although expanding upon the current security zone, the proposed modification only encompasses a small designated area of Bowery Bay. Additionally, the proposed security zone will only be enforced during the infrequent visits of domestic and foreign dignitaries for as limited duration as necessary to safeguard against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 prior to periods of enforcement. Lastly, the rule would continue to allow vessels to seek permission to transit the zone. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:16 May 21, 2018 Jkt 244001 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 security 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. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023–01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the modification of a security zone that would prohibit entry into Bowery Bay for a limited duration and for a limited number of instances each year. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A draft Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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. E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 the 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 165 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:16 May 21, 2018 Jkt 244001 2. In § 165.164, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: (a) * * * (3) Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport Security Zone: All waters of Bowery Bay, Queens, New York, inside of a line drawn from the start of the Rikers Island Bridge in Queens at approximate position 40°46′37″ N, 073°53′30″ W to the intersecting point on the southern side of Rikers Island at approximate position 40°47′12″ N, 073°53′06″ W, then a line drawn east to the western end of LaGuardia Airport at approximate position 40°47′00″ N, 073°52′44″ W, then a line drawn south following the shoreline back to the point of origin at 40°46′37″ N, 073°53′30″ W (NAD 1983). ■ Dated: May 7, 2018. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York. [FR Doc. 2018–10899 Filed 5–21–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 [NPS–AKRO–25579; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000] RIN 1024–AE38 Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves National Park Service, Interior. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would remove a regulatory provision issued by the National Park Service in 2015 that prohibited certain sport hunting practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. These proposed changes are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Orders 3347 and 3356. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on July 23, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE38, by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 23621 • Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must include the words ‘‘National Park Service’’ or ‘‘NPS’’ and must include the docket number or RIN (1024–AE38) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644–3510. Email: AKR_ Regulations@nps.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a final rule (Final Rule) to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska (80 FR 64325). The Final Rule codified prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. The practices are: Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking black bears over bait; and using dogs to hunt black bears. This rule is inconsistent with State of Alaska’s hunting regulations found at 5 AAC Part 85. Since the publication of the Final Rule, the Secretary of the Interior issued two Secretarial Orders regarding how the Department of the Interior should manage recreational hunting and trapping in the lands and waters it administers, and directing greater collaboration with state, tribe, and territorial partners in doing so. On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation. Part of the stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3347 is to increase outdoor recreation and improve the management of game species and their habitat. Secretarial Order 3347 directs the Department of the Interior to identify specific actions to (1) expand access significantly for recreational hunting and fishing on public lands; and (2) improve recreational hunting E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23619-23621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10899]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-1081]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations 
Meetings, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the Marine Air Terminal, 
LaGuardia Airport Security Zone. The modification of the security zone 
would expand the existing security zone boundary north along the Rikers 
Island Bridge to the intersecting point on the southern tip of Rikers 
Island then east to the western end of LaGuardia Airport. This expanded 
security zone is necessary to protect the port, waterfront facilities, 
and waters of the United States from terrorism, sabotage, or other 
subversive acts and incidents of a similar nature during visits to New 
York City by various dignitaries. We invite your comments on this 
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-1081 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Kristina Pundt, Sector New York 
Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4352, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On September 29, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, 
``Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations 
Meetings, New York, NY'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 58298). This 
NPRM proposed to disestablish three regulated navigation areas (RNAs) 
and replace each with a security zone. No comments nor requests for a 
public meeting were received. On December 30, 2014 the Coast Guard 
published a Final Rule titled, ``Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/
Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY'' in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 78308). This final rule disestablished the RNAs and 
replaced each with a security zone. One of the security zones 
established was the Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security 
zone.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to modify the existing Marine Air 
Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security zone. Due to location adjustments 
of security staging areas, the Coast Guard has determined that 
modification of the existing security zone is necessary to safeguard 
the port, waterfront facilities, and waters of the United States from 
terrorism, sabotage, or other subversive acts and incidents of a 
similar nature during visits by various dignitaries to New York City.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority in 33 
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.164 by modifying the

[[Page 23620]]

existing Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport security zone. The 
modification of the security zone would expand the existing security 
zone boundary north along the Rikers Island Bridge to the intersecting 
point on the southern tip of Rikers Island then east to the western end 
of LaGuardia Airport. Due to location adjustments of security staging 
areas, the Coast Guard has determined that the existing security zone 
does not provide an adequate level of security. The proposed 
modification will allow enforcement of a security zone that will 
minimize threat exposure. The regulatory text we are proposing appears 
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and 
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits. 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 limited size 
and enforcement of the proposed security zone. Although expanding upon 
the current security zone, the proposed modification only encompasses a 
small designated area of Bowery Bay. Additionally, the proposed 
security zone will only be enforced during the infrequent visits of 
domestic and foreign dignitaries for as limited duration as necessary 
to safeguard against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or 
other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. 
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 
VHF-FM marine channel 16 prior to periods of enforcement. Lastly, the 
rule would continue to allow vessels to seek permission to transit 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 
security 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.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying 
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is 
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively 
have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule 
involves the modification of a security zone that would prohibit entry 
into Bowery Bay for a limited duration and for a limited number of 
instances each year. Normally such actions are categorically excluded 
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of 
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A draft Record of 
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available 
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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.

[[Page 23621]]

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 the 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 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 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. In Sec.  165.164, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    (a) * * *
    (3) Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport Security Zone: All 
waters of Bowery Bay, Queens, New York, inside of a line drawn from the 
start of the Rikers Island Bridge in Queens at approximate position 
40[deg]46'37'' N, 073[deg]53'30'' W to the intersecting point on the 
southern side of Rikers Island at approximate position 40[deg]47'12'' 
N, 073[deg]53'06'' W, then a line drawn east to the western end of 
LaGuardia Airport at approximate position 40[deg]47'00'' N, 
073[deg]52'44'' W, then a line drawn south following the shoreline back 
to the point of origin at 40[deg]46'37'' N, 073[deg]53'30'' W (NAD 
1983).

    Dated: May 7, 2018.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2018-10899 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.