Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim Event, MI, 35825-35827 [2019-15834]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
authorization, the Commission has
found that the evils to be eliminated by
the enactment of Federal Power Act
(FPA) section 305(b) are not present
because the potential for abuse would
be unlikely to result from such
interlocks.8 Therefore, we will continue
to require an officer or director who
seeks a new or different interlocking
position, or leaves a position, with
entities covered by § 45.2 and not
subject to the automatic authorization of
§ 45.9(a) to file supplemental
applications and notices of change so
that the Commission may review the
new or different position to ensure that
there continues to be no potential for
abuse.
B. Past Grants of Authorization for
Interlocks That No Longer Require
Commission Authorization
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
1. Final Rule
7. In Order No. 856, the Commission
explained that § 45.2 of the
Commission’s regulations describes the
types of interlocking positions that
require Commission authorization,
including those between a public utility
and entities authorized by law to
underwrite or participate in the
marketing of public utility securities.9
However, in 1999, Congress amended
FPA section 305(b)(2) to provide that an
applicant for certain interlocking
positions is no longer required to obtain
Commission authorization to hold such
positions.10 In Order No. 856, consistent
with the revision of the underlying
statute, the Commission revised § 45.2
of its regulations to add that an
applicant for an interlocking position
between a public utility and a ‘‘bank,
trust company, banking association, or
firm that is authorized by law to
underwrite or participate in the
marketing of public utility securities’’ 11
does not need Commission
authorization when certain
circumstances are present; that is, when:
• The person does not participate in
any deliberations or decisions of the
public utility regarding the selection of
the bank, trust company, banking
association, or firm to underwrite or
participate in the marketing of securities
of the public utility, if the person serves
as an officer or director of a bank, trust
company, banking association, or firm
8 See Automatic Authorization for Holding
Certain Positions that Require Commission
Approval Under Section 305(b) of the Federal
Power Act, Order No. 446, 34 FERC 61,168 at
30,129–30,131 (1986).
9 18 CFR 45.2(b)(2).
10 See Public Law 106–102, sec. 737, 113 Stat.
1338, 1479 (1999) (known as the Gramm-LeachBliley Act).
11 18 CFR 45.2(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 247001
that is under consideration in the
deliberation process;
• the bank, trust company, banking
association, or firm of which the person
is an officer or director does not engage
in the underwriting of, or participate in
the marketing of, securities of the public
utility of which the person holds the
position of officer or director;
• the public utility for which he/she
serves or proposes to serve as an officer
or director selects underwriters by
competitive procedures; or
• the issuance of securities of the
public utility for which the person
serves or proposes to serve as an officer
or director has been approved by all
Federal and State regulatory agencies
having jurisdiction over the issuance.12
2. Request for Rehearing
8. El Paso states that a member of its
board of directors sought and received
Commission approval for an interlock
that was subsequently removed from the
Commission’s FPA jurisdiction as a
result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. El
Paso states that ‘‘[t]he presence of this,
and other, past grants of case-specific
authorizations for interlocks no longer
within the Commission’s Federal Power
Act jurisdiction creates the potential for
confusion and uncertainty regarding
whether those past applicants are
expected to adhere to the requirements
of [p]art 45 of the Commission’s
regulations governing Commissionapproved interlocks.’’ El Paso therefore
seeks the Commission’s grant of
clarification in this regard, or, in the
alternative, rehearing of Order No.
856.13
3. Commission Determination
9. We grant El Paso’s request for
clarification and clarify that if, as a
result of the change in FPA section
305(b)(2) in 1999 and the corresponding
changes to § 45.2 of the Commission’s
regulations made by Order No. 856, an
individual no longer holds an interlock
that requires Commission authorization,
that individual no longer needs to
adhere to the requirements of parts 45
and 46 of the Commission’s regulations
governing Commission approval of such
interlocks. We direct those individuals
holding interlocking positions that no
longer require Commission
authorization to make a notice of change
filing under § 45.5 of the Commission’s
regulations, within 45 days of the
effective date of this order, informing
the Commission that they no longer
hold such interlocks.
12 Order No. 856, 166 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 6; see
also 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)(2).
13 El Paso Request for Rehearing at 4–5.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35825
III. Document Availability
10. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
11. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
12. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours from
FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
Issued: July 18, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–15715 Filed 7–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2019–0624]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim
Event, MI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Straits of
Mackinac within 250-yards of the
Mackinac Bridge. The safety zone is
needed to protect 400 swimmers
participating in a swim across the
Mackinac Straits from risks associated
with the boating public. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
35826
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
This rule is effective from 7 a.m.
through 11 a.m. on August 11, 2019.
DATES:
To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2019–
0624 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email LT Sean Murphy, Waterways
Management, Sector Sault Sainte Marie,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906–635–
3223, email Sean.V.Murphy@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD 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 the
final details of the specific marine event
and safety zone distance were not
finalized within a sufficient time to
allow for notice and a subsequent
comment period before the
commencement of the planned marine
event. Delaying this rule to allow for a
notice and comment period would be
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because it would inhibit the
Coast Guard’s ability to protect the 400
swimmers participating in this swim
event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public
interest because prompt action is
needed to protect the 400 swimmers
participating in this event on August 11,
2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 247001
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
(COTP) has determined that potential
hazards associated with 400 swimmers
swimming across the Straits of
Mackinac in a swim event will be a
safety concern for anyone within 250
yards of the Mackinac Bridge. This rule
is needed to protect event participants
and support vessels during the event.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a safety zone
from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on August 11,
2019. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within 250 yards of the
Mackinac Bridge. The duration of the
zone is intended to protect event
swimmers and support vessels during
the marine event. 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 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 rule has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule 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, duration, and
location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
may request permission to transit the
zone from the designated representative
of the Captain of the Port, who may
escort the vessel across the Safety Zone
when there is no risk to the event
participants. The field of swimmers will
not spread across the entirety of the
waterway; thus, there will be
opportunity for a designated
representative of the Captain of the Port
to escort vessels requesting to transit the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
zone. Moreover, 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 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.
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).
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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 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 rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
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
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01 and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
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 250
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Jul 24, 2019
Jkt 247001
yard safety zone around the Mackinac
Bridge. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a)
in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
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
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0624 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T09–0624 Safety Zone; Straits of
Mackinac Swim Event, MI.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters, from
top to bottom, within 250 yards of the
Mackinac Bridge in the Straits of
Mackinac.
(b) Effective and enforcement period.
This section will be enforced from 7
a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 11, 2019.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart C of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, hail
the COTP’s representative on an
appropriate VHF channel. Those in the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35827
safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the COTP’s designated
representative.
Dated: July 22, 2019.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2019–15834 Filed 7–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2019–0625]
Safety Zones; Recurring Safety Zones
in Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie Zone for Events Beginning in
Late July 2019
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
established safety zones for maritime
events starting in late July 2019 to
provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways. Our regulation for
safety zones within the Captain of the
Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone identifies
the regulated area for these safety zones.
During the enforcement periods, vessels
must stay out of the established safety
zone and may only enter with
permission from the designated
representative of the Captain of the Port
Sault Sainte Marie.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR
165.918 will be enforced for the safety
zones identified in Table 1 of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for the dates and times
specified.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this
publication, call or email LT Sean
Murphy, Waterways Management, Coast
Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 906–635–3223,
email Sean.V.Murphy@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce the safety zones in
33 CFR 165.918 as per the time, dates,
and locations in Table 1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35825-35827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15834]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2019-0624]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim Event, MI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Straits of Mackinac within 250-yards of the
Mackinac Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect 400 swimmers
participating in a swim across the Mackinac Straits from risks
associated with the boating public. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[[Page 35826]]
DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 11,
2019.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0624 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 LT Sean Murphy, Waterways Management, Sector Sault Sainte
Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3223, 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 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 the final details of the specific
marine event and safety zone distance were not finalized within a
sufficient time to allow for notice and a subsequent comment period
before the commencement of the planned marine event. Delaying this rule
to allow for a notice and comment period would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect the 400 swimmers participating in this swim
event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is
needed to protect the 400 swimmers participating in this event on
August 11, 2019.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with 400
swimmers swimming across the Straits of Mackinac in a swim event will
be a safety concern for anyone within 250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge.
This rule is needed to protect event participants and support vessels
during the event.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on
August 11, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within
250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended
to protect event swimmers and support vessels during the marine event.
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 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 rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule 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,
duration, and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic may request
permission to transit the zone from the designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, who may escort the vessel across the Safety
Zone when there is no risk to the event participants. The field of
swimmers will not spread across the entirety of the waterway; thus,
there will be opportunity for a designated representative of the
Captain of the Port to escort vessels requesting to transit the zone.
Moreover, 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 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.
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).
[[Page 35827]]
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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 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
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
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 250 yard safety zone around the
Mackinac Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 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.T09-0624 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T09-0624 Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac Swim Event, MI.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters, from top to bottom, within 250 yards of the Mackinac Bridge in
the Straits of Mackinac.
(b) Effective and enforcement period. This section will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 11, 2019.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, hail the COTP's representative on
an appropriate VHF channel. Those in the safety zone must comply with
all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.
Dated: July 22, 2019.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2019-15834 Filed 7-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
