Regulated Navigation Area; Sparkman Channel, Tampa, FL, 75996-75998 [2020-25654]

Download as PDF 75996 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules (2) If an immediate amendment is needed, requesting the COTP to examine the amendment immediately. (c) The COTP will respond to proposed amendments submitted under paragraph (b) of this section by: (1) Notifying the facility operator that the amendments have been examined by the Coast Guard; or (2) Notifying the facility operator of any inadequacies in the operations manual or proposed amendments, with an explanation of why the manual or amendments do not meet the requirements of this subchapter. * * * * * (e) Amendments may be submitted as page replacements or as an entire manual. When an entire manual is submitted, the facility operator must highlight or otherwise annotate the changes that were made since the last version examined by the Coast Guard. A revision date or other identifying information generated by the facility must be included on the page replacements or amended manual. ■ 8. Amend § 154.325 as follows: ■ a. Remove paragraph (a); ■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (g) as paragraphs (a) through (f); and ■ c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (a) through (d). The revisions read as follows: jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS § 154.325 Operations manual: Procedures for examination. (a) Not less than 60 days prior to the first transfer operation, the operator of a new facility must submit, with the letter of intent, an Operations Manual in printed or electronic format to the COTP of the zone(s) in which the facility is located. (b) After a facility is removed from caretaker status, not less than 30 days prior to the first transfer operation, the operator of that facility must submit an Operations Manual in printed or electronic format to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located, unless the manual has been previously examined and no changes have been made since the examination. (c) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual meets the requirements of this part and part 156 of this chapter, the COTP will provide notice to the facility stating the manual has been examined by the Coast Guard. The notice will include the date, revision date of the manual, or other identifying information generated by the facility. (d) If the COTP finds that the Operations Manual does not meet the requirements of this part or part 156 of this subchapter, the COTP will notify the facility with an explanation of why VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 the manual does not meet the requirements of this subchapter. * * * * * PART 156—OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS 9. The authority citation for part 156 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a, 3715, 70011, 70034; E.O. 11735, 3 CFR 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 10. Revise § 156.120(t)(2) to read as follows: ■ § 156.120 Requirements for transfer. * * * * * (t) * * * (2) Has readily available in the marine transfer area a printed or electronic copy of the most recently examined facility operations manual or vessel transfer procedures, as appropriate; and * * * * * Dated: November 9, 2020. R.V. Timme, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. 2020–25192 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2020–0556] RIN 1625–AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Sparkman Channel, Tampa, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is proposing to remove an existing regulated navigation area in Sparkman Channel, located in Tampa, FL. The regulated navigation area is no longer needed to protect vessels navigating in the area. This proposed action would remove the existing regulations related to restricting vessel draft in the channel due to an underwater pipeline that is no longer a navigational concern. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 28, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2020–0556 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Clark Sanford, Sector St Petersburg, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228–2191 x8105, email Clark.W.Sanford@ 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 II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On January 25, 1991, the Coast Guard established a regulated navigation area in Sparkman Channel. The regulated navigation area is described in 33 CFR 165.752. The regulated navigation area was created to restrict navigation in the area to vessels with a draft of less than 34.5 feet. A recent survey places the sewer line at or below the permitted depth of 42 feet. The navigation hazard is properly marked on the water surface as well as on navigation charts. With the advancement in technologies and mechanical innovations coupled with the expertise of the pilots that guide vessels in and around Port Tampa Bay, the current restricted navigation area along Sparkman Channel has become outdated. The purpose of this rulemaking is to remove unnecessary navigation regulations in Tampa, Florida that are no longer needed to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within Sparkman Channel. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the existing regulated navigation area established in 33 CFR 165.752. This regulation placed restrictions on vessel navigation in Sparkman Channel in Tampa, Florida based on vessel drafts. 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 E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM 27NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). The Coast Guard proposes to revise its regulations by removing the existing regulated navigation area established in 33 CFR 165.752. This regulation placed restrictions on vessel navigation in Sparkman Channel in Tampa, Florida based on vessel drafts. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit Sparkman Channel 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 call or email 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 call or email the person PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 75997 listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section. CONTACT 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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, 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 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 removing existing regulations established in 33 CFR 165.752. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Memorandum for Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. 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 E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM 27NOP1 75998 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules cannot be submitted using https:// www.regulations.gov, call or email 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 submissions in response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 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 Record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 33 CFR 1.01– 1, 6.04–1, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 01070.1. § 165.752 ■ [Removed] 2. Remove § 165.752. Dated: October 29, 2020. Eric C. Jones, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2020–25654 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT STEERING COUNCIL 40 CFR Chapter IX jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS [FPISC Case 2020–001; Docket No. 2020– 0018; Sequence No. 1] RIN 3121–AA01 Adding Mining as a Sector of Projects Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 ACTION: Proposed rule. The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council) proposes to add mining as a sector with infrastructure projects eligible for coverage under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST–41). Current FAST–41 sectors include renewable and conventional energy production, electricity transmission, surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource projects, broadband, pipelines, and manufacturing. The addition of mining as a FAST–41 sector would allow a qualified mining infrastructure project to become a FAST–41 covered project. FAST–41 coverage does not predetermine the outcome of any Federal decision making process, but is intended to improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of the Federal environmental review and authorization processes for covered infrastructure projects. DATES: Please send your comments on this proposal to the Permitting Council Office of the Executive Director on or before December 28, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by FPISC Case 2020–001, or RIN 3121–AA01, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for sending comments. • Mail: Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, Office of the Executive Director, 1800 G St. NW, Suite 2400, Washington, DC 20006, Attention: RIN 3121–AA01. Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FPISC Case 2020–001 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov approximately two-to-three business days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John G. Cossa, General Counsel, Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 1800 G St. NW, Suite 2400, Washington, DC 20006, john.cossa@ fpisc.gov, or by telephone at 202–255– 6936. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact this individual during normal SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 business hours or to leave a message at other times. FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You will receive a reply to a message during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST–41), 42 U.S.C. 4370m et seq., established the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), which comprises the Permitting Council Executive Director; 13 Federal agency council members (including the designees of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Interior, Energy, Transportation, Defense, Homeland Security, and Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chairmen of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation); and additional council members, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 42 U.S.C. 4170m–1(a) & (b). The Permitting Council and the procedural provisions of FAST–41 can improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of the Federal environmental review and authorization processes for ‘‘covered’’ infrastructure projects. See 42 U.S.C. 4370m–2, 4370m–4. The FAST–41 statute provides that infrastructure projects in the following 10 sectors are eligible for FAST–41 coverage: (1) Renewable energy production; (2) conventional energy production; (3) electricity transmission; (4) surface transportation; (5) aviation; (6) ports and waterways; (7) water resource projects; (8) broadband; (9) pipelines; and (10) manufacturing. 42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A). FAST–41 authorizes the Permitting Council to designate additional sectors by majority vote of the Permitting Council members. To qualify for FAST–41 coverage, an infrastructure project in a FAST–41 sector must be located in the United States and require environmental review and authorization by a Federal agency. Id. A project also must: (i) Be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; (ii) be likely to require a total investment of $200 million or more; and (iii) not qualify for abbreviated authorization or environmental review processes under any applicable law. 42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A)(i). Alternatively, a project in a FAST–41 sector could qualify for FAST–41 coverage if: (i) It is subject to E:\FR\FM\27NOP1.SGM 27NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75996-75998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0556]
RIN 1625-AA11


Regulated Navigation Area; Sparkman Channel, Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to remove an existing regulated 
navigation area in Sparkman Channel, located in Tampa, FL. The 
regulated navigation area is no longer needed to protect vessels 
navigating in the area. This proposed action would remove the existing 
regulations related to restricting vessel draft in the channel due to 
an underwater pipeline that is no longer a navigational concern. We 
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before December 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0556 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 Lieutenant Clark Sanford, Sector St 
Petersburg, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191 x8105, 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 January 25, 1991, the Coast Guard established a regulated 
navigation area in Sparkman Channel. The regulated navigation area is 
described in 33 CFR 165.752. The regulated navigation area was created 
to restrict navigation in the area to vessels with a draft of less than 
34.5 feet. A recent survey places the sewer line at or below the 
permitted depth of 42 feet. The navigation hazard is properly marked on 
the water surface as well as on navigation charts. With the advancement 
in technologies and mechanical innovations coupled with the expertise 
of the pilots that guide vessels in and around Port Tampa Bay, the 
current restricted navigation area along Sparkman Channel has become 
outdated.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to remove unnecessary navigation 
regulations in Tampa, Florida that are no longer needed to ensure the 
safety of vessels and the navigable waters within Sparkman Channel. The 
Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the existing regulated 
navigation area established in 33 CFR 165.752. This regulation placed 
restrictions on vessel navigation in Sparkman Channel in Tampa, Florida 
based on vessel drafts. 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

[[Page 75997]]

based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control 
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation 
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, 
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and 
controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
proposed rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because 
this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, it is exempt 
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum 
titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
    The Coast Guard proposes to revise its regulations by removing the 
existing regulated navigation area established in 33 CFR 165.752. This 
regulation placed restrictions on vessel navigation in Sparkman Channel 
in Tampa, Florida based on vessel drafts.

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 
Sparkman Channel 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 call or email 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 call or email 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, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, 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 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 removing 
existing regulations established in 33 CFR 165.752. Normally such 
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 
L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, 
Rev. 1. A preliminary Memorandum for Record supporting this 
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating 
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any 
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

[[Page 75998]]

cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email 
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 
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System 
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    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 Record 
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is 
proposing 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 33 CFR 1.01-1, 6.04-1, and 160.5; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 01070.1.


Sec.  165.752  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  165.752.

     Dated: October 29, 2020.
Eric C. Jones,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2020-25654 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P