Regulated Navigation Area; Sparkman Channel, Tampa, FL, 75996-75998 [2020-25654]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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: https://
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 https://
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
