Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth, DE, 29727-29732 [2021-11764]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. 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 is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0379 to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lake Charles west of 93°13′51.2″ W, east of 93°14′8.3″ W, and extending 500 yards south from the northern shore of Lake Charles. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, on the navigable waters of the Lake Charles during the watercross races. (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 28, 2021 and August 29, 2021. (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at 337–912–0073. (2) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. (3) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. Jkt 253001 BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard § 165.T08–0379 Safety Zone; Lake Charles, Lake Charles, Louisiana. 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Dated: May 27, 2021. Molly A. Wike, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur. [FR Doc. 2021–11584 Filed 6–2–21; 8:45 am] 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 (4) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event. (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate. 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2021–0208] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth, DE Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish two security zones for certain waters of Rehoboth Beach to prevent waterside threats and incidents for persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service (USSS) in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. These security zones would be enforced intermittently and only for the protection of persons protected by USSS when in the area and will restrict vessel traffic while the zone is being enforced. This rule would prohibit vessels and people from entering the zones unless specifically exempt under the provisions of this rule or granted specific permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or a designated representative. Any vessel requesting to transit the zones without pause or delay, will typically be authorized to do so by on scene enforcement vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed rule. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 19, 2021. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29727 2021–0208 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. If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division; telephone 215–271–4889, email Edmund.J.Ofalt@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget § Section U.S.C. United States Code USSS United States Secret Service II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On occasion, persons protected by the USSS under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or pursuant to Presidential memorandum will visit Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and the surrounding vicinity. These visits require the implementation of heightened security measures for persons protected by the USSS who may be present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Due to the close proximity of the Lewes and Rehoboth canal, and the Atlantic Ocean, these security zones are necessary for USSS protectees, the public, and the surrounding waterway. The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to protect USSS protectees and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as delegated by Department of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, section II, paragraph 70, from the Secretary of DHS to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and further redelegated by 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5 to the Captains of the Port. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The COTP is proposing to establish two security zones for the protection of USSS protectees when present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. This rule is necessary to expedite the E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1 29728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules establishment and enforcement of these security zones when short notice is provided to the COTP for USSS protectees who may be present in the area. Security Zone One is bounded on the north by a line drawn from 38° 44.36′ North Latitude (N), 075° 5.32′ West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 38° 44.37′ N, 075° 5.31′ W proceeding from shoreline to shoreline on the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a Southeasterly direction where it is bounded by a line drawn from 38° 43.89′ N, 075° 5.31′ W, thence easterly to 38° 43.90′ N, 075° 5.07′ W thence northerly across the entrance to the yacht basin to 38° 43.93′ N, 075° 5.09′ W. Security Zone Two extends 500 yards seaward from the shoreline, into the Atlantic Ocean beginning at 38° 44.86′ N, 075° 4.83′ W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38° 43.97′ N, 075° 4.70′ W. These security zones may be activated individually or simultaneously with respect to the presence of USSS protectees. These zones will be enforced intermittently. Enforcement of these zones will be broadcast via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and/or local Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) on VHF–FM marine channel 16, as well as actual notice via on scene Coast Guard Personnel. The public can learn the status of the security zone via an information release for the public via website https://homeport.uscg.mil/myhomeport/coast-guard-prevention/ waterway-management?cotpid=40. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter either security zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. However, we anticipate that vessels requesting to transit these zones would typically be authorized to transit without pause or delay by onscene enforcement vessels. When a vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone after obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, the vessel or person must proceed as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. Any vessel or person permitted to transit the security zone would be required to continue through the zone without pause or delay as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. No vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security zone. At times, for limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times, actual notice will be given to vessels in the area. When these security zones are enforced, the COTP would issue a BNM and/or SMIB via VHF–FM channel 16. The public can learn the status of the security zone via an information release for the public via website https:// homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coastguard-prevention/waterwaymanagement?cotpid=40. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘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, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 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. A combined regulatory analysis (RA) and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows. This proposed rule would establish the following two security zones: (1) A half-mile stretch of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal; and (2) a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach stretching 500 yards from the shoreline. The enforcement of these two security zones is expected to be intermittent. Vessels would normally be allowed to transit but not stop within the security zones. However, when persons protected by the USSS are moving in or out of the area, the Coast Guard may halt traffic in these two security zones. The Coast Guard expects such instances to happen relatively infrequently and for a short duration (1–3 hours). In order to implement this rule, the Coast Guard proposes to station Coast Guard personnel at the borders of the security zones with the authority to enforce this security zone. In the few instances where USSS protectees are in transit, these Coast Guard personnel would ensure that no traffic transits through the security zones. Recreational boaters wishing to transit the area may inquire directly with the Coast Guard personnel posted at the boundaries of the security zones, rather than being required to contact the COTP. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule’s costs and qualitative benefits. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS Category khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Potentially Affected Population. Unquantified Costs. Unquantified Benefits. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Summary This rule would impact recreational boaters wishing to use the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North Shores section of Rehoboth Beach. Recreational boaters of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal would need to speak with Coast Guard personnel stationed at the entrances of the security zones. These recreational boaters would be informed that they will be unable to stop or loiter inside the security zone. In certain instances where persons protected by USSS are in transit, traffic may be halted on the Lowes Rehoboth canal. In these instances, recreational boaters wishing to use the canal would instead need to take a circuitous route or forgo their trip all together. This rule would secure the area to meet objectives of the USSS and keep USSS protectees safe. 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules Affected Population The Coast Guard does not collect data on the vessels and individuals using either the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach, the areas that would be impacted by this proposed rule. To estimate the affected population, we used information directly observable from Google Maps, as well as the subjectmatter expertise of Coast Guard personnel with knowledge of the area. The proposed two security zones—a half-mile section of the Lowes Rehoboth Canal and a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach—are distinct. As such, we assess the affected populations for these two areas separately. (1) Security Zone 1: Lewes Rehoboth Canal This proposed regulation would impact any recreational boater wishing to transit the Lewes Rehoboth Canal. The Lewes Rehoboth Canal is about 10 miles long and connects the Broadkill River and the Delaware Bay to Rehoboth Bay. The security zone would begin approximately two-thirds of the way through the canal (if starting from the Delaware Bay) and last for about a half 29729 mile. As such, recreational boaters wishing to transit the canal from the communities of Lewes, Dewey Beach, North Shores, Rehoboth Beach, and West Rehoboth may be impacted by this proposed rule.1 These communities are seasonal; their populations are much larger and more active in the summer than in the winter. Vessel traffic in the canal follows the same pattern. Coast Guard officers stationed in this region estimated the numbers of vessels transiting this zone per day by season. We present these estimates in table 2. TABLE 2—VESSEL TRAFFIC BY TIME OF YEAR Months Vessels transiting the canal per day khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS January through March ............................................................................ April ........................................................................................................... May through September ........................................................................... October through December ...................................................................... 20 vessels per 75 vessels per More than 200 50 vessels per day. day. vessels per day. day. The vessel traffic in the canal is entirely recreational. There are no commercial vessels that transit the canal. Moreover, the canal is quite shallow. The Coast Guard’s 27-foot vessels navigate the canal with difficulty because of the depth. Kayaks, canoes, and other manually powered watercraft are frequently used in the canal (not counted in the daily vessel traffic estimates). In addition to the daily traffic of recreational boaters wishing to transit the security zone, there are a number of boat slips located either within the security zone or require transiting the security zone to access. There are also houses that border sections of the canal wholly inside the security zone. We reviewed satellite images from Google Maps to identify the number of boat slips within the security zone or require transiting the security zone to access. Based on these satellite images, we estimate that 17 private houses that lie entirely within the canal security zone contain either a boat slip or dock. The boat slips indicate that recreational vessel usage might be undertaken by the owners or occupiers of these properties. Because they lie fully inside the security zone, they would be impacted every time they took out their vessels. Additionally, a small man-made canal branches off the main Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and leads into a small man-made lake. The southern edge of the safety zone continues just past the entrance to this second canal. Private houses and the North Shores Marina inhabit the land surrounding the second canal and its adjoining lake. Some of these houses contain docks or boat slips. Recreational vessel operators would require transiting through the security zone to reach either the boat slips at these private homes or the North Shores Marina. Use of this canal and lake is primarily local and by small recreational vessels, as this second canal may only be 3 feet deep in certain places. Using Google Maps, we count 14 boat slips or docks connected to private houses and 30 spaces for recreational vessels at the North Shores Marina. 1 Dewey Beach lies on the isthmus between Rehoboth Bay and the Atlantic Ocean south of Rehoboth beach and north of the Delaware Seashore State Park. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 (2) Security Zone 2: Rehoboth Beach This proposed rule would also impact any recreational boaters that would transit the area 1 mile by 500 yards offshore of the North Shores section of Rehoboth Beach. Because of its proximity to the shore, the Coast Guard does not estimate than any recreational boaters or commercial vessels routinely operate in this section of the ocean. Vessels operating this close to shore could face additional hazards due to the surf and other marine currents and would avoid this area. Costs As above, we assess the costs to the two security zones separately. (1) Security Zone 1: Lewes and Rehoboth Canal In table 2, we present the Coast Guard’s estimate of the average vessel PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 traffic. Under normal course of operations, the Coast Guard anticipates that recreational boaters transiting the canal would have a very brief conversation with the Coast Guard official stationed at the entrance to the security zone. Recreational boaters would then proceed through the security zone (without stopping or loitering) and exit the security zone. We anticipate that this conversation would last between 15 and 30 seconds per recreational boater. Because we do not know how many recreational boaters are on the average boat and because of how small the amount of time per recreational boaters is likely to be, we do not estimate the total costs of these conversations. Additionally, above we discussed that there are a number of houses and a marina that are contained within the security zone or would require transiting the security zone in order to access. The Coast Guard observes that recreational vessel operators who reside or are visiting a location inside the security zone should be able to relay this information to the Coast Guard personnel stationed at the entrance of the security zone. When recreational boaters provide this additional information, it may increase the duration of the conversation. However, there are only 17 houses with private docks or boat slips contained within the security zone. It is likely, therefore, that the Coast Guard personnel stationed at either end of the security zone would E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 29730 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules become aware of these vessels and their owners and operators. As a result, conversations may become more brief overtime. In order to access the private docks and boat slips of the 14 houses and the North Shores Marina, recreational vessel operators would need to transit through a small portion of the security zone. The Coast Guard would interpret the vessels seeking to access this second canal as innocent passage. As a result, the Coast Guard personnel do not intend to converse with recreational boaters intending to access the second canal unless they notice suspicious activity. Instead, Coast Guard personnel would report vessels transiting the second canal to the USSS representatives. Because Coast Guard personnel would not converse with the recreational vessel operators transiting this region, we estimate that there would be no costs on boaters who only pass through the lower stretch of the canal security zone in order to access the North Shores Marina or the private houses on the canal or lake. The costs discussed above cover the normal operations when access to the canal is still permitted. However, when certain individuals protected by USSS are transiting the area, the Coast Guard may shut down access to the canal. Such closures could last from 1 to 3 hours, or longer. If the security zone is closed to all traffic, recreational boaters would not be able to transit the length of the canal. Recreational boaters wishing to transit through the security zone would be unable to do so. If this closure happens suddenly, recreational boaters could be stranded on either side of the canal. The distance through the canal is about 10 miles, but to avoid the canal by taking a more circuitous route around Rehoboth Beach would add 25 miles to the journey. Additionally, a significant portion of this distance requires operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is considerably rougher than the intracoastal waterways. As a result, many of the recreational watercraft unable to transit the security zone may be unable to take an alternate route, either because they may not have a vessel suitable to a coastwise route or may not have the time to add an additional 25 miles on to the journey. Because we do not know the frequency or duration of full closures of the security zone, we are unable to quantitatively assess the costs to either temporarily stranded vessel operators or to vessel operators wishing to transit the closed waterway. Public comments as to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 the frequency and use of the canal in this security zone are encouraged.2 this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives: (2) Security Zone 2: North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach on the Atlantic Ocean Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo Without this proposed rule, malfeasant actors could have unfettered access to locations near persons protected by USSS. We believe that this unfettered access presents an unacceptable security risk to the United States. As such, we rejected this alternative. We do not estimate that any vessels would routinely operate in this section of Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the Affected Population section above. Additionally, were recreational vessel operators to transit this security zone, it is far easier to exit or avoid the security zone than in the canal. Recreational boaters merely would need to be greater than 500 yards from shore. As a result, we do not estimate any costs incurred by the second proposed security zone. Benefits Upon request by the USSS for the Coast Guard to implement security measures in certain sections of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and certain sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, the Coast Guard is proposing to create two security zones covering these areas. The security zones are necessary to prevent waterside threats and incidents that could impact the safety and security of USSS protectees when present in the area. Both security zones aid the USSS in controlling the area and preventing actors wishing to cause harm to the functioning of the U.S. Government by attacking persons protected by the USSS. Were such an attack to be attempted or to occur, the societal impacts could be sizable and potentially severe to the Nation’s Government. Additionally, the local impacts would be substantial as well. The area could be closed for a significant period as any necessary investigations occur. This proposed regulatory action would greatly decrease the likelihood of these potential impacts. The Coast Guard has no way to quantify the frequency of malfeasant actors or the extent to which this proposed rule would diminish the frequency of their attempted or successful actions. However, we believe that the value of these benefits would be greater than the costs of the proposed regulation. Regulatory Alternatives Considered We considered alternatives to the proposed regulatory action to determine if an alternative could accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and could minimize any economic impact on small entities. In developing 2 Details as to what type of boat or vessel, the frequency, number of people usually onboard, and the location from which the vessel came from are requested. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Alternative 2: Do Not Permit any Traffic Inside the Security Zone The Coast Guard considered closing the security zone to traffic entirely, which would have had the added cost of making it impossible to fully transit the canal. We rejected this alternative because there are potentially over 200 recreational boaters a day transiting the proposed security zones in the summer. These boaters would lose their ability to have recreational access of the waterway and any enjoyment that provides them. Additionally, 31 homes with boat slips and a marina with 30 spots are inaccessible without transiting the security zones. These homes, despite existing on the canal with a dock, would be unable to use the waterway. Consequently, we rejected this alternative because the costs would be too high. Alternative 3: Allow Vessels To Transit the Waterway, But Do Not Permit Vessels To Transit During the Movement of Certain Individuals Protected by USSS This is our preferred alternative and discussed throughout the regulatory analysis. We believe it balances the costs to public in the form of quick conversations with transiting recreational vessels and the occasional inconvenience of a temporary canal closure due to USSS protectees moving around the area with the benefits of ensuring the security of these protected persons. B. Impact on Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people. As discussed above, the affected population is entirely recreational. As a result, the individuals impacted by this E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules proposed rule cannot be small entities fitting the definitions set out by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this analysis, we found this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 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. 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. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 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. 4321–4370(f)), 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 two security zones for the protection of USSS protectees while present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration 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. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29731 V. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https:// www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https:// www.regulations.gov 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 public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website’s instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard 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, 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 § 165.561 to read as follows:. E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1 29732 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS § 165.561 Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE. (a) Location. The following area are security zones; these coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83): (1) Security zone one: All waters of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal bounded on the north by a line drawn from 38° 44.35′ North Latitude (N), 075° 5.32′ West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 38° 44.37′ N, 075° 5.31′ W proceeding from shoreline to shoreline on the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a Southeasterly direction where it is bounded by a line drawn from 38° 43.89′ N, 075° 5.31′ W, thence easterly to 38° 43.90′ N, 075° 5.07′ W thence northerly across the entrance to the yacht basin to 38° 43.93′ N, 075° 5.09′ W. (2) Security zone two: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean extending 500 yards seaward from a line beginning at 38° 44.86′ N, 075° 4.86′ W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38° 43.97′ N, 075° 4.70′ W. (b) Definitions. As used in this section— Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) in the enforcement of the security zone. USSS protectee means any person for whom the United States Secret Service requests implementation of a security zone in order to supplement protection of said person(s). Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessel assigned or approved by the COTP. (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations contained in § 165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Sector Delaware Bay, or designated representative. (2) Entry into or remaining in a security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative when the security zones are being enforced. At the start of each enforcement, all persons and vessels within the security zone must depart the zones immediately or obtain authorization from the COTP or designated representative to remain within either zone. All vessels authorized to remain in the zone(s) must VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:29 Jun 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 proceed as directed by the COTP or designated representative. (3) A person or vessel operator who intends to enter or transit the security zones while the zones are being enforced must obtain authorization from the COTP or designated representative. While the zones are being enforced the COTP or designated representative will determine access to the zones on a caseby-case basis. A person or vessel operator requesting permission to enter or transit the security zone may contact the COTP or designated representative at 215–271–4807 or on marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by visually or verbally hailing the onscene law enforcement vessel enforcing the zone. On-scene Coast Guard personnel enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio, VHF– FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The operator of a vessel must proceed as directed upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means. When authorized by the COTP or designated representative to enter the security zone all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the security zone. (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, a person or operator of a vessel must proceed as directed. Failure to comply with lawful direction may result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to comply, or both. (5) Unless specifically authorized by on scene enforcement vessels, no vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security zone. A vessel granted permission to enter or transit within the security zone(s) must do so without delay or pause for the entirety of its time within the boundaries of the security zone(s). At times, for limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times, the Coast Guard will provide actual notice to vessels in the area. (6) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entirety of either or both security zones if deemed necessary to address security threats or concerns. (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 described in paragraph (a) of this section. (d) Enforcement. (1) The Coast Guard activates the security zones when requested by the U.S. Secret Service for the protection of individuals who qualify for protection under 18 U.S.C 3056(a) or Presidential memorandum. The COTP will provide the public with notice of enforcement of security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), information release at the website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/myhomeport/coast-guard-prevention/ waterway-management?cotpid=40 as well as on-scene notice by designated representative or other appropriate means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. (2) These security zones may be enforced individually or simultaneously. Dated: May 27, 2021. Jonathan D. Theel, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay. [FR Doc. 2021–11764 Filed 6–2–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 20 International Mailing Services: Price Changes Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. AGENCY: The Postal Service proposes to revise Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM®), to reflect changes coincident with the recently announced mailing services price adjustments. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 6, 2021. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service®, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, RM 4446, Washington, DC 20260– 5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor N, Washington DC by appointment only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling 1–202–268–2906 in advance. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, to: PCFederalRegister@usps.gov, with a subject line of ‘‘August 2021 International Mailing Services Proposed Price Changes.’’ Faxed comments are not accepted. All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03JNP1.SGM 03JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29727-29732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0208]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, 
Rehoboth, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish two security zones 
for certain waters of Rehoboth Beach to prevent waterside threats and 
incidents for persons under the protection of the United States Secret 
Service (USSS) in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. These 
security zones would be enforced intermittently and only for the 
protection of persons protected by USSS when in the area and will 
restrict vessel traffic while the zone is being enforced. This rule 
would prohibit vessels and people from entering the zones unless 
specifically exempt under the provisions of this rule or granted 
specific permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or 
a designated representative. Any vessel requesting to transit the zones 
without pause or delay, will typically be authorized to do so by on 
scene enforcement vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed 
rule.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before July 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0208 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 Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, U.S. 
Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division; 
telephone 215-271-4889, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USSS United States Secret Service

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On occasion, persons protected by the USSS under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or 
pursuant to Presidential memorandum will visit Rehoboth Beach, 
Delaware, and the surrounding vicinity. These visits require the 
implementation of heightened security measures for persons protected by 
the USSS who may be present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, 
Delaware. Due to the close proximity of the Lewes and Rehoboth canal, 
and the Atlantic Ocean, these security zones are necessary for USSS 
protectees, the public, and the surrounding waterway.
    The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to protect USSS 
protectees and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from 
sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist 
acts. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 
46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as delegated by Department 
of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, section II, paragraph 70, 
from the Secretary of DHS to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, 
and further redelegated by 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 to 
the Captains of the Port.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish two security zones for the 
protection of USSS protectees when present in the vicinity of Rehoboth 
Beach, Delaware. This rule is necessary to expedite the

[[Page 29728]]

establishment and enforcement of these security zones when short notice 
is provided to the COTP for USSS protectees who may be present in the 
area.
    Security Zone One is bounded on the north by a line drawn from 
38[deg] 44.36' North Latitude (N), 075[deg] 5.32' West Longitude (W), 
thence easterly to 38[deg] 44.37' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W proceeding from 
shoreline to shoreline on the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a 
Southeasterly direction where it is bounded by a line drawn from 
38[deg] 43.89' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W, thence easterly to 38[deg] 43.90' 
N, 075[deg] 5.07' W thence northerly across the entrance to the yacht 
basin to 38[deg] 43.93' N, 075[deg] 5.09' W.
    Security Zone Two extends 500 yards seaward from the shoreline, 
into the Atlantic Ocean beginning at 38[deg] 44.86' N, 075[deg] 4.83' 
W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38[deg] 43.97' N, 
075[deg] 4.70' W.
    These security zones may be activated individually or 
simultaneously with respect to the presence of USSS protectees. These 
zones will be enforced intermittently. Enforcement of these zones will 
be broadcast via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and/or local Safety 
Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) on VHF-FM marine channel 16, as 
well as actual notice via on scene Coast Guard Personnel. The public 
can learn the status of the security zone via an information release 
for the public via website https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40.
    No vessel or person would be permitted to enter either security 
zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated 
representative. However, we anticipate that vessels requesting to 
transit these zones would typically be authorized to transit without 
pause or delay by on-scene enforcement vessels. When a vessel or person 
is permitted to enter the security zone after obtaining permission from 
the COTP or a designated representative, the vessel or person must 
proceed as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. Any vessel or 
person permitted to transit the security zone would be required to 
continue through the zone without pause or delay as directed by on 
scene enforcement vessels. No vessel or person will be permitted to 
stop or anchor in the security zone. At times, for limited duration, it 
is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone 
due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times, 
actual notice will be given to vessels in the area.
    When these security zones are enforced, the COTP would issue a BNM 
and/or SMIB via VHF-FM channel 16. The public can learn the status of 
the security zone via an information release for the public via website 
https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this 
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``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, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility.
    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. A combined 
regulatory analysis (RA) and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows.
    This proposed rule would establish the following two security 
zones: (1) A half-mile stretch of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal; and (2) 
a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach stretching 500 yards from the 
shoreline. The enforcement of these two security zones is expected to 
be intermittent. Vessels would normally be allowed to transit but not 
stop within the security zones. However, when persons protected by the 
USSS are moving in or out of the area, the Coast Guard may halt traffic 
in these two security zones. The Coast Guard expects such instances to 
happen relatively infrequently and for a short duration (1-3 hours).
    In order to implement this rule, the Coast Guard proposes to 
station Coast Guard personnel at the borders of the security zones with 
the authority to enforce this security zone. In the few instances where 
USSS protectees are in transit, these Coast Guard personnel would 
ensure that no traffic transits through the security zones. 
Recreational boaters wishing to transit the area may inquire directly 
with the Coast Guard personnel posted at the boundaries of the security 
zones, rather than being required to contact the COTP.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's costs and 
qualitative benefits.

             Table 1--Summary of the Proposed Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially Affected           This rule would impact recreational
 Population.                    boaters wishing to use the Lewes and
                                Rehoboth Canal or the North Shores
                                section of Rehoboth Beach.
Unquantified Costs...........  Recreational boaters of the Lewes and
                                Rehoboth Canal would need to speak with
                                Coast Guard personnel stationed at the
                                entrances of the security zones. These
                                recreational boaters would be informed
                                that they will be unable to stop or
                                loiter inside the security zone. In
                                certain instances where persons
                                protected by USSS are in transit,
                                traffic may be halted on the Lowes
                                Rehoboth canal. In these instances,
                                recreational boaters wishing to use the
                                canal would instead need to take a
                                circuitous route or forgo their trip all
                                together.
Unquantified Benefits........  This rule would secure the area to meet
                                objectives of the USSS and keep USSS
                                protectees safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29729]]

Affected Population
    The Coast Guard does not collect data on the vessels and 
individuals using either the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North 
Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach, the areas that would be impacted by 
this proposed rule. To estimate the affected population, we used 
information directly observable from Google Maps, as well as the 
subject-matter expertise of Coast Guard personnel with knowledge of the 
area.
    The proposed two security zones--a half-mile section of the Lowes 
Rehoboth Canal and a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach--are distinct. 
As such, we assess the affected populations for these two areas 
separately.
(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes Rehoboth Canal
    This proposed regulation would impact any recreational boater 
wishing to transit the Lewes Rehoboth Canal. The Lewes Rehoboth Canal 
is about 10 miles long and connects the Broadkill River and the 
Delaware Bay to Rehoboth Bay. The security zone would begin 
approximately two-thirds of the way through the canal (if starting from 
the Delaware Bay) and last for about a half mile. As such, recreational 
boaters wishing to transit the canal from the communities of Lewes, 
Dewey Beach, North Shores, Rehoboth Beach, and West Rehoboth may be 
impacted by this proposed rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dewey Beach lies on the isthmus between Rehoboth Bay and the 
Atlantic Ocean south of Rehoboth beach and north of the Delaware 
Seashore State Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These communities are seasonal; their populations are much larger 
and more active in the summer than in the winter. Vessel traffic in the 
canal follows the same pattern. Coast Guard officers stationed in this 
region estimated the numbers of vessels transiting this zone per day by 
season. We present these estimates in table 2.

                 Table 2--Vessel Traffic by Time of Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Vessels transiting the canal
                 Months                              per day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January through March..................  20 vessels per day.
April..................................  75 vessels per day.
May through September..................  More than 200 vessels per day.
October through December...............  50 vessels per day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vessel traffic in the canal is entirely recreational. There are 
no commercial vessels that transit the canal. Moreover, the canal is 
quite shallow. The Coast Guard's 27-foot vessels navigate the canal 
with difficulty because of the depth. Kayaks, canoes, and other 
manually powered watercraft are frequently used in the canal (not 
counted in the daily vessel traffic estimates).
    In addition to the daily traffic of recreational boaters wishing to 
transit the security zone, there are a number of boat slips located 
either within the security zone or require transiting the security zone 
to access. There are also houses that border sections of the canal 
wholly inside the security zone. We reviewed satellite images from 
Google Maps to identify the number of boat slips within the security 
zone or require transiting the security zone to access. Based on these 
satellite images, we estimate that 17 private houses that lie entirely 
within the canal security zone contain either a boat slip or dock. The 
boat slips indicate that recreational vessel usage might be undertaken 
by the owners or occupiers of these properties. Because they lie fully 
inside the security zone, they would be impacted every time they took 
out their vessels.
    Additionally, a small man-made canal branches off the main Lewes 
and Rehoboth Canal and leads into a small man-made lake. The southern 
edge of the safety zone continues just past the entrance to this second 
canal. Private houses and the North Shores Marina inhabit the land 
surrounding the second canal and its adjoining lake. Some of these 
houses contain docks or boat slips. Recreational vessel operators would 
require transiting through the security zone to reach either the boat 
slips at these private homes or the North Shores Marina. Use of this 
canal and lake is primarily local and by small recreational vessels, as 
this second canal may only be 3 feet deep in certain places. Using 
Google Maps, we count 14 boat slips or docks connected to private 
houses and 30 spaces for recreational vessels at the North Shores 
Marina.
(2) Security Zone 2: Rehoboth Beach
    This proposed rule would also impact any recreational boaters that 
would transit the area 1 mile by 500 yards offshore of the North Shores 
section of Rehoboth Beach. Because of its proximity to the shore, the 
Coast Guard does not estimate than any recreational boaters or 
commercial vessels routinely operate in this section of the ocean. 
Vessels operating this close to shore could face additional hazards due 
to the surf and other marine currents and would avoid this area.
Costs
    As above, we assess the costs to the two security zones separately.
(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
    In table 2, we present the Coast Guard's estimate of the average 
vessel traffic. Under normal course of operations, the Coast Guard 
anticipates that recreational boaters transiting the canal would have a 
very brief conversation with the Coast Guard official stationed at the 
entrance to the security zone. Recreational boaters would then proceed 
through the security zone (without stopping or loitering) and exit the 
security zone. We anticipate that this conversation would last between 
15 and 30 seconds per recreational boater. Because we do not know how 
many recreational boaters are on the average boat and because of how 
small the amount of time per recreational boaters is likely to be, we 
do not estimate the total costs of these conversations.
    Additionally, above we discussed that there are a number of houses 
and a marina that are contained within the security zone or would 
require transiting the security zone in order to access. The Coast 
Guard observes that recreational vessel operators who reside or are 
visiting a location inside the security zone should be able to relay 
this information to the Coast Guard personnel stationed at the entrance 
of the security zone. When recreational boaters provide this additional 
information, it may increase the duration of the conversation. However, 
there are only 17 houses with private docks or boat slips contained 
within the security zone. It is likely, therefore, that the Coast Guard 
personnel stationed at either end of the security zone would

[[Page 29730]]

become aware of these vessels and their owners and operators. As a 
result, conversations may become more brief overtime.
    In order to access the private docks and boat slips of the 14 
houses and the North Shores Marina, recreational vessel operators would 
need to transit through a small portion of the security zone. The Coast 
Guard would interpret the vessels seeking to access this second canal 
as innocent passage. As a result, the Coast Guard personnel do not 
intend to converse with recreational boaters intending to access the 
second canal unless they notice suspicious activity. Instead, Coast 
Guard personnel would report vessels transiting the second canal to the 
USSS representatives. Because Coast Guard personnel would not converse 
with the recreational vessel operators transiting this region, we 
estimate that there would be no costs on boaters who only pass through 
the lower stretch of the canal security zone in order to access the 
North Shores Marina or the private houses on the canal or lake.
    The costs discussed above cover the normal operations when access 
to the canal is still permitted. However, when certain individuals 
protected by USSS are transiting the area, the Coast Guard may shut 
down access to the canal. Such closures could last from 1 to 3 hours, 
or longer. If the security zone is closed to all traffic, recreational 
boaters would not be able to transit the length of the canal. 
Recreational boaters wishing to transit through the security zone would 
be unable to do so.
    If this closure happens suddenly, recreational boaters could be 
stranded on either side of the canal. The distance through the canal is 
about 10 miles, but to avoid the canal by taking a more circuitous 
route around Rehoboth Beach would add 25 miles to the journey. 
Additionally, a significant portion of this distance requires 
operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is considerably 
rougher than the intracoastal waterways. As a result, many of the 
recreational watercraft unable to transit the security zone may be 
unable to take an alternate route, either because they may not have a 
vessel suitable to a coastwise route or may not have the time to add an 
additional 25 miles on to the journey.
    Because we do not know the frequency or duration of full closures 
of the security zone, we are unable to quantitatively assess the costs 
to either temporarily stranded vessel operators or to vessel operators 
wishing to transit the closed waterway. Public comments as to the 
frequency and use of the canal in this security zone are encouraged.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Details as to what type of boat or vessel, the frequency, 
number of people usually onboard, and the location from which the 
vessel came from are requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Security Zone 2: North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach on the 
Atlantic Ocean
    We do not estimate that any vessels would routinely operate in this 
section of Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the Affected Population 
section above. Additionally, were recreational vessel operators to 
transit this security zone, it is far easier to exit or avoid the 
security zone than in the canal. Recreational boaters merely would need 
to be greater than 500 yards from shore. As a result, we do not 
estimate any costs incurred by the second proposed security zone.
Benefits
    Upon request by the USSS for the Coast Guard to implement security 
measures in certain sections of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and 
certain sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, the Coast Guard is 
proposing to create two security zones covering these areas. The 
security zones are necessary to prevent waterside threats and incidents 
that could impact the safety and security of USSS protectees when 
present in the area.
    Both security zones aid the USSS in controlling the area and 
preventing actors wishing to cause harm to the functioning of the U.S. 
Government by attacking persons protected by the USSS. Were such an 
attack to be attempted or to occur, the societal impacts could be 
sizable and potentially severe to the Nation's Government. 
Additionally, the local impacts would be substantial as well. The area 
could be closed for a significant period as any necessary 
investigations occur. This proposed regulatory action would greatly 
decrease the likelihood of these potential impacts. The Coast Guard has 
no way to quantify the frequency of malfeasant actors or the extent to 
which this proposed rule would diminish the frequency of their 
attempted or successful actions. However, we believe that the value of 
these benefits would be greater than the costs of the proposed 
regulation.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    We considered alternatives to the proposed regulatory action to 
determine if an alternative could accomplish the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes and could minimize any economic impact on small 
entities. In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the 
following alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo
    Without this proposed rule, malfeasant actors could have unfettered 
access to locations near persons protected by USSS. We believe that 
this unfettered access presents an unacceptable security risk to the 
United States. As such, we rejected this alternative.
Alternative 2: Do Not Permit any Traffic Inside the Security Zone
    The Coast Guard considered closing the security zone to traffic 
entirely, which would have had the added cost of making it impossible 
to fully transit the canal. We rejected this alternative because there 
are potentially over 200 recreational boaters a day transiting the 
proposed security zones in the summer. These boaters would lose their 
ability to have recreational access of the waterway and any enjoyment 
that provides them. Additionally, 31 homes with boat slips and a marina 
with 30 spots are inaccessible without transiting the security zones. 
These homes, despite existing on the canal with a dock, would be unable 
to use the waterway. Consequently, we rejected this alternative because 
the costs would be too high.
Alternative 3: Allow Vessels To Transit the Waterway, But Do Not Permit 
Vessels To Transit During the Movement of Certain Individuals Protected 
by USSS
    This is our preferred alternative and discussed throughout the 
regulatory analysis. We believe it balances the costs to public in the 
form of quick conversations with transiting recreational vessels and 
the occasional inconvenience of a temporary canal closure due to USSS 
protectees moving around the area with the benefits of ensuring the 
security of these protected persons.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
    As discussed above, the affected population is entirely 
recreational. As a result, the individuals impacted by this

[[Page 29731]]

proposed rule cannot be small entities fitting the definitions set out 
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this analysis, we found 
this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Therefore, 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. 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. 4321-4370(f)), 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 two 
security zones for the protection of USSS protectees while present in 
the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Normally such actions are 
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of 
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A 
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration 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.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so 
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for 
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov 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 public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's 
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post 
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not 
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we 
receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, 
you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is 
published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard 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, 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.  165.561 to read as follows:.

[[Page 29732]]

Sec.  165.561   Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic 
Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE.

    (a) Location. The following area are security zones; these 
coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83):
    (1) Security zone one: All waters of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal 
bounded on the north by a line drawn from 38[deg] 44.35' North Latitude 
(N), 075[deg] 5.32' West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 38[deg] 
44.37' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W proceeding from shoreline to shoreline on 
the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a Southeasterly direction where it is 
bounded by a line drawn from 38[deg] 43.89' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W, thence 
easterly to 38[deg] 43.90' N, 075[deg] 5.07' W thence northerly across 
the entrance to the yacht basin to 38[deg] 43.93' N, 075[deg] 5.09' W.
    (2) Security zone two: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean extending 
500 yards seaward from a line beginning at 38[deg] 44.86' N, 075[deg] 
4.86' W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38[deg] 43.97' N, 
075[deg] 4.70' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer 
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) 
in the enforcement of the security zone.
    USSS protectee means any person for whom the United States Secret 
Service requests implementation of a security zone in order to 
supplement protection of said person(s).
    Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard 
Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessel assigned or approved 
by the COTP.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations 
contained in Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within 
this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Sector Delaware 
Bay, or designated representative.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in a security zone described in 
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the 
COTP or designated representative when the security zones are being 
enforced. At the start of each enforcement, all persons and vessels 
within the security zone must depart the zones immediately or obtain 
authorization from the COTP or designated representative to remain 
within either zone. All vessels authorized to remain in the zone(s) 
must proceed as directed by the COTP or designated representative.
    (3) A person or vessel operator who intends to enter or transit the 
security zones while the zones are being enforced must obtain 
authorization from the COTP or designated representative. While the 
zones are being enforced the COTP or designated representative will 
determine access to the zones on a case-by-case basis. A person or 
vessel operator requesting permission to enter or transit the security 
zone may contact the COTP or designated representative at 215-271-4807 
or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by visually 
or verbally hailing the on-scene law enforcement vessel enforcing the 
zone. On-scene Coast Guard personnel enforcing this section can be 
contacted on marine band radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The 
operator of a vessel must proceed as directed upon being hailed by a 
U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other 
means. When authorized by the COTP or designated representative to 
enter the security zone all persons and vessels must comply with the 
instructions of the COTP or designated representative and proceed at 
the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the 
security zone.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other 
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren, 
radio, flashing light or other means, a person or operator of a vessel 
must proceed as directed. Failure to comply with lawful direction may 
result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to 
comply, or both.
    (5) Unless specifically authorized by on scene enforcement vessels, 
no vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security 
zone. A vessel granted permission to enter or transit within the 
security zone(s) must do so without delay or pause for the entirety of 
its time within the boundaries of the security zone(s). At times, for 
limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from 
entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During 
those times, the Coast Guard will provide actual notice to vessels in 
the area.
    (6) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entirety of either or both 
security zones if deemed necessary to address security threats or 
concerns.
    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the 
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. (1) The Coast Guard activates the security zones 
when requested by the U.S. Secret Service for the protection of 
individuals who qualify for protection under 18 U.S.C 3056(a) or 
Presidential memorandum. The COTP will provide the public with notice 
of enforcement of security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), 
information release at the website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40 as well 
as on-scene notice by designated representative or other appropriate 
means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (2) These security zones may be enforced individually or 
simultaneously.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2021-11764 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P