Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL, 9462-9463 [2022-03600]

Download as PDF 9462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or some other verifiable delivery tracking system, within 60 days of the invoice date. The late payment charge shall be 10 percent of the unpaid balance. Erin Morris, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2022–03460 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2022–0054] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the presedential security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club, and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). The security zone is no longer needed to protect official parties, public, or surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. This proposed action would remove existing regulations that restrict vessel movement through the area. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 24, 2022. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2022–0054 using the Federal Decision Making 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. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 DATES: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Ben Adrien, Waterways Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535–4307, email Benjamin.D.Adrien@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Feb 18, 2022 Jkt 256001 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 May 21, 2018, the United States Coast Guard established a security zone to protect the President of the United States, members of the First Family, and/or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service when staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, FL. The security zone is described 33 CFR 165.785. With the inauguration of a new President of the United States on January 20, 2021, the Mar-A-Lago Club security zone is no longer needed. The purpose of this rulemaking is to disestablish a security zone in certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intercoastal Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean that are no longer need to protect official parties staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club. 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 disestablish the existing security zone published in 33 CFR 165.785. The regulation places unnecessary restrictions on vessel movement through the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 This regulatory action determination is based on the removal of regulatory requirements for vessel navigation in the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic Ocean, near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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). E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 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 disestablishing a security zone. Such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Feb 18, 2022 Jkt 256001 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 001–01, Rev. 1. 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. Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2022–0054 in the search box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https:// www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions. Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select ‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https:// www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. 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. Personal information. 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 to the docket in PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 9463 response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 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, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. § 165.785 ■ [Removed] 2. Remove § 165.785. Dated: February 15, 2022. J.F. Burdian, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami. [FR Doc. 2022–03600 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0872; EPA–HQ– OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9493–01–R3] Air Plan Disapproval; Maryland; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Maryland intended to address interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The ‘‘good neighbor’’ or ‘‘interstate transport’’ provision requires that each state’s SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from within the state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. This requirement is part of the broader set of ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements, which are designed to ensure that the structural components of SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9462-9463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03600]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0054]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the presedential 
security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, 
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago 
Club, and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). 
The security zone is no longer needed to protect official parties, 
public, or surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other 
subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. This 
proposed action would remove existing regulations that restrict vessel 
movement through the area. We invite your comments on this proposed 
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before March 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0054 using the Federal Decision Making 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 LTJG Ben Adrien, Waterways 
Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4307, 
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 May 21, 2018, the United States Coast Guard established a 
security zone to protect the President of the United States, members of 
the First Family, and/or other persons under the protection of the 
Secret Service when staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, FL. 
The security zone is described 33 CFR 165.785. With the inauguration of 
a new President of the United States on January 20, 2021, the Mar-A-
Lago Club security zone is no longer needed.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to disestablish a security zone 
in certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intercoastal Waterway 
(ICW), and Atlantic Ocean that are no longer need to protect official 
parties staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club. 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 disestablish the existing security 
zone published in 33 CFR 165.785. The regulation places unnecessary 
restrictions on vessel movement through the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and 
Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard 
Bridge in Palm Beach. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at 
the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the removal of 
regulatory requirements for vessel navigation in the Lake Worth Lagoon, 
ICW, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern 
Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic Ocean, near the Mar-A-Lago Club 
and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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).

[[Page 9463]]

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 potential effects of 
this proposed 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 
disestablishing a security zone. 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. 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.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through 
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To 
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0054 in the 
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the 
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment 
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate 
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this 
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as 
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & 
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will 
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following 
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 
Questions web page. 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.
    Personal information. 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 
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking 
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

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, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.


Sec.  165.785  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  165.785.

    Dated: February 15, 2022.
J.F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2022-03600 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

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