Removal of Regulated Navigation Areas Within District 5, 7357-7359 [2023-02160]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(2) After performing the action required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative life limits may be approved.
(3) The action required by paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD may be performed by the owner/
operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot
certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with
this AD in accordance with § § 43.9(a) and
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be
maintained as required by § 91.417, 121.380,
or 135.439.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in
§ 39.19. In accordance with § 39.19, send
your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and
email to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(i) Additional Information
(1) Refer to European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022–0008, dated
January 19, 2022, for related information.
This EASA AD may be found in the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA–2022–1302.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781)
238–7146; email: barbara.caufield@faa.gov.
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference
None.
Issued on January 6, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. R1–2023–00490 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099–10–D
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Final rule; delay of effective
date.
As of February 3, 2023, the
effective date for the final rule
published January 6, 2023, at 88 FR 953,
is delayed to April 7, 2023.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vicki Wedell, NOAA Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries, (240) 533–0650,
Vicki.Wedell@noaa.gov.
Correction
In rule document 2023–00943,
appearing on pages 3311 through 3313
in the issue of Thursday, January 19,
2023:
■ On page 3312, the far right heading in
the table named ‘‘TABLE 1 OF
§ 1010.821—PENALTY ADJUSTMENT
TABLE’’, is corrected to read the
following:
§ 1010.821 Penalty adjustment and table
[Corrected]
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
33 CFR Part 165
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA) authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to designate,
manage, and protect, as a national
marine sanctuary (NMS), any area of the
marine environment that is of special
national significance due to its
conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, scientific, cultural,
archeological, educational, or esthetic
qualities (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). NMSA
provides the legal basis and serves as
the authority under which NOAA issues
this action.
[Docket No. USCG–2023–0053]
[FR Doc. 2023–02268 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am]
RIN 0648–AV85
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P
National Marine Sanctuary
Regulations; Delay of Effective Date
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Department of Commerce
(DOC).
AGENCY:
Jkt 259001
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; Inflation Adjustment of Civil
Monetary Penalties
Maximum penalty amounts or range
of minimum and maximum penalty
amounts for penalties assessed on or
after 1/19/2023
[Docket No. 230130–0031]
15:54 Feb 02, 2023
31 CFR Part 1010
NOAA
published a final rule January 6, 2023
(88 FR 953), which updated and
streamlined ONMS regulations. NOAA
is preparing technical corrections to the
final rule. NOAA is delaying the
effective date of February 6, 2023, for
the final rule by 60 days, to April 7,
2023. The delay in the effective date is
necessary to provide time for ONMS to
publish the technical corrections in
advance of the final rule taking effect.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
15 CFR Part 922
VerDate Sep<11>2014
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
On January 6, 2023, NOAA
published a final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register and that amended
the ONMS regulations. The final rule
was published with a 30-day delayed
effective date (February 6, 2023). This
action delays the effective date of the
final rule by 60 days, until April 7,
2023.
SUMMARY:
Nicole R. LeBoeuf,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services
and Coastal Zone Management, National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
ACTION:
7357
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[FR Doc. C1–2023–00943 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
RIN 1625–AA11
Removal of Regulated Navigation
Areas Within District 5
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is updating
District 5 regulations to remove two
regulated navigation areas in Captain of
the Port Zone (COTP) North Carolina
within District 5 that are no longer
needed. These areas were created to
address the impacts of extreme shoaling
in the Oregon Inlet, but subsequent
Army Corps of Engineers dredging
activities have alleviated the issue. The
Coast Guard is removing these regulated
navigation areas (RNAs) from the CFR to
prevent confusion and to make the
regulations easy to use.
DATES: This final rule is effective
immediately upon publication.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2023–
0053 in the search box and click
‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
7358
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related
Material.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document call or
email Petty Officer Ken Farah,
Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 910–772–2221,
email ncmarineevents@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abbreviations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port North Carolina
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
This rule removes regulated
navigation areas for regulations where
the need no longer reflects current
conditions in the waterways. If a change
in circumstance indicates that
additional safety measures are
necessary, the Coast Guard might
choose to promulgate new regulations to
reflect that change. The changes to 33
CFR part 165 are authorized under the
general authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034,
which grants the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security broad
authority to issue, amend, or repeal
regulations necessary to implement 46
U.S.C. chapter 700, Ports and
Waterways Safety Program.
The Secretary has delegated
rulemaking authority under 46 U.S.C.
70034 to the Commandant via
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 00170.1. The Coast
Guard is issuing this rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because it is
unnecessary to do so. All of the changes
in this final rule involve only minor
amendments to existing regulations that
will not result in a substantive effect on
the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that, for the same
reasons, good cause exists for making
this final rule effective upon publication
in the Federal Register.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Feb 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
III. Discussion of the Rule
This rule removes RNAs 33 CFR
165.520, Regulated Navigation Area;
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet,
NC, and 33 CFR 165.T05–0466
Regulated navigation area; Oregon Inlet
Channel, Marc Basnight Bridge, Dare
County, NC.
Regulated Navigation Area; Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC
This RNA was created on November
3, 2015 to prevent vessel strikes to the
bridge when vessels were forced to use
alternative spans, or atypical routes, to
transit through the bridge, 80 FR 67638.
Vessels were forced to use these
alternative spans due to the presence of
shoals. In the time since this RNA was
established, a new channel has been
dredged to support navigation through
Oregon Inlet. This new channel created
more room for navigation and the use of
alternative spans is no longer necessary.
Therefore, the Coast Guard is removing
this RNA.
Regulated Navigation Area; Oregon Inlet
Channel, Marc Basnight Bridge, Dare
County, NC
This RNA was created on 8 July 2022
in order to protect the public from the
safety hazard associated with the
extreme shoaling in this area and
shifting of the main navigational
channel. As with the above RNA, the
Army Corps of Engineers has since
completed its dredging work and the
navigational channel has been restored.
As a result, the Coast Guard is removing
this RNA.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive
orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility.
An additional Executive order was
recently published to promote the goals
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of Executive Order 13563: Executive
Order 13610 (Identifying and Reducing
Regulatory Burdens). Executive Order
13610 aims to modernize the regulatory
systems and to reduce unjustified
regulatory burdens and costs on the
public.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not designated this rule a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. A
regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact 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. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we offer to assist small entities in
understanding this rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we
will submit a copy of this rule to OMB
for its review of the collection of
information.
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that
it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled that all of the categories
covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel
qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and
any other category in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole
source of a vessel’s obligations, are
within the field foreclosed from
regulation by the States. See the
Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This
rule disestablished a prior RNA on a
navigable waterway of the United States
of America. Therefore, because the
States may not regulate within these
categories, this rule is consistent with
the fundamental federalism principles
and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
F. Unfunded Mandates
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. Although this rule
will not result in such expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Feb 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will 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.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
L. Technical Standards and
Incorporation by Reference
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the
agency provides Congress, through
OMB, with an explanation of why using
these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
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 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. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. This rule is
categorically excluded under paragraph
L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev
1. Paragraph L60(b) pertains to
Regulations for Regulated Navigation
Areas and security or safety zones:
specifically, the disestablishment or
reduction in the size of these areas or
zones.
This rule removes two RNAs from the
CFR as they are no longer applicable to
the current conditions of the waterway.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
§ 165.520
■
[Removed]
2. Remove § 165.520.
§ 165.T05–0466
■
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
[Removed]
3. Remove § 165.T05–0466.
Dated: January 26, 2023.
Shannon Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023–02160 Filed 2–2–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01, Rev. 1,
associated implementing instructions,
PO 00000
7359
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7357-7359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02160]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2023-0053]
RIN 1625-AA11
Removal of Regulated Navigation Areas Within District 5
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is updating District 5 regulations to remove
two regulated navigation areas in Captain of the Port Zone (COTP) North
Carolina within District 5 that are no longer needed. These areas were
created to address the impacts of extreme shoaling in the Oregon Inlet,
but subsequent Army Corps of Engineers dredging activities have
alleviated the issue. The Coast Guard is removing these regulated
navigation areas (RNAs) from the CFR to prevent confusion and to make
the regulations easy to use.
DATES: This final rule is effective immediately upon publication.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0053 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type
[[Page 7358]]
column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Petty Officer Ken Farah, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 910-772-2221, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port North Carolina
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
This rule removes regulated navigation areas for regulations where
the need no longer reflects current conditions in the waterways. If a
change in circumstance indicates that additional safety measures are
necessary, the Coast Guard might choose to promulgate new regulations
to reflect that change. The changes to 33 CFR part 165 are authorized
under the general authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034, which grants the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security broad authority to
issue, amend, or repeal regulations necessary to implement 46 U.S.C.
chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety Program.
The Secretary has delegated rulemaking authority under 46 U.S.C.
70034 to the Commandant via Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 00170.1. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because it is unnecessary to do so. All of the
changes in this final rule involve only minor amendments to existing
regulations that will not result in a substantive effect on the public.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same
reasons, good cause exists for making this final rule effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
III. Discussion of the Rule
This rule removes RNAs 33 CFR 165.520, Regulated Navigation Area;
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC, and 33 CFR 165.T05-0466
Regulated navigation area; Oregon Inlet Channel, Marc Basnight Bridge,
Dare County, NC.
Regulated Navigation Area; Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC
This RNA was created on November 3, 2015 to prevent vessel strikes
to the bridge when vessels were forced to use alternative spans, or
atypical routes, to transit through the bridge, 80 FR 67638. Vessels
were forced to use these alternative spans due to the presence of
shoals. In the time since this RNA was established, a new channel has
been dredged to support navigation through Oregon Inlet. This new
channel created more room for navigation and the use of alternative
spans is no longer necessary. Therefore, the Coast Guard is removing
this RNA.
Regulated Navigation Area; Oregon Inlet Channel, Marc Basnight Bridge,
Dare County, NC
This RNA was created on 8 July 2022 in order to protect the public
from the safety hazard associated with the extreme shoaling in this
area and shifting of the main navigational channel. As with the above
RNA, the Army Corps of Engineers has since completed its dredging work
and the navigational channel has been restored. As a result, the Coast
Guard is removing this RNA.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
An additional Executive order was recently published to promote the
goals of Executive Order 13563: Executive Order 13610 (Identifying and
Reducing Regulatory Burdens). Executive Order 13610 aims to modernize
the regulatory systems and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and
costs on the public.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
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.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
[[Page 7359]]
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as
the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress
intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This rule
disestablished a prior RNA on a navigable waterway of the United States
of America. Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these
categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
F. Unfunded Mandates
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. Although this rule will not result
in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will 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.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management 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 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. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule is categorically excluded
under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev 1. Paragraph L60(b) pertains to Regulations for
Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones: specifically,
the disestablishment or reduction in the size of these areas or zones.
This rule removes two RNAs from the CFR as they are no longer
applicable to the current conditions of the waterway.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
Sec. 165.520 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 165.520.
Sec. 165.T05-0466 [Removed]
0
3. Remove Sec. 165.T05-0466.
Dated: January 26, 2023.
Shannon Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-02160 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
