Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules This proposed rule would amend 1
new recurring special local regulation to
Event/sponsor
Ohio Valley location
69.3 daysOne of the first three weekends in September.

Fleur de Lis Regatta

Louisville, KY

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
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Table 1 to 100.801 for Sector Ohio Valley, as follows:

Date
The effect of this proposed rule would be to restrict general navigation during these events. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterways during effective periods of the special local regulations would only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP or or designated representative, has deemed it would safe to do so or at the completion of the event.

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.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule would establish special local regulations limiting access to certain areas described in 33 CFR
100.801, Table 1. The effect of this proposed rulemaking would not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public would be given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement. Thus, the public would be able to plan their operations and activities around enforcement times of the special local regulations. The COTP
would issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate, to inform the community of these special local regulations. Vessel traffic would be permitted to request permission from
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Dec 07, 2021

Jkt 256001

69603

the COTP or a designated representative to enter the restricted areas.
B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601612, 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.
605b 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 regulated area may be small entities, for reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any owner or operator because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time.
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 213a of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Pub. L. 104121, 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. 35013520.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Regulated area Ohio River, Miles 594.0.0598.0 Kentucky.

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. 15311538 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 02301, 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. 43214370f, and have made a preliminary determination
E:FRFM08DEP1.SGM

08DEP1