Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the maritime environment from potential hazards near the Richmond Long Wharf.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034
previously 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the hydrocarbon release exist near the Richmond Long Wharf.
This rule is needed because environmental response operations create a significant hazard to any vessels transiting the safety zone area. The environmental response operations may be complex in nature and involve multiple vessels. These operations, when conducted in close proximity to transiting vessels, create unpredictable hazards, making it necessary to restrict vessel traffic within the impacted area until environmental response operations are completed.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

IV. Discussion of the Rule This rule establishes a temporary safety zone in navigable waters 250
yards around the Richmond Long Wharf, Richmond, CA as announced in a mariner information broadcast from February 10, 2021 at 12:01 a.m. through February 16, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict vessel navigation in this area until the Coast Guard determines that the hazards associated with the hydrocarbon release and response efforts are no longer present. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative, no vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A
designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:57 Feb 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

approaches that maximize net benefits.
This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action, under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget OMB.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the water encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTPs designated representative.
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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
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 agencys responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

9461

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1
888REGFAIR 18887343247. 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.
C. Collection of Information This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 44
U.S.C. 35013520.
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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment We have analyzed this 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 determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
E:FRFM16FER1.SGM

16FER1