Je veux savoir à propos de…

47578

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the Coast Guard is establishing 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 Nations 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 regulatory action will 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 rule will diminish the frequency of their attempted or successful actions.
However, we believe that the value of these benefits justify the costs of the regulation.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered We considered alternatives to the 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:

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo Without this 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 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 Aug 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

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. 601612, we have considered whether this 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 directly regulated by this rule are not small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this analysis, we found this rulemaking will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, 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. 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 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 call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees
PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 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
E:FRFM26AUR1.SGM

26AUR1