Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

29730

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules
become aware of these vessels and their owners and operators. As a result, conversations may become more brief overtime.
In order to access the private docks and boat slips of the 14 houses and the North Shores Marina, recreational vessel operators would need to transit through a small portion of the security zone. The Coast Guard would interpret the vessels seeking to access this second canal as innocent passage. As a result, the Coast Guard personnel do not intend to converse with recreational boaters intending to access the second canal unless they notice suspicious activity.
Instead, Coast Guard personnel would report vessels transiting the second canal to the USSS representatives.
Because Coast Guard personnel would not converse with the recreational vessel operators transiting this region, we estimate that there would be no costs on boaters who only pass through the lower stretch of the canal security zone in order to access the North Shores Marina or the private houses on the canal or lake.
The costs discussed above cover the normal operations when access to the canal is still permitted. However, when certain individuals protected by USSS
are transiting the area, the Coast Guard may shut down access to the canal.
Such closures could last from 1 to 3
hours, or longer. If the security zone is closed to all traffic, recreational boaters would not be able to transit the length of the canal. Recreational boaters wishing to transit through the security zone would be unable to do so.
If this closure happens suddenly, recreational boaters could be stranded on either side of the canal. The distance through the canal is about 10 miles, but to avoid the canal by taking a more circuitous route around Rehoboth Beach would add 25 miles to the journey.
Additionally, a significant portion of this distance requires operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is considerably rougher than the intracoastal waterways. As a result, many of the recreational watercraft unable to transit the security zone may be unable to take an alternate route, either because they may not have a vessel suitable to a coastwise route or may not have the time to add an additional 25 miles on to the journey.
Because we do not know the frequency or duration of full closures of the security zone, we are unable to quantitatively assess the costs to either temporarily stranded vessel operators or to vessel operators wishing to transit the closed waterway. Public comments as to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:29 Jun 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

the frequency and use of the canal in this security zone are encouraged.2

this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives:

2 Security Zone 2: North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach on the Atlantic Ocean
Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo Without this proposed 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.

We do not estimate that any vessels would routinely operate in this section of Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the Affected Population section above.
Additionally, were recreational vessel operators to transit this security zone, it is far easier to exit or avoid the security zone than in the canal. Recreational boaters merely would need to be greater than 500 yards from shore. As a result, we do not estimate any costs incurred by the second proposed security zone.
Benefits Upon request by the USSS for the Coast Guard to implement security measures in certain sections of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and certain sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, the Coast Guard is proposing to create 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 proposed regulatory action would 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 proposed rule would diminish the frequency of their attempted or successful actions. However, we believe that the value of these benefits would be greater than the costs of the proposed regulation.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered We considered alternatives to the proposed 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 2 Details as to what type of boat or vessel, the frequency, number of people usually onboard, and the location from which the vessel came from are requested.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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 proposed 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.
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 proposed 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 impacted by this
E:FRFM03JNP1.SGM

03JNP1