Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participants and mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this proposed rule would establish a special local regulation for the time and location of the marine event. Vessels would not be permitted to enter the regulated areas unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to add one new recurring special local regulation in Table 1 to 100.1101 for the Honor Foundation Swim for Special Operations Forces. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of the public during the swim.
Non-participant vessels are not permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port San Diego or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and onscene designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

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 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.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation, which would impact a smalldesignated area of the San Diego Bay.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:50 Jul 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHFFM marine channel 16 about the areas, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 proposed 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. 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.
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
PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

35241

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 effects of this 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 that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated area that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting the regulated area during the swim event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 0230100101, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or
E:FRFM02JYP1.SGM

02JYP1