Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

43090

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 149 / Friday, August 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port, Port Arthur DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNG Liquified Natural Gas NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Section U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History On May 26, 2010 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM prosposing to, among other things, establish a security zone for the Sabine Pass LNG mooring basin located in Cameron Parish, LA
while LNG carriers are moored at the facility 75 FR 29695. On October 22, 2010 the Coast Guard issued an interim rule for the proposed security zone 75
FR 65235. On January 11, 2011 the Coast Guard published a final rule for the security zone 76 FR 1521.
Sabine Pass LNG is constructing a second mooring basin adjacent to the first and the COTP has determined that enhanced security measures are necessary and requires extending the existing security zone to include the new mooring basin. Therefore, the Coast Guard published a NPRM titled Security Zones; Sabine Pass Channel, Cameron, LA on June 14, 2021 86 FR 31459.
There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this marine event. During the comment period that ended July 14, 2021, we received one comment pointing out a spelling error and advising of the need to include the horizontal datum reference in the rule.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
previously 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port COTP has determined that enhanced security measures are necessary and is extending the existing security zone to include the new mooring basin.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published June 14, 2021 that requested we explicitly state the horizontal datum alongside the coordinates provided for each zone and correct a spelling error for shoreward.
The Coast Guard corrected the spelling error and added the horizontal datum used for geographic reference. The Coast Guard also changed the language used to describe the georgraphic coordinates of the existing security zone for clarity
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:05 Aug 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

and corrected an error in one of the positions. There are no other substantial changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a permanent security zone in a new mooring basin at Sabine Pass LNG located in Cameron, LA. The security zone regulations are the same as those in effect for the existing mooring basin, that is, it would exclude certain vessels from entering the basin whenever an LNG carrier is moored at the facility. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
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 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 size of the security zone and that the affected area does not hinder or delay regular vessel traffic. Certain vessels with business in the mooring basin will be permitted to enter the security zone.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 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 call or email 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 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
E:FRFM06AUR1.SGM

06AUR1