Proposed Rule2022-03600
Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 22, 2022
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the presedential security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club, and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL). The security zone is no longer needed to protect official parties, public, or surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. This proposed action would remove existing regulations that restrict vessel movement through the area. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9462-9463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03600]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2022-0054]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Presidential Security Zone, Palm Beach, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the presedential
security zone that encompasses certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon,
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago
Club, and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, Florida (FL).
The security zone is no longer needed to protect official parties,
public, or surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. This
proposed action would remove existing regulations that restrict vessel
movement through the area. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 24, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0054 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Ben Adrien, Waterways
Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4307,
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b092e25212a262225650f650a2f39222e250b3e38282c65262227"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ccee9e2e6ede1e5e2a2c8a2cde8fee5e9e2ccf9ffefeba2e1e5e0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On May 21, 2018, the United States Coast Guard established a
security zone to protect the President of the United States, members of
the First Family, and/or other persons under the protection of the
Secret Service when staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, FL.
The security zone is described 33 CFR 165.785. With the inauguration of
a new President of the United States on January 20, 2021, the Mar-A-
Lago Club security zone is no longer needed.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to disestablish a security zone
in certain waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intercoastal Waterway
(ICW), and Atlantic Ocean that are no longer need to protect official
parties staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club. The Coast Guard is proposing
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33
U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the existing security
zone published in 33 CFR 165.785. The regulation places unnecessary
restrictions on vessel movement through the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and
Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern Boulevard
Bridge in Palm Beach. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at
the end of this document.
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 removal of
regulatory requirements for vessel navigation in the Lake Worth Lagoon,
ICW, and Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago Club and the Southern
Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 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. 605(b) 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
Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic Ocean, near the Mar-A-Lago Club
and the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm Beach, 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 proposed 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 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed 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. 3501-
3520).
[[Page 9463]]
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 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. 1531-1538)
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 potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, 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. 4321-4370f), 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
disestablishing a security zone. Such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
do so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2022-0054 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
Sec. 165.785 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 165.785.
Dated: February 15, 2022.
J.F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2022-03600 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 22, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.