Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66125 

Commissioners conduct parole hearings 

and also vote in the same proceeding is 

a more efficient use of resources to 

balance the agency’s workload and 

promote continuity of the agency’s 

business. This is a procedural change 

only, and will not implicate the merits 

of any prisoner’s case for parole or affect 

the way in which hearings are 

conducted. Hence, notice and public 

comment is not required. 

The revised rule will take effect on 

December 26, 2018. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. The Commission has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects 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. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications 

requiring a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local, 

or tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. No action under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

is necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act, now codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 

parole. 

The Final Rule 

Accordingly, the U. S. Parole 

Commission amends 28 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 

4204(a)(6). 

■ 2. Revise § 2.59 to read as follows: 

§ 2.59 Delegation to Commissioners. 

There is hereby delegated to 

Commissioners the authority to conduct 

hearings, with the Commissioner’s 

consent, and the powers enumerated in 

18 U.S.C. 4203(b) to grant or deny 

parole or mandatory release, impose 

reasonable conditions of parole or 

mandatory release, modify or revoke 

parole or mandatory release. 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Patricia K. Cushwa, 

Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27803 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 006–2018] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Inspector General, 

United States Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG), a component within the 

United States Department of Justice 

(DOJ or Department), is finalizing its 

Privacy Act exemption regulations for 

the system of records titled, ‘‘Data 

Analytics Program Records System,’’ 

JUSTICE/OIG–006, which were 

published as a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on March 28, 2018. 

Specifically, the Department’s 

regulations will exempt the records 

maintained in JUSTICE/OIG–006 from 

one or more provisions of the Privacy 

Act and implement other administrative 

changes. The exemptions are necessary 

to avoid interference with the law 

enforcement functions and 

responsibilities of OIG. The Department 

received 21 comments on the NPRM, 

none of which addressed the substance 

of the proposed Privacy Act exemption 

regulations for JUSTICE/OIG–006. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 25, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan M. Malis, General Counsel, 

Office of the Inspector General, 

Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, 

phone: (202) 514–3435. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, Inspectors General, including 

the DOJ Inspector General, are 

responsible for conducting, supervising, 

and coordinating audits and 

investigations to recognize and mitigate 

fraud, waste, and abuse by programs 

and operations of the Federal agency for 

which their office is established. On 

March 28, 2018, OIG published a 

System of Records Notice (SORN) for its 

system of records titled, ‘‘Data Analytics 

Program Records System,’’ JUSTICE/ 

OIG–006, 83 FR 13309 (March 28, 2018), 

for the records collected to implement 

its data analytics (DA) program. The DA 

program will assist with the 

performance of OIG audits, 

investigations, and reviews, and 

accommodate the requirements of the 

Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2014, Public Law 

113–101, 128 Stat. 1146. Specifically, 

the DA program will provide OIG: 

timely insights from the data already 

stored in DOJ databases that OIG has 

legal authorization to access and 

maintain; the ability to monitor and 

analyze data for patterns and 

correlations that signal wasteful, 

fraudulent, or abusive activities 

impacting Department performance and 

operations; the ability to find, acquire, 

extract, manipulate, analyze, connect, 

and visualize data; the capability to 

manage vast amounts of data; the ability 

to identify significant information that 

can improve decision quality; and the 

ability to mitigate risk of waste, fraud, 

and abuse. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66126 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

On the same day OIG published 

JUSTICE/OIG–006, OIG published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), 83 FR 13208 (March 28, 2018), 

proposing to exempt records maintained 

in JUSTICE/OIG–006 from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). Additionally, 

as an administrative matter, OIG 

proposed replacing the current 

regulations promulgated in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of 28 CFR 16.75 with the 

proposed regulations for JUSTICE/OIG– 

006. The current regulations 

promulgated in paragraphs (c) and (d) 

exempt from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act a previously rescinded OIG 

SORN, ‘‘Office of the Inspector General, 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts 

(FOI/PA) Records,’’ JUSTICE/OIG–003, 

66 FR 29994 (June 4, 2001), and are no 

longer needed. The Department invited 

public comment on the proposed 

regulations. The comment period was 

open through April 27, 2018. DOJ 

received 21 comments on the NPRM, 

none of which addressed the substance 

of the proposed Privacy Act exemption 

regulations for JUSTICE/OIG–006. Two 

of the comments mentioned concerns 

with ‘‘data mining,’’ but those concerns 

were expressed in the context of 

applications on web servers collecting 

information about shoppers’ and users’ 

habits, which is not relevant to the use 

or purpose of the DA program. The 

remaining comments touched on 

numerous other, unrelated topics such 

as the Environmental Protection Agency 

and environmental concerns, Russia’s 

attempt to stop American oil and gas 

drilling, the commodities exchange, and 

the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

After consideration of these public 

comments, the Department will codify 

in this final rule the regulations 

proposed in the NPRM to protect the 

ability of the OIG to properly engage in 

its law enforcement functions. Three 

administrative changes have been made 

to the regulations proposed in the 

NPRM. First, in § 16.75(d)(1), the term 

‘‘interest’’ in the second sentence is 

revised to read, ‘‘interests.’’ Second, in 

§ 16.75(d)(3), the term ‘‘his’’ in the first 

sentence is revised to read, ‘‘the 

subject’s.’’ Third, in § 16.75(d)(8), a 

duplicative use of the word ‘‘could’’ has 

been removed. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Review 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and Executive Order 13563 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ section 1(b), General Principles 

of Regulation. 

The Department of Justice has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly this final rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This regulation will only impact 

Privacy Act-protected records, which 

are personal and generally do not apply 

to an individual’s entrepreneurial 

capacity, subject to limited exceptions. 

Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Officer, in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), has reviewed this regulation 

and by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize litigation, provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, and 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This regulation will not impact Indian 

Tribal governments. More specifically, it 

does not have substantial direct effects 

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. 

Therefore, the consultation 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

do not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This regulation will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000, as 

adjusted for inflation, or more in any 

one year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the 

Congressional Review Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule imposes no information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

information, and the Privacy Act. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order 2940–2008, the Department of 

Justice amends 28 CFR part 16 as 

follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 

28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

■ 2. Amend § 16.75 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 16.75 Exemption of the Office of the 

Inspector General Systems/Limited Access. 

* * * * * 

(c) The Data Analytics Program 

Records System (JUSTICE/OIG–006) 

system of records is exempt from 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), 

(3), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy 

Act. These exemptions apply only to the 

extent that information in this system is 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k). Where 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the law 

enforcement process, and/or where it 

may be appropriate to permit 

individuals to contest the accuracy of 

the information collected, e.g., public 

source materials, the applicable 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66127 

exemption may be waived, either 

partially or totally, by OIG. 

(d) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the 

requirement that an accounting be made 

available to the named subject of a 

record, because release of disclosure 

accounting could alert the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to 

the existence of an investigation and the 

fact that the individual is the subject of 

the investigation. Such a disclosure 

could also reveal investigative interests 

by not only OIG, but also by the 

recipient agency or component. Since 

release of such information to the 

subjects of an investigation would 

provide them with significant 

information concerning the nature of the 

investigation, release could result in the 

destruction of documentary evidence, 

improper influencing of witnesses, 

endangerment of the physical safety of 

confidential sources, witnesses, and law 

enforcement personnel, the fabrication 

of testimony, flight of the subject from 

the area, and other activities that could 

impede or compromise the 

investigation. In addition, providing the 

individual an accounting for each 

disclosure could result in the release of 

properly classified information which 

would compromise the national defense 

or disrupt foreign policy. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification 

requirements, for the same reasons that 

justify exempting this system from the 

access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d), and similarly, from the 

accounting of disclosures provision of 

subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes 

seriously its obligation to maintain 

accurate records despite its assertion of 

this exemption, and to the extent it, in 

its sole discretion, agrees to permit 

amendment or correction of DOJ 

records, it will share that information in 

appropriate cases. 

(3) From subsection (d), the access 

and amendment provisions, because 

access to the records contained in this 

system of records could inform the 

subject of an investigation of an actual 

or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation, of the existence of the 

investigation; of the nature and scope of 

the information and evidence obtained 

as to the subject’s activities; of the 

identity of confidential sources, 

witnesses, and law enforcement 

personnel, and of information that may 

enable the subject to avoid detection or 

apprehension. These factors would 

present a serious impediment to 

effective law enforcement where they 

prevent the successful completion of the 

investigation, endanger the physical 

safety of confidential sources, witnesses, 

and law enforcement personnel, and/or 

lead to the improper influencing of 

witnesses, the destruction of evidence, 

or the fabrication of testimony. In 

addition, granting access to such 

information could disclose securitysensitive or confidential business 

information or information that would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

the personal privacy of third parties. 

Finally, access to the records could 

result in the release of properly 

classified information that would 

compromise the national defense or 

disrupt foreign policy. Amendment of 

the records would interfere with 

ongoing investigations and law 

enforcement activities and impose an 

impossible administrative burden by 

requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. 

(4) From subsection (e)(1), because the 

application of this provision could 

impair investigations and interfere with 

the law enforcement responsibilities of 

the OIG for the following reasons: 

(i) It is not possible to determine the 

relevance or necessity of specific 

information in the early stages of a civil, 

criminal or other law enforcement 

investigation, case, or matter, including 

investigations in which use is made of 

properly classified information. 

Relevance and necessity are questions of 

judgment and timing, and it is only after 

the information is evaluated that the 

relevance and necessity of such 

information can be established. 

(ii) During the course of any 

investigation, the OIG may obtain 

information concerning actual or 

potential violations of laws other than 

those within the scope of its 

jurisdiction. In the interest of effective 

law enforcement, the OIG should retain 

this information in accordance with 

applicable record retention procedures, 

as it may aid in establishing patterns of 

criminal activity, and can provide 

valuable leads for Federal and other law 

enforcement agencies. 

(iii) In interviewing individuals or 

obtaining other forms of evidence 

during an investigation, information 

may be supplied to an investigator 

which relates to matters incidental to 

the primary purpose of the investigation 

but which may also relate to matters 

under the investigative jurisdiction of 

another agency. Such information 

cannot readily be segregated. 

(5) From subsection (e)(2), because, in 

some instances, the application of this 

provision would present a serious 

impediment to law enforcement for the 

following reasons: 

(i) The subject of an investigation 

would be placed on notice as to the 

existence of an investigation and would 

therefore be able to avoid detection or 

apprehension, to improperly influence 

witnesses, to destroy evidence, or to 

fabricate testimony. 

(ii) In certain circumstances the 

subject of an investigation cannot be 

required to provide information to 

investigators, and information relating 

to a subject’s illegal acts, violations of 

rules of conduct, or any other 

misconduct must be obtained from other 

sources. 

(iii) In any investigation it is 

necessary to obtain evidence from a 

variety of sources other than the subject 

of the investigation in order to verify the 

evidence necessary for successful 

litigation. 

(6) From subsection (e)(3), because the 

application of this provision would 

provide the subject of an investigation 

with substantial information which 

could impede or compromise the 

investigation. Providing such notice to a 

subject of an investigation could 

interfere with an undercover 

investigation by revealing its existence, 

and could endanger the physical safety 

of confidential sources, witnesses, and 

investigators by revealing their 

identities. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5), because the 

application of this provision would 

prevent the collection of any data not 

shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, 

and complete at the moment it is 

collected. In the collection of 

information for law enforcement 

purposes, it is impossible to determine 

in advance what information is 

accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. 

Material that may seem unrelated, 

irrelevant, or incomplete when collected 

may take on added meaning or 

significance as an investigation 

progresses. The restrictions of this 

provision could interfere with the 

preparation of a complete investigative 

report, and thereby impede effective law 

enforcement. 

(8) From subsection (e)(8), because to 

require individual notice of disclosure 

of information due to compulsory legal 

process would pose an impossible 

administrative burden on OIG and may 

alert the subjects of law enforcement 

investigations, who might be otherwise 

unaware, to the fact of those 

investigations. Such notice could also 

reveal investigative techniques, 

procedures, or evidence. 

(9) From subsection (g), to the extent 

that this system is exempt from the 

access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d), pursuant to subsections 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
66128 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) of the Privacy 

Act. 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Peter A. Winn, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27798 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–0929] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Marine 

Events in the Coast Guard Sector 

Detroit Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is updating 

its recurring special local regulations in 

the Captain of the Port Detroit. This rule 

updates fifteen special local regulation 

locations, dates, and sizes, adds six 

special local regulations, removes six 

established special local regulations, 

and reformats the regulations into an 

easier to read table format. These 

amendments will ensure safety of life on 

navigable waters to be used for a various 

events immediately prior to, during, and 

immediately after these events. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 25, 

2019. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2018– 

0929 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Tracy Girard, Prevention 

Department, Sector Detroit, Coast 

Guard; telephone (313) 568–9564, email 

Tracy.M.Girard@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On October 17, 2018 the Coast Guard 

published an NPRM in the Federal 

Register (83 FR 52333) entitled ‘‘Special 

Local Regulations; Marine Events in the 

Coast Guard Sector Detroit Captain of 

the Port Zone.’’ The NPRM proposed to 

establish fifteen permanent special local 

regulations for annually recurring 

events in the Captain of the Port Detroit 

Zone under § 100.911. The NPRM was 

open for comment for 30 days. There we 

stated why we issued the NPRM, and 

invited comments on our proposed 

regulatory action related to these special 

local regulations. During the comment 

period that ended November 17, 2018, 

we received two comments. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The 

Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has 

determined that the likely combination 

of recreation vessels, commercial 

vessels, and an unknown number of 

spectators in close proximity to these 

various special local regulations along 

the water pose extra and unusual 

hazards to public safety and property. 

Therefore, the COTP is establishing a 

Special Local Regulation around the 

event locations listed in table to help 

minimize risks to safety of life and 

property during this event. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, 

and the Rule 

As noted above, we received two 

positive comments encouraging this rule 

on our NPRM published October 17, 

2018. There are no changes in the 

regulatory text of this rule from the 

proposed rule in the NPRM. 

This rule updates fifteen special local 

regulation locations, dates, and sizes, 

adds six special local regulations, 

removes six established special local 

regulations, and reformats the 

regulations into an easier to read table 

format. The exact duration and dates of 

the special local regulations will be 

determined annually. In light of the 

aforementioned hazards, the COTP has 

determined that a special local 

regulation is necessary to protect 

spectators, vessels, and participants. No 

vessel or person will be permitted to 

enter the special local regulation 

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. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. 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), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, duration, 

and time-of-day for each special local 

regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to 

safely transit most safety zones which 

will impact small designated areas 

within the COTP zone for short 

durations of time. Moreover, the Coast 

Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 

16 about the zone and the rule allows 

vessels to seek permission to enter the 

zone. 

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 received no comments 

from the Small Business Administration 

on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard 

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the special 

local regulation 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 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 rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES