9460 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

18 Id. P 2. 

19 Interstate & Intrastate Nat. Gas Pipelines; Rate 

Changes Relating to Fed. Income Tax Rate, 162 

FERC ¶ 61,226 (2018). 

20The Commission’s statement is worth reading 

in whole: ‘‘When oil pipelines file Form No. 6, page 

700 on April 18, 2018, they must report an income 

tax allowance consistent with United Airlines and 

the Commission’s subsequent holdings denying an 

MLP an income tax allowance. Based upon page 

700 data, the Commission will incorporate the 

effects of the post-United Airlines’ policy changes 

(as well as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) on 

industry-wide oil pipeline costs in the 2020 fiveyear review of the oil pipeline index level. In this 

way the Commission will ensure that the industrywide reduced costs are incorporated on an industrywide basis as part of the index review.’’ 2018 

Income Tax Policy Statement, 162 FERC ¶ 61,227 at 

P 46. 

21 2020 Index Review, 173 FERC ¶ 61,245 at P 16. 

22 Id. P 20. 

23 Id. P 18. 

24 2018 Income Tax Policy Statement, 162 FERC 

¶ 61,227 at P 46. 

25Ask anyone who pays their taxes. 

allowance in their cost of service.18

Following United Airlines, in 2018, the 

Commission required natural gas 

pipelines to immediately eliminate that 

double recovery,19 but declined to 

require something similar for oil 

pipelines, promising, quite explicitly, 

that it would address the issue when it 

next updated the index.20

9. So much for that. In today’s order, 

the Commission goes back on its word 

and allows any oil pipeline that was an 

MLP in 2014 to retroactively remove its 

income tax allowance from its 2014 

cost-of-service data.21 That change 

juices the data to make it look like oil 

pipeline costs increased by more than 

they actually did between 2014 and 

2019, thereby leading to a higher index 

value. And, as if that weren’t bad 

enough, today’s order also allows any 

pipeline that transitioned from an MLP 

to a C-Corporation, thereby regaining 

the right to an income tax allowance, to 

remove the income tax allowance from 

their 2014 numbers.22 The result is, you 

guessed it, another increase in the cost 

change data, a higher index level, and 

more expensive rates for customers. 

10. Nothing in today’s order justifies 

that result. The Commission summarily 

concludes that the index update is not 

an appropriate vehicle for incorporating 

the post-United Airlines’ policy 

changes.23 That proposition is hardly 

self-evident, especially given that all 

five then-Commissioners felt differently 

just two years ago.24 In any case, the fact 

of the matter is that tax costs are real 

costs,25 meaning that oil pipelines’ costs 

in the past five years have changed as 

a result of the United Airlines decision. 

Finally, reneging on our promise in the 

2018 Income Tax Policy Statement 

perpetuates the effects of the double 

recovery gravy train that the court 

invalidated in United Airlines. That is 

simply indefensible. 

* * * * * 

11. The Commission’s actions today 

hand oil pipelines what will amount to 

a multi-billion-dollar windfall over the 

next five years. Calling these decisions 

arbitrary and capricious or unreasoned 

would let the Commission off easy. 

They represent a complete abdication of 

our statutory responsibility to protect 

consumers—the companies and 

individuals who will be stuck paying 

those additional billions of dollars to 

the oil pipelines. Although our 

responsibilities under the Interstate 

Commerce Act don’t always get the 

same attention from the public as some 

of our other proceedings, today’s order 

illustrates the tremendous financial 

consequences that they can have for 

everyday customers. I hope that 

proceedings like today’s lead interested 

parties everywhere to more closely 

scrutinize the Commission’s oil orders 

so that these multi-billion-dollar 

handouts do not become a matter of 

course. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

dissent. 

Richard Glick, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03120 Filed 2–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0057] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Emergency Safety Zone; Richmond 

Entrance Channel, Richmond, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of the Richmond 

Entrance Channel off of Richmond, CA 

in support of the safe navigation of 

vessels and environmental response 

efforts to address the hydrocarbon 

release from the Richmond Long Wharf 

on February 09, 2021. Based on this 

information, this safety zone is 

necessary to protect life, vessels, and the 

maritime environment. Unauthorized 

persons or vessels are prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, or 

remaining in the safety zone without 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

San Francisco or a Captain of the Port 

San Francisco designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice on February 16, 2021. For 

the purposes of enforcement, actual 

notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. 

February 10, 2021 until February 16, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0057 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 Chief Warrant Officer Mickey 

Price, Waterways Management, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399–7442, 

email SFWaterways@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking with 

respect to this rule because it is 

impracticable. The Coast Guard received 

notice of the hydrocarbon release into 

the waterway and the resulting need for 

this safety zone on February 9, 2021. It 

is impracticable to go through the full 

rulemaking process, including 

providing a reasonable comment period 

and considering those comments, 

because the Coast Guard must establish 

this emergency temporary safety zone 

by February 10, 2021. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be contrary to public 

interest because immediate action is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 9461 

needed to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the maritime environment from 

potential hazards near the Richmond 

Long Wharf. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The 

Captain of the Port San Francisco has 

determined that potential hazards 

associated with the hydrocarbon release 

exist near the Richmond Long Wharf. 

This rule is needed because 

environmental response operations 

create a significant hazard to any vessels 

transiting the safety zone area. The 

environmental response operations may 

be complex in nature and involve 

multiple vessels. These operations, 

when conducted in close proximity to 

transiting vessels, create unpredictable 

hazards, making it necessary to restrict 

vessel traffic within the impacted area 

until environmental response operations 

are completed. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a temporary 

safety zone in navigable waters 250 

yards around the Richmond Long 

Wharf, Richmond, CA as announced in 

a mariner information broadcast from 

February 10, 2021 at 12:01 a.m. through 

February 16, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. The 

effect of the temporary safety zone will 

be to restrict vessel navigation in this 

area until the Coast Guard determines 

that the hazards associated with the 

hydrocarbon release and response 

efforts are no longer present. Except for 

persons or vessels authorized by the 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative, no vessel may enter or 

remain in the restricted area. A 

‘‘designated representative’’ means a 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty 

officer, or other officer operating a Coast 

Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local 

officer designated by or assisting the 

COTP in the enforcement of the safety 

zone. 

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 duration and 

narrowly tailored geographic area of the 

safety zone. Although this rule restricts 

access to the water encompassed by the 

safety zone, the effect of this rule will 

not be significant because the local 

waterway users will be notified to 

ensure the safety zone will result in 

minimum impact. The vessels desiring 

to transit through or around the 

temporary safety zone may do so upon 

express permission from the COTP or 

the COTP’s designated representative. 

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 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 

temporary 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 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 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact 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 agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 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. 3501–3520). 

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 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
9462 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 85 FR 84279. 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone established to deal with an 

emergency situation, lasting less than 

one week, that will prohibit vessel 

traffic near the hydrocarbon response 

efforts in the vicinity of the Richmond 

Long Wharf. It is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact 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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 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. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–048 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–048 Emergency Safety Zone; 

Richmond Entrance Channel, Richmond, 

CA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters 250 

yards around the Richmond Long 

Wharf, Richmond, CA. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel or a 

Federal, State, or local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative to obtain 

permission to do so. Vessel operators 

given permission to enter or operate in 

the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. Persons and 

vessels may request permission to enter 

the safety zone on VHF–23A or through 

the 24-hour Command Center at 

telephone (415) 399–3547. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from February 10, 2021 

at 12:01 a.m. until Febuary 16, 2021 at 

11:59 p.m. or as announced via marine 

information broadcast. 

(e) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative 

will notify the maritime community of 

periods during which this zone will be 

enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 

165.7. 

Dated: February 9, 2021. 

Marie B. Byrd, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03101 Filed 2–11–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 303 

[Docket No. 20–CRB–0013–RM] 

Procedural Regulations of the 

Copyright Royalty Board Regarding 

Electronic Filing System (eCRB) 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

are amending regulations governing the 

electronic filing of documents through 

the Copyright Royalty Board’s electronic 

filing system (eCRB) to permit attorney 

designees with approved eCRB user 

accounts to file on behalf of attorneys. 

DATES: Effective February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the 

docket to read background documents, 

go to eCRB at https://app.crb.gov and 

perform a case search for docket 20– 

CRB–0013–RM. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, at 

202–707–7658 or crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 28, 2020, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges (Judges) published a 

document in the Federal Register 

seeking comments on a proposed rule to 

add to Rule 303.5(c) a fourth category of 

filer that would be required to obtain an 

eCRB password: attorney designee. See 

85 FR 84279 (Dec. 28, 2020). An 

attorney designee would be defined as 

‘‘a person authorized to file documents 

on behalf of an attorney.’’ The proposed 

rule also included non-substantive 

changes to Rule 303.5.1 The Judges 

received no comments. Therefore, for 

the reasons indicated in the December 

28, 2020 document, the Judges adopt the 

changes and additions to part 303 

proposed in that document, as detailed 

in this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 303 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Copyright, Lawyers. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges 

amend 37 CFR part 303 as follows: 

PART 303—GENERAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 303 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 803. 

■ 2. Revise § 303.5 to read as follows: 

§ 303.5 Electronic filing system (eCRB). 

(a) Documents to be filed by electronic 

means. Except as otherwise provided in 

this chapter, all attorneys must file 

documents with the Copyright Royalty 

Board through eCRB. Pro se parties may 

file documents with the Copyright 

Royalty Board through eCRB, subject to 

§ 303.4(c)(2). 

(b) Official record. The electronic 

version of a document filed through and 

stored in eCRB will be the official 

record of the Copyright Royalty Board. 

(c) Obtaining an electronic filing 

password—(1) Attorneys. An attorney 

must register for an eCRB account and 

create an eCRB password in order to file 

documents or to receive copies of orders 

and determinations of the Copyright 

Royalty Judges. The attorney’s eCRB 

account and password will be activated 

upon approval by the Copyright Royalty 

Board of the attorney’s completed 

online application form available on the 

eCRB website. 

(2) Attorney designees. A person 

authorized by an attorney to file 

documents on behalf of that attorney (an 

attorney designee) must register for an 

eCRB account and create an eCRB 

password in order to file documents on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES