Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 60583 

pursuant to INA 212(a)(5)(A), must 

provide written confirmation of the 

relevant information sworn and 

subscribed to before a notary public by 

the employer or an authorized employee 

or agent of the employer. The signer’s 

printed name and position or other 

relationship with the employer must 

accompany the signature. 

(f) Use of Federal poverty line Where 

INA 213A not applicable. An immigrant 

visa applicant, not subject to the 

requirements of INA 213A, and relying 

solely on personal income to establish 

eligibility under INA 212(a)(4), who 

does not demonstrate an annual income 

above the Federal poverty line, as 

defined in INA 213A(h), and who is 

without other adequate financial 

resources, shall be presumed ineligible 

under INA 212(a)(4). 

Hugo Rodriguez, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19047 Filed 9–1–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 004–2023] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties, United States Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Privacy and 

Civil Liberties (OPCL), a component 

within the United States Department of 

Justice (DOJ or Department), is 

finalizing without changes its Privacy 

Act exemption regulations for the 

system of records titled, Data Protection 

Review Court Records System, 

JUSTICE/OPCL–001, which were 

published as a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on May 23, 2023. 

The notice for this new system of 

records, Data Protection Review Court 

Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL–001, 

was also published in the Federal 

Register on May 23, 2023. Specifically, 

the Department’s regulations will 

exempt this system of records from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act to 

protect national security and law 

enforcement sensitive information, 

preserve judicial independence, and 

ensure the integrity of adjudicatory 

records in cases before the Data 

Protection Review Court (DPRC). The 

Department received no comments on 

the NPRM. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 5, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Harman-Stokes, Director 

(Acting), Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Two Constitution Square, 145 N St. NE, 

Suite 8W–300, Washington, DC 20530; 

email: privacy.compliance@usdoj.gov; 

telephone: (202) 514–0208; facsimile: 

(202) 307–0693. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 

1974, OPCL is establishing a new 

system of records, Data Protection 

Review Court Records System, 

JUSTICE/OPCL–001, to maintain an 

accurate record of the DPRC review of 

determinations made by the Civil 

Liberties Protection Officer of the Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence 

(ODNI CLPO) in response to complaints 

alleging violations of United States law 

in the conduct of United States signals 

intelligence activities, under the EU– 

U.S. Data Protection Framework 

established on October 7, 2022, 

pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 

14086, Enhancing Safeguards for United 

States Signals Intelligence Activities, 87 

FR 62283 (Oct. 14, 2022). 

E.O. 14086 directed the Attorney 

General to issue a regulation 

establishing the DPRC as the second 

level of a two-level redress mechanism 

for alleged violations of law regarding 

signals intelligence activities. The 

Attorney General issued the regulation 

on October 7, 2022, ‘‘Data Protection 

Review Court.’’ 87 FR 628303 (Oct. 14, 

2022) (codified at 28 CFR part 201). 

The first level of the new redress 

mechanism established by E.O. 14086 is 

the investigation, review, and 

determination by the ODNI CLPO of 

whether a covered violation occurred 

and, where necessary, the appropriate 

remediation in response to a complaint. 

The complainant or an element of the 

Intelligence Community may seek 

review by the DPRC of the ODNI CLPO’s 

determination. 

Exercising the Attorney General’s 

authority under 28 U.S.C. 511 and 512 

to provide his advice and opinion on 

questions of law and the authority 

delegated to the Attorney General under 

E.O. 14086, the DPRC will review 

whether the ODNI CLPO’s 

determination regarding the occurrence 

of a covered violation was legally 

correct and supported by substantial 

evidence and whether, in the event of a 

covered violation, the ODNI CLPO’s 

determination as to the appropriate 

remediation was consistent with E.O. 

14086. 

The regulations require the DPRC, and 

OPCL in support of the DPRC, to 

maintain all records relating to the 

DPRC’s review. For each application for 

review, OPCL shall maintain records of 

the information reviewed or created by 

the DPRC and the decision of the DPRC 

panel, which records shall be made 

available for consideration as nonbinding precedent to future DPRC 

panels considering applications for 

review. 28 CFR 201.9(j), see also 28 CFR 

201.5 through 201.15. Records of the 

DPRC’s review will include material 

created by the complainant, the public 

authority of a designated state, ODNI 

CLPO, elements of the Intelligence 

Community, DPRC Judges and Special 

Advocates, and Department of Justice 

personnel. Most of the information in 

this system consists of records that are 

classified, including the record of 

review received from the ODNI CLPO. 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 201.9(i), 

information in the system indicating a 

violation of any authority subject to the 

oversight of the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court (FISC) will be shared 

with the Assistant Attorney General for 

National Security, who shall report 

violations to the FISC as required by law 

and in accordance with its rules of 

procedure. Similarly, information in the 

system will be provided to the Privacy 

and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 

(PCLOB) as necessary for the PCLOB to 

conduct the annual review of the 

redress process described in section 3(e) 

of E.O. 14086, consistent with the 

protection of intelligence sources and 

methods. 

II. Privacy Act Exemption 

The Privacy Act allows Federal 

agencies to exempt eligible records in a 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Act, including those 

that provide individuals with a right to 

request access to and amendment of 

records about the individual. If an 

agency intends to exempt a particular 

system of records, it must first issue a 

rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(1)–(3), (c), and (e). 

The Department modifies 28 CFR part 

16 to add a new Privacy Act exemption 

for the new system of records, Data 

Protection Review Court Records 

System, JUSTICE/OPCL–001. The 

Department adds this exemption 

because most of the records in this 

system will contain classified national 

security information. As such, notice, 

access, amendment, and disclosure (to 

include accounting for those records) to 

an individual, as well as certain recordkeeping requirements, may cause 

damage to national security. The 

Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
60584 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

552a(k)(1), authorizes agencies to claim 

an exemption for systems of records that 

contain information properly classified 

pursuant to applicable law. Pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), the Department has 

claimed an exemption from several 

provisions of the Privacy Act, including 

provisions for individual access, 

amendment, disclosure of accounting, 

as well as certain provisions for recordkeeping and notice, to prevent 

disclosure of any information properly 

classified pursuant to applicable law. 

The Department has also claimed an 

exemption for this system of records 

from the above references provision of 

the Privacy Act because the records in 

this system relate to criminal law 

enforcement activities, and certain 

requirements of the Privacy Act may 

interfere with the effective execution of 

these law enforcement activities. The 

Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2), authorizes agencies with a 

principal law enforcement function 

pertaining to the enforcement of 

criminal laws (including activities of 

prosecutors, courts, etc.) to claim an 

exemption for systems of records that 

contain information identifying criminal 

offenders and alleged offenders, 

information compiled for the purpose of 

criminal investigation, or reports 

compiled for the purpose of criminal 

law enforcement proceedings. 

Additionally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2), agencies may exempt a 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act if it 

contains investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, 

other than materials within the scope of 

5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). The Department has 

claimed exemptions from several 

provisions of the Privacy Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 552a(k)(2), to 

prevent the harms articulated in this 

rule from occurring. Records in this 

system of records are only exempt from 

the Privacy Act to the extent the 

purposes underlying the exemption 

pertain to the record. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094—Regulatory Review 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) 

and 552a(k), this regulation was subject 

to formal rulemaking procedures by 

giving interested persons an opportunity 

to participate in the rulemaking process 

‘‘through submission of written data, 

views, or arguments,’’ pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553. This regulation exempts this 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act to protect 

national security and law enforcement 

sensitive information, preserve judicial 

independence and to ensure the 

integrity of adjudicatory records in cases 

before DPRC. 

The Department has determined that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory 

action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. 

This rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

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

Regulation; Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ section 1(b), General 

Principles of Regulation; and Executive 

Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing Regulatory 

Review’’. OPCL anticipates no costs or 

benefits accruing from this rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This regulation will impact records 

related to or reviewed in handling 

complaints in accordance with E.O. 

14086 and DOJ regulation, 28 CFR part 

201, which are personal and generally 

do not apply to an individual’s 

entrepreneurial capacity, subject to 

limited exceptions. Even though this 

system will contain records that are not 

covered by the Privacy Act, the Chief 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer has 

nevertheless reviewed this regulation in 

accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), and by 

approving it certifies that this regulation 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the 

Department to comply with small entity 

requests for information and advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within the Department’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can 

obtain further information regarding 

SBREFA on the Small Business 

Administration’s web page at https://

www.sba.gov/advocacy. This regulation 

is not a major rule as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804 of the Congressional Review 

Act. 

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 E.O. 13132, it is 

determined that this regulation does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform (Plain Language) 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of E.O. 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 have no 

implications for 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 E.O. 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires the 

Department to consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. There are no current or new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this regulation. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

information, Privacy. 

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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 60585 

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. Add § 16.139 to read as follows: 

§ 16.139 Exemption of the Department of 

Justice Data Protection Review Court 

Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL–001. 

(a) The Department of Justice Data 

Protection Review Court system of 

records JUSTICE/OPCL–001 is 

exempted from subsections 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); 

(e)(1), (2) and (3); (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); 

(e)(5) and (8); (f) 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) or (k). Where DOJ 

determines that compliance would not 

appear to interfere with or adversely 

affect the purpose of this system to 

address certain violations of United 

States law in the conduct of United 

States signals intelligence activities, and 

not interfere with national security or 

law enforcement operations, the 

applicable exemption may be waived by 

the DOJ in its sole discretion. 

(b) Exemptions from these particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

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

(accounting of disclosures) requirement 

that an accounting be made available to 

the named subject of a record, because 

this system is exempt from the access 

provisions of subsection (d). Where the 

individual is the subject of intelligence 

activities, to provide that individual 

with the disclosure accounting records 

would hinder authorized United States 

intelligence activities by informing that 

individual of the existence, nature, or 

scope of information that is properly 

classified pursuant to Executive Order 

12958, as amended, and thereby cause 

damage to the national security. 

Revealing this information would also 

be contrary to Executive Order 14086 

and could compromise ongoing, 

authorized law enforcement and 

intelligence efforts, particularly efforts 

to identify and/or mitigate national 

security threats. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) (notice of 

amendment to record recipients) 

notification requirements because this 

system is exempt from the access and 

amendment provisions of subsection (d) 

as well as the provision for making the 

accounting of disclosures available to an 

individual in 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)(1), (2), (3) and 

(4) (record subject’s right to access and 

amend records), (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

(publication of procedures for notifying 

subjects of the existence of records 

about them and how they may access 

records and contest contents), (e)(8) 

(notice of compelled disclosures), (f) 

(agency rules for notifying subjects to 

the existence of records about them, for 

accessing and amending records, and for 

assessing fees) and (g) (civil remedies) 

because these provisions concern 

individual access to and amendment of 

records containing national security, 

law enforcement, intelligence, 

counterintelligence and 

counterterrorism sensitive information 

that could alert the subject of an 

authorized law enforcement or 

intelligence activity about that 

particular activity and the interest of the 

DOJ and/or other law enforcement or 

intelligence agencies in the subject. 

Providing access could compromise 

information classified to protect 

national security; disclose information 

that would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of another’s personal privacy; 

reveal a sensitive investigative or 

intelligence technique; provide 

information that would allow a subject 

to avoid detection or apprehension; or 

constitute a potential danger to the 

health or safety of law enforcement 

personnel, confidential sources, 

witnesses, or other individuals. 

Nevertheless, DOJ has published notice 

concerning notification, access, and 

contest procedures because it may in 

certain circumstances determine it 

appropriate to provide subjects access to 

all or a portion of the records about 

them in a system of records, particularly 

if information pertaining to the 

individual has been declassified. 

(4) From subsection (e)(1) (maintain 

only relevant and necessary records) 

because the Data Protection Review 

Court (DPRC), in the course of receiving 

information pursuant to an application 

for review, including the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) 

Civil Liberties Protection Officer’s 

(CLPO) record of review, may receive 

records that are ultimately deemed 

irrelevant or unnecessary for the 

adjudication of the matter. Relevance 

and necessity are questions of judgment 

and timing; what appears relevant and 

necessary when collected ultimately 

may be deemed unnecessary. It is only 

after the information is assessed that its 

relevancy and necessity can be 

established. Even if the records received 

are ultimately determined to be 

irrelevant or unnecessary to the 

adjudication of an application for 

review, the Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties (OPCL) generally must 

nevertheless retain such records to 

maintain an accurate and complete 

record of the information reviewed by 

the DPRC. 

(5) From subsection (e)(2) (collection 

directly from the individual) and (3) 

(provide Privacy Act Statement to 

subjects furnishing information). The 

DPRC will rely on records received from 

the ODNI CLPO, including records that 

the ODNI CLPO received from other 

elements of the Intelligence Community. 

The collection efforts of agencies that 

supply information ultimately received 

by the DPRC would be thwarted if the 

agencies were required to collect 

information with the subject’s 

knowledge. Application of these 

provisions would put the subject of 

United States signals intelligence 

activities on notice of the signals 

intelligence activities and allow the 

subject an opportunity to engage in 

conduct intended to impede the 

investigative activity or avoid 

apprehension. 

(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I) 

(identifying sources of records in the 

system of records), to the extent that this 

subsection is interpreted to require more 

detail regarding the record sources in 

this system than has been published in 

the Federal Register. Should the 

subsection be so interpreted, exemption 

from this provision is necessary to 

protect disclosure of properly classified 

national security and law enforcement 

sensitive information. Further, greater 

specificity of sources of properly 

classified records could compromise 

national security. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5) (maintain 

timely, accurate, complete and up-todate records) because many of the 

records in the system were derived from 

other domestic and foreign agency 

record systems over which DOJ 

exercises no control. It is often 

impossible to determine in advance if 

intelligence records contained in this 

system are accurate, relevant, timely 

and complete, but in the interest of 

maintaining a complete record of the 

information reviewed by the DPRC in 

each case, it is necessary to retain this 

information. The restrictions imposed 

by subsection (e)(5) would impede 

development of the record for review 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
60586 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and limit the DPRC’s ability to exercise 

independent judgment in the 

adjudication of applications for review. 

(8) Continue in effect and assert all 

exemptions claimed under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j) or (k) by an originating agency 

from which DOJ obtains records where 

the purposes underlying the original 

exemption remain valid and necessary 

to protect the contents of the record. 

Dated: August 23, 2023. 

Peter Winn, 

Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer 

(Acting), United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19093 Filed 9–1–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–PJ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 

[USCG–2023–0250] 

2023 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, 

Security Zones, and Special Local 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of expired 

temporary rules issued. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notification of substantive rules issued 

by the Coast Guard that were made 

temporarily effective but expired before 

they could be published in the Federal 

Register. This document lists temporary 

safety zones, security zones, and special 

local regulations, all of limited duration 

and for which timely publication in the 

Federal Register was not possible. This 

document also announces notifications 

of enforcement for existing reoccurring 

regulations that we issued but were 

unable to be published before the 

enforcement period ended. 

DATES: This document lists temporary 

Coast Guard rules and notifications of 

enforcement that became effective, 

primarily between January 2023 and 

March 2023, unless otherwise indicated, 

and were terminated before they could 

be published in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Temporary rules listed in 

this document may be viewed online, 

under their respective docket numbers, 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this document contact 

Yeoman First Class Glenn Grayer, Office 

of Regulations and Administrative Law, 

telephone (202) 372–3862. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast 

Guard District Commanders and 

Captains of the Port (COTP) must be 

immediately responsive to the safety 

and security needs within their 

jurisdiction; therefore, District 

Commanders and COTPs have been 

delegated the authority to issue certain 

local regulations. Safety zones may be 

established for safety or environmental 

purposes. A safety zone may be 

stationary and described by fixed limits 

or it may be described as a zone around 

a vessel in motion. Security zones limit 

access to prevent injury or damage to 

vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. 

Special local regulations are issued to 

enhance the safety of participants and 

spectators at regattas and other marine 

events. 

Timely publication of these rules in 

the Federal Register may be precluded 

when a rule responds to an emergency, 

or when an event occurs without 

sufficient advance notice. The affected 

public is, however, often informed of 

these rules through Local Notices to 

Mariners, press releases, and other 

means. Moreover, actual notification is 

provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels 

enforcing the restrictions imposed by 

the rule. Timely publication of 

notifications of enforcement of 

reoccurring regulations may be 

precluded when the event occurs with 

short notice or other agency procedural 

restraints. 

Because Federal Register publication 

was not possible before the end of the 

effective period, mariners were 

personally notified of the contents of 

these safety zones, security zones, 

special local regulations, regulated 

navigation areas or drawbridge 

operation regulations by Coast Guard 

officials on-scene prior to any 

enforcement action. However, the Coast 

Guard, by law, must publish in the 

Federal Register notice of substantive 

rules adopted. To meet this obligation 

without imposing undue expense on the 

public, the Coast Guard periodically 

publishes a list of these temporary 

safety zones, security zones, special 

local regulations, regulated navigation 

areas and drawbridge operation 

regulations. Permanent rules are not 

included in this list because they are 

published in their entirety in the 

Federal Register. Temporary rules are 

also published in their entirety if 

sufficient time is available to do so 

before they are placed in effect or 

terminated. In some of our reoccurring 

regulations, we say we will publish a 

notice of enforcement as one of the 

means of notifying the public. We use 

this notification to announce those 

notifications of enforcement that we 

issued and will post them to their 

dockets. 

The following unpublished rules were 

placed in effect temporarily during the 

period between January 2023 and March 

2023 unless otherwise indicated. To 

view copies of these rules, visit 

www.regulations.gov and search by the 

docket number indicated in the 

following table. 

Docket No. Type of regulation Location Enforcement 

date 

USCG–2022–0991 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Port Detroit Zone ............................................. 12/31/2022 

USCG–2022–1008 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Corpus Christi, TX ........................................... 1/4/2023 

USCG–2022–1003 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... Cincinnati, OH ................................................. 1/4/2023 

USCG–2023–0060 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. U.S. EEZ offshore of Jacksonville, Daytona, 

and Cape Canaveral, FL.

1/12/2023 

USCG–2023–0066 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Corpus Christi, TX ........................................... 1/13/2023 

USCG–2023–0069 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... Amelia Island, FL ............................................. 1/22/2023 

USCG–2023–0103 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... Baltimore, MD .................................................. 1/30/2023 

USCG–2023–0088 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Pensacola, FL .................................................. 1/30/2023 

USCG–2023–0107 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Corpus Christi, TX ........................................... 1/30/2023 

USCG–2023–0090 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Corpus Christi, TX ........................................... 2/1/2023 

USCG–2023–0140 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... Tampa, FL ....................................................... 2/9/2023 

USCG–2022–1006 .................. Special Local Regulations (Part 100) .............. Bradenton, FL .................................................. 2/11/2023 

USCG–2023–0071 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. South Padre Island, TX ................................... 2/11/2023 

USCG–2023–0190 .................. Safety Zones (Parts 147 and 165) .................. Charleston, SC ................................................ 3/2/2023 

USCG–2023–0016 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... Miami Beach, FL ............................................. 3/8/2023 

USCG–2023–0208 .................. Security Zones (Part 165) ............................... San Diego, CA ................................................. 3/13/2023 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1