9462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

some other verifiable delivery tracking 

system, within 60 days of the invoice 

date. The late payment charge shall be 

10 percent of the unpaid balance. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03460 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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 https://

www.regulations.gov. 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 

Benjamin.D.Adrien@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, 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://

www.regulations.gov, 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 https://

www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 

■ 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. 

§ 165.785 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0872; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9493–01–R3] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Maryland; 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Maryland intended to address 

interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS). 

The ‘‘good neighbor’’ or ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provision requires that each 

state’s SIP contain adequate provisions 

to prohibit emissions from within the 

state from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. This requirement is part of the 

broader set of ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements, which are designed to 

ensure that the structural components of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1