11308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the 

security zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

security zone regulations in subpart D of 

this part, you may not enter the security 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by telephone number 

410–576–2693 or on Marine Band Radio 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Those in the security zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement periods. This section 

will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. 

on March 9, 2022, and from 11 a.m. to 

11 p.m. on March 11, 2022. 

Dated: February 24, 2022. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Sector Maryland-National Capital 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04304 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0848] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway 

Bridge Construction, Mill Basin; 

Brooklyn, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing 

the safety zone that was established by 

the Captain of the Port Sector New York 

on November 24, 2015, that can be 

found under Docket Number USCG– 

2014–1044, titled ‘‘Safety Zone; Shore 

(Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, 

Mill Basin; Brooklyn, NY.’’ The safety 

zone was established to protect persons 

and vessels from potential hazards 

associated with bridge demolition and 

construction operations. The Coast 

Guard received confirmation that the 

bridge construction project is complete, 

and that the safety zone is no longer 

enforced. This action removes the 

existing regulations related to the safety 

zone. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 1, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0848 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email MST1 S. Stevenson, Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 719–354–4000, email 

D01-SMB-SecNY-Waterways@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the New York 

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 November 24, 2015, the Coast 

Guard established the safety zone under 

Docket Number USCG–2014–1044, 

titled ‘‘Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) 

Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill 

Basin; Brooklyn, NY.’’ The safety zone 

was established to protect people and 

vessels from the potential hazards 

associated with a bridge demolition and 

construction project. The initial final 

rule stated that the Coast Guard will 

disestablish the safety zone once the 

bridge project is complete. The Coast 

Guard received confirmation on 

September 13, 2019, that the bridge 

project was completed and enforcement 

of the safety zone was no longer 

necessary. 

The Coast Guard is issuing this final 

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), the Coast Guard finds that good 

cause exists for not publishing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with 

respect to this rule. The safety zone has 

not been enforced since the project was 

completed on September 13, 2019. 

Sufficient time has passed since the 

completion of the bridge project and the 

last enforcement of this safety zone for 

the Coast Guard to receive any adverse 

public implications. In addition, during 

the initial NPRM process for the 

establishment of the safety zone no 

adverse comments were received that 

pertained to the Coast Guard 

disestablishing the safety zone once the 

project was complete. Therefore the 

Coast Guard has determined that it is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest to publish an NPRM because 

this action is merely removing a 

regulatory restriction that is no longer 

needed. 

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. The safety zone is no longer 

needed and has not been enforced since 

2019. This rule requires an 

administrative change to the Federal 

Register, in order to relieve a regulatory 

restriction that is no longer applicable 

or necessary. Therefore, a delayed 

effective date is unnecessary and 

contrary to the pubic interest. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

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

Captain of the Port New York (COTP) 

has determined that the potential 

hazards associated with the Shore (Belt) 

Parkway Bridge Construction are no 

longer present. On November 13, 2019, 

the Coast Guard received confirmation 

that the bridge project was complete and 

the safety zone was no longer enforced. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

On December 8, 2015, the Coast 

Guard published a final rule ‘‘Safety 

Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge 

Construction, Mill Basin; Brooklyn, NY’’ 

in the Federal Register (80 FR 76206). 

The safety zone was necessary to protect 

people and vessels from potential 

hazards with the bridge demolition and 

construction. The initial final rule that 

established this safety zone stated that 

the Coast Guard would publish a direct 

final rule once the bridge project is 

complete. The Coast Guard has 

confirmed that the bridge project is 

complete and the safety zone is no 

longer needed. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 11309 

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 actions taken to 

disestablish a safety zone are not 

considered a significant regulatory 

action. 

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 bridge 

may be small entities, for the reasons 

stated in section V.A above this final 

rule would 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 call or email 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 

environment. This rule involves 

removing a safety zone that was 

established for bridge construction 

operations that have since been 

completed. It is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

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

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the 

docket, see the ADDRESSES section of 

this preamble. 

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. 

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. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

§ 165.161 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 165.161. 

Dated: February 15, 2022. 

Z. Merchant, 

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

Port New York. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04278 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 81 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OFO–0121] 

RIN 1880–AA91 

Standardizing Filing Procedures for 

Administrative Appeals; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Finance and 

Operations, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2021, the 

Department of Education published in 

the Federal Register final regulations for 

Standardizing Filing Procedures for 

Administrative Appeals. This document 

corrects an error to the regulatory text in 

the final regulations. 

DATES: The correction to these final 

regulations is effective March 1, 2022. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1