Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 16987 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning Policy 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges and is 

categorically excluded from further 

review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 

3, Table3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this rule. 

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 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.293 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.293 Indian Creek. 

The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge 

across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 at Miami 

Beach, FL, shall open on signal except 

that: 

(a) Each day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 

except Federal holidays, the draw need 

open only on the hour and half-hour; 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 17, 2022. 

Brendan C. McPherson, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06288 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0215] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone for Pollution Responders; 

Neva Strait, Sitka, AK 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

navigable waters within a 100-yard 

radius of oil spill recovery vessels in 

Neva Strait. The safety zone is needed 

to protect personnel, vessels, and the 

marine environment from potential 

hazards created by pollution response 

efforts. Entry of vessels or persons into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port Southeast Alaska. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice from March 25, 2022 

twenty-four hours per day until 6 p.m. 

on March 27, 2022. For the purposes of 

enforcement, actual notice will be used 

from noon on March 21, 2022 until 

March 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2022– 

0215 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 Lieutenant Jesse Collins, 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 907–463–2846, 

email Jesse.O.Collins@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 

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 (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because a vessel 

ran aground, causing a significant oil 

spill, and immediate action is needed to 

respond to the potential safety hazards 

associated with pollution response 

efforts. It is impracticable to publish an 

NPRM because we must establish this 

safety zone by March 21, 2022. 

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 impracticable 

because immediate action is needed to 

respond to the potential safety hazards 

associated with pollution response 

efforts in Neva Strait. 

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 Southeast Alaska 

(COTP) has determined that potential 

hazards associated with pollution 

response efforts starting March 21, 2021, 

will be a safety concern for anyone 

within a 100-yard radius of oil spill 

recovery vessels in Neva Strait. This 

rule is needed to protect personnel, 

vessels, and the marine environment in 

the navigable waters within the safety 

zone for the duration of pollution 

response efforts. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a safety zone 

effective twenty-four hours per day until 

6 p.m. on March 27, 2022. The safety 

zone will cover all navigable waters 

within 100 yards of vessels and 

machinery being used by personnel to 

respond to a significant oil spill. The 

duration of the zone is intended to 

protect personnel, vessels, and the 

marine environment in these navigable 

waters for the duration of pollution 

response efforts. No vessel or person 

will be permitted to enter the safety 

zone 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
16988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 size, location, duration, 

and time-of-day of the safety zone. 

Vessel traffic will be able to safely 

transit through the safety zone which 

would impact a small designated area of 

Neva Strait. Moreover, the Coast Guard 

would issue a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 

16 about the zone, and the rule would 

allow vessel 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 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 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 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 a safety 

zone lasting twenty-four hours per day 

that will prohibit entry within 100 yards 

of vessels and machinery being used by 

personnel to respond to a significant oil 

spill. 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 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 NAGIVATION 

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. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T17–0215 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T17–0215 Safety Zone for Pollution 

Responders; Neva Strait, Sitka, AK. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of Neva Strait 

with a 100-yard radius of oil spill 

recovery vessels. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port 

(COTP) means the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Juneau. 

(2) 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 

and a Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the COTP 

Southeast Alaska in the enforcement of 

the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 16989 

1Public Law 116–260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 

2176 (2020). 

2See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 18–20 

(2019); S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 7–8 (2019). 

3 86 FR 16156 (Mar. 26, 2021). Comments 

received in response to the March 26, 2021 NOI are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

COLC-2021-0001-0001/comment. 

4 86 FR 53897 (Sept. 29, 2021). Comments 

received in response to the September 29, 2021 

NPRM are available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/COLC-2021-0004/comments. References to 

these comments are by party name (abbreviated 

where appropriate), followed by ‘‘Initial NPRM 

Comments’’ or ‘‘Reply NPRM Comments,’’ as 

appropriate. 

5 86 FR 53897. 

6The statutory fee for filing suit in a federal 

district court is $350, 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and an 

additional fee of $52 is charged as an administrative 

fee by the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

Id. 

7 17 U.S.C. 1510(c). 

8 86 FR 53904 (citing S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 4 

n.4). 

9 Id. 

10But cf. Michael Bynum Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 (not mentioning the two-tiered vs. 

single-tier choice, but stating that he was 

‘‘comfortable’’ with a $100 fee and that it was 

‘‘reasonable’’). 

11See, e.g., Copyright Alliance, ACT √ App Ass’n, 

Am. Photographic Artists, Am. Soc’y for Collective 

Rights Licensing, Am. Soc’y of Media 

Photographers, The Authors Guild, CreativeFuture, 

Digital Media Licensing Ass’n, Graphic Artists 

Guild, Indep. Book Pubs. Ass’n, Music Artists 

Coalition, Music Creators N. Am., Nat’l Press 

Photographers Ass’n, N. Am. Nature Photography 

Ass’n, Prof. Photographers of Am., Recording 

Academy, Screen Actors Guild-Am. Fed. of 

Television and Radio Artists, Soc’y of Composers & 

Lyricists, Songwriters Guild of Am., & Songwriters 

of N. Am. (‘‘Copyright Alliance et al.’’) Initial 

NPRM Comments at 8–11; Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass’n 

(‘‘AIPLA’’) Initial NPRM Comments at 3; The 

Authors Guild Reply NPRM Comments at 1–2; Mark 

Reback Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Jay Foster 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

12See, e.g., AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3 

($35–55); Authors Guild Reply NPRM Comments at 

1–2 ($25–35); Ryan Conners Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 ($25); Ricky Jackson Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 ($25); Sylvia Phipps Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 ($25); Anonymous Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3 ($50); Sydney Krantz Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 ($25); Donna Barr Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 ($15); Ritterbin Photography Initial 

NPRM Comments at 1 ($25); Lisa Shaftel Initial 

NPRM Comments at 5 ($25); Suriya Ahmer Initial 

NPRM Comments at 1 ($25); Mark Woodward Reply 

NPRM Comments at 1 ($20–25); Hans Rupert Initial 

NPRM Comments at ($10). 

13See, e.g., John Long Initial NPRM Comments at 

1; 9TH Eye in The Quad Productions Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1; c, z Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Cherry Wood Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Charlotte Cotton Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Dan 

Milham Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Gareth Hinds 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1; K Muldoon Initial 

NPRM Comments at 1; Bree McCool Photography 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Linda Langford Initial 

NPRM Comments at 1; Angela Jarman Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1. 

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) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by telephone at 907–463– 

2980 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The designated 

representative on-scene can be 

contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(3) Those in the safety zone must 

comply with all lawful orders or 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

the COTP’s designated representative. 

Dated: March 21, 2022. 

D.A. Jensen, 

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

Port Southeast Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06453 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201, 220, 222, 223, and 

224 

[Docket No. 2021–6] 

Copyright Claims Board: Initiating of 

Proceedings and Related Procedures 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

amending its regulations to establish 

procedures governing the initial stages 

of a Copyright Claims Board proceeding. 

The regulations provide requirements 

regarding filing a claim, the Board’s 

compliance review, service, notice of 

the claim, the respondent’s opt-out 

election, responses, and counterclaims. 

DATES: Effective April 25, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov, or by telephone at 202– 

707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Alternative in SmallClaims Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act of 

2020 1 directs the Copyright Office to 

establish the Copyright Claims Board 

(‘‘CCB’’), a voluntary forum for parties 

seeking resolution of certain copyright 

disputes that have a total monetary 

value of $30,000 or less. The CCB is an 

alternative forum to federal court and is 

designed to be accessible to pro se 

individuals and individuals without 

much formal exposure to copyright.2

The Office published a notification of 

inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) asking for public 

comments on the CCB’s operations and 

procedures.3

Following the NOI, the Office 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), proposing rules 

governing the initiation of proceedings 

before the CCB and related procedures.4

These rules addressed filing a claim, the 

CCB’s review of the claim to ensure that 

it complies with the relevant statutory 

requirements and regulations 

(‘‘compliance review’’), service, notice 

of the claim, the respondent’s ability to 

opt out, the response, and 

counterclaims.5

The Office sought public input 

concerning its proposals for the 

initiation of proceedings and related 

procedures and received 186 responsive 

comments. The Office addresses these 

comments along with changes made to 

the proposed rule below. 

II. Final Rule 

A. Fees 

1. Fee for Filing a Claim 

The CASE Act provides that the sum 

total of any filing fees, including the fee 

to commence a proceeding, may not 

exceed the cost to file an action in 

federal district court (currently $402 6) 

but may not be less than $100.7 In the 

NPRM, the Office noted that the CASE 

Act’s Senate Report proposed ‘‘that the 

Office consider a two-tiered fee 

structure, with an initial fee assessed 

when the claim is filed and a second fee 

assessed after the claim becomes 

active.’’ 8 At that time, the Office 

declined to institute a two-tiered fee 

system, under the theory that where a 

‘‘claimant did not move on to the 

second tier, the total filing fees would 

not reach the statutory floor.’’ 9

Accordingly, a single filing fee of $100 

to commence a proceeding was 

proposed. However, the Office invited 

comments on the advisability of a twotiered fee system and whether the Office 

has the authority to institute such a 

system under the CASE Act. 

Commenters overwhelmingly 

supported a two-tiered fee system.10

They offered many practical arguments, 

including that an upfront fee of $100 

may be cost-prohibitive for many 

claimants, especially when respondents 

subsequently opt out of the proceeding, 

and that a two-tiered system would 

increase participation by minimizing 

the loss to a claimant where a 

respondent opts out before a proceeding 

becomes active.11 Commenters 

suggested setting the first fee in the 

range of $10 to $55, with many 

suggesting the first fee should be around 

$25.12 Others did not take a position on 

a single fee or two-tiered approach, but 

suggested reducing the filing fee to less 

than $100.13


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1