47574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

59The North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) is an industry classification system 

that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize 

businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, 

and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. United States Census Bureau, North 

American Industry Classification System, https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 

60 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22—Utilities). To be 

conservative, we are using a small business 

threshold of 1,000 employees. 

1 Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & 

Mkt.-Based Rate Purposes, 176 FERC ¶ 61,109 

(2021) (August 2021 Order); see also Data 

Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & Mkt.- 

Based Rate Purposes, 174 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2021); 

Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & Mkt.- 

Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 168 FERC 

¶ 61,039 (2019), order on reh’g and clarification, 

Order No. 860–A, 170 FERC ¶ 61,129 (2020). 

5August 2021 Order, 176 FERC ¶ 61,109 at P 4 

(citations omitted). 

6See, e.g., Legg Mason, Inc., 121 FERC ¶ 61,061, 

at P 26 (2007). 

7See, e.g., id. P 30. 8 18 CFR 35.36(b) (emphasis added). 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 

United States of America 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Data Collection for Analytics and 

Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 

Purposes 

Docket No. RM16–17–000 

(August 19, 2021) 

DANLY, Commissioner, dissenting: 

1. I dissent from today’s order 

adopting the proposal to collect 

additional information for the relational 

database.1 With this issuance, the 

Commission now requires further 

submissions from market-based rate 

sellers with upstream affiliates holding 

blanket authorizations under Federal 

Power Act (FPA) section 203(a)(2).2 This 

additional administrative burden which 

we now foist upon these entities is 

unnecessary (and therefore 

unjustifiable) because the information 

we will glean simply cannot aid us as 

the majority supposes. 

2. Earlier this year, in a separate 

proceeding, Commissioner Chatterjee 

and I concurred in an order denying a 

petition for declaratory order filed by 

NextEra Energy, Inc. and a number of 

other utilities. In that order, the 

Commission seized upon the 

opportunity to reiterate public utilities’ 

reporting obligations regarding the 

informational database.3 Although we 

concurred in the result of that order, we 

objected to inclusion of institutional 

investors in the relational database as a 

pointless regulatory burden with little to 

no value.4 Many of the objections we 

offered in that concurrence are equally 

applicable to this order. I recite those 

objections in large measure here. 

3. As today’s order recognizes, in 

NextEra, the Commission found that as 

a result of the conditions in a section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization, 

institutional investors subject to a 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization 

lack the ability to control the utilities 

whose voting securities they acquire. 

The Commission concluded that, 

because those conditions prevent 

institutional investors from exercising 

control over those utilities, utilities 

commonly owned by an institutional 

investor are not affiliates of each other 

under 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(iv), so long as 

their common institutional investor 

owner complies with the conditions 

imposed as part of a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization.5

The Commission thus acknowledged 

that, in conditioning those blanket 

authorizations, institutional investors 

were prevented from exercising control 

over utilities by acquiring their 

securities. 

4. That determination remains true. 

Under our current regime, there is little 

to no value in listing institutional 

investors as the ultimate upstream 

affiliate of market-based rate sellers in 

the relational database. The Commission 

grants blanket authorizations premised 

on the finding that the institutional 

investors can exercise no control over 

the utilities whose securities they have 

purchased and that the acquisition 

would not adversely affect 

competition.6 The conclusion that the 

institutional investors cannot exercise 

control or influence sellers so as to 

affect market power is confirmed by our 

holding that sellers under common 

control of an institutional investor are 

not affiliates. Indeed, it could not be 

otherwise. 

5. Given those predicate 

determinations, I cannot understand 

why the Commission believes it 

important to include institutional 

investors in a database that is designed 

to enable the Commission to monitor 

the opportunity for market-based rate 

sellers to exercise market power. For the 

same reason, I do not understand why 

the Commission should require change 

in status filings to be made whenever an 

institutional investor’s ownership of the 

seller’s voting securities crosses the 

10% threshold. To the extent that a 

particular institutional investor’s 

ownership of voting securities ever 

becomes relevant to the Commission 

because it may have violated the 

conditions of its authorization, that 

information is easily ascertainable from 

the quarterly informational filings we 

require as a condition of granting the 

blanket authorizations.7

6. There is a simple solution that 

would allow the Commission to 

eliminate the requirement to include 

institutional investors in the relational 

database and in change of status filings 

without waiving the applicability of 

section 35.36(a)(9)(i) of our regulations. 

Section 35.36(b) provides: ‘‘The 

provisions of this subpart apply to all 

Sellers authorized, or seeking 

authorization, to make sales for resale of 

electric energy, capacity or ancillary 

services at market-based rates unless 

otherwise ordered by the 

Commission.’’ 8 Here the Commission 

could have—and in my opinion should 

have—used this authority to order that 

sellers are not obligated to report 

institutional investors in the relational 

database or to make change in status 

filings when institutional investor 

holdings cross the 10% voting security 

threshold. The Commission would also 

need to make a minor amendment to its 

relational database regulations to 

provide that when an institutional 

investor is the ultimate upstream 

affiliate, sellers should instead list the 

next highest upstream affiliate in the 

database. For example, subsidiaries of 

NextEra should list NextEra as the 

ultimate upstream affiliate in the 

database if any institutional investor 

owns 10% or more of NextEra pursuant 

to a blanket authorization. 

7. I appreciate that the Commission 

has acted to reduce the burden on 

sellers resulting from the requirement to 

include institutional investors in the 

relational database and in change-instatus filings. But a pointless regulatory 

burden is a pointless regulatory burden, 

no matter how small. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

dissent. 

llllllllllllllllll

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18283 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0208] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth 

Canal and Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth, 

DE 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47575 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing two security zones for 

certain waters of Rehoboth Beach to 

prevent waterside threats and incidents 

for persons under the protection of the 

United States Secret Service (USSS) in 

the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, 

Delaware. These security zones will be 

enforced intermittently and only for the 

protection of persons protected by USSS 

when in the area and will restrict vessel 

traffic while the zone is being enforced. 

This rule prohibits vessels and people 

from entering the zones unless 

specifically exempt under the 

provisions of this rule or granted 

specific permission from the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or a 

designated representative. Any vessel 

requesting to transit the zones without 

pause or delay will typically be 

authorized to do so by on-scene 

enforcement vessels. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 26, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0208 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 about this 

rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer 

Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector 

Delaware Bay, Waterways Management 

Division; telephone 215–271–4889, 

email Edmund.J.Ofalt@usccg.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 

On occasion the USSS has requested 

heightened security measures for 

persons protected by the USSS in the 

vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. 

In response, on June 3, 2021, the Coast 

guard published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Security 

Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and 

Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth, DE’’ (86 FR 

29727). There, we stated why we issued 

the NPRM, and invited comments on 

our proposed regulatory action related 

to these visits by USSS protectees. 

During the comment period that ended 

July 19, 2021, we received no 

comments. 

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 and 

contrary to the public interest. This rule 

must be immediately effective to guard 

against potential acts of terrorism, 

sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or 

other causes of a similar nature. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

Under the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act, the Coast Guard has authority to 

establish water or waterfront safety 

zones, or other measures, for limited, 

controlled, or conditional access and 

activity when necessary for the 

protection of any vessel, structure, 

waters, or shore area, 46 U.S.C. 

70011(b)(3). This rule safeguards the 

lives of persons protected by the Secret 

Service, and of the general public, by 

enhancing the safety and security of 

navigable waters of the United States 

during USSS protectee presence in 

Rehoboth, Delaware. The Coast Guard 

will activate the security zone when 

requested by the USSS for the 

protection of persons the USSS protects 

under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or pursuant to 

Presidential memorandum. The Coast 

Guard is issuing this rule under 

authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 

33 U.S.C. 1231), as delegated by 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No.00170.1(II)(70), Revision 

No. 01.2, from the Secretary of DHS to 

the Commandant of the U.S. Coast 

Guard, and further redelegated by 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5 

to the Captains of the Port. The Captain 

of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has 

determined that recurring presence of 

persons under the protection of the 

USSS, which started in January of 2021, 

presents a potential target for terrorist 

acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, 

accidents, or other causes of a similar 

nature. This security zone is necessary 

to protect these persons, the public, and 

the surrounding waterways. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, 

and the Rule 

As noted above, we received no 

comments on our NPRM published June 

3, 2021. There are no changes in the 

regulatory text of this rule from the 

proposed rule in the NPRM, other than 

a correction of a minor grammatical 

error in paragraph (a). 

This rule establishes two security 

zones for the protection of USSS 

protectees when present in the vicinity 

of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. This rule 

is necessary to expedite the 

establishment and enforcement of these 

security zones when short notice is 

provided to the COTP for USSS 

protectees who may be present in the 

area. 

Security Zone One is bounded on the 

north by a line drawn from 38°44.36′ 

North Latitude (N), 075°5.32′ West 

Longitude (W), thence easterly to 

38°44.37′ N, 075°5.31′ W proceeding 

from shoreline to shoreline on the 

Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a 

Southeasterly direction where it is 

bounded by a line drawn from 38°43.89′ 

N, 075°5.31′ W, thence easterly to 

38°43.90′ N, 075°5.07′ W thence 

northerly across the entrance to the 

yacht basin to 38°43.93′ N, 075°5.09′ W. 

Security Zone Two extends 500 yards 

seaward from the shoreline, into the 

Atlantic Ocean beginning at 38° 44.86′ 

N, 075° 4.83′ W, proceeding southerly 

along the shoreline to 38°43.97′ N, 

075°4.70′ W. 

These security zones may be activated 

individually or simultaneously with 

respect to the presence of USSS 

protectees. These zones will be enforced 

intermittently. Enforcement of these 

zones will be broadcast via Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners (BNM) and/or local 

Safety Marine Information Broadcast 

(SMIB) on VHF–FM marine channel 16, 

as well as actual notice via on-scene 

Coast Guard Personnel. The public can 

learn the status of the security zone via 

an information release for the public via 

website https://homeport.uscg.mil/myhomeport/coast-guard-prevention/ 

waterway-management?cotpid=40. 

No vessel or person is permitted to 

enter either security zone without first 

obtaining permission from the COTP or 

a designated representative. However, 

we anticipate that vessels requesting to 

transit these zones will typically be 

authorized to transit without pause or 

delay by on-scene enforcement vessels. 

When a vessel or person is permitted to 

enter the security zone after obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative, the vessel or 

person must proceed as directed by onscene enforcement vessels. Any vessel 

or person permitted to transit the 

security zone will be required to 

continue through the zone without 

pause or delay as directed by on-scene 

enforcement vessels. No vessel or 

person will be permitted to stop or 

anchor in the security zone. At times, 

for limited duration, it is anticipated 

that vessels may be prohibited from 

entering the zone due to movement of 

persons protected by USSS. During 

those times, actual notice will be given 

to vessels in the area. 

When these security zones are 

enforced, the COTP will issue a BNM 

and/or SMIB via VHF–FM channel 16. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Dewey Beach lies on the isthmus between 

Rehoboth Bay and the Atlantic Ocean south of 

Rehoboth beach and north of the Delaware Seashore 

State Park. 

The public can learn the status of the 

security zone via an information release 

for the public via website https://

homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coastguard-prevention/waterwaymanagement?cotpid=40. 

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 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) 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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. 

A combined regulatory analysis (RA) 

and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

follows. 

This rule will establish the following 

two security zones: (1) A half-mile 

stretch of the Lewes and Rehoboth 

Canal; and (2) a one-mile section of 

Rehoboth Beach stretching 500 yards 

from the shoreline. The enforcement of 

these two security zones is expected to 

be intermittent. Vessels will normally be 

allowed to transit but not stop within 

the security zones. However, when 

persons protected by the USSS are 

moving in or out of the area, the Coast 

Guard may halt traffic in these two 

security zones. The Coast Guard expects 

such instances to happen relatively 

infrequently and for a short duration (1– 

3 hours). 

The Coast Guard will station Coast 

Guard personnel at the borders of the 

security zones with the authority to 

enforce this security zone. In the few 

instances where USSS protectees are in 

transit, these Coast Guard personnel 

will ensure that no traffic transits 

through the security zones. Recreational 

boaters wishing to transit the area may 

inquire directly with the Coast Guard 

personnel posted at the boundaries of 

the security zones, rather than being 

required to contact the COTP. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

rule’s costs and qualitative benefits. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE RULE’S IMPACTS

Category Summary 

Potentially Affected Population ....... This rule will impact recreational boaters wishing to use the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North 

Shores section of Rehoboth Beach. 

Unquantified Costs .......................... Recreational boaters of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal will need to speak with Coast Guard personnel 

stationed at the entrances of the security zones. These recreational boaters will be informed that they 

will be unable to stop or loiter inside the security zone. In certain instances where persons protected by 

USSS are in transit, traffic may be halted on the Lowes and Rehoboth Canal. In these instances, recreational boaters wishing to use the canal will instead need to take a circuitous route or forgo their trip 

all together. 

Unquantified Benefits ...................... This rule will secure the area to meet objectives of the USSS and keep USSS protectees safe. 

Affected Population 

The Coast Guard does not collect data 

on the vessels and individuals using 

either the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or 

the North Shores Section of Rehoboth 

Beach, the areas that would be impacted 

by this rule. To estimate the affected 

population, we used information 

directly observable from Google Maps, 

as well as the subject-matter expertise of 

Coast Guard personnel with knowledge 

of the area. 

The two security zones—a half-mile 

section of the Lowes Rehoboth Canal 

and a one-mile section of Rehoboth 

Beach—are distinct. As such, we assess 

the affected populations for these two 

areas separately. 

(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes Rehoboth 

Canal 

This regulation will impact any 

recreational boater wishing to transit the 

Lewes Rehoboth Canal. The Lewes 

Rehoboth Canal is about 10 miles long 

and connects the Broadkill River and 

the Delaware Bay to Rehoboth Bay. The 

security zone begins approximately twothirds of the way through the canal (if 

starting from the Delaware Bay) and 

lasts for about a half mile. As such, 

recreational boaters wishing to transit 

the canal from the communities of 

Lewes, Dewey Beach, North Shores, 

Rehoboth Beach, and West Rehoboth 

may be impacted by this rule.1

These communities are seasonal; their 

populations are much larger and more 

active in the summer than in the winter. 

Vessel traffic in the canal follows the 

same pattern. Coast Guard officers 

stationed in this region estimated the 

numbers of vessels transiting this zone 

per day by season. We present these 

estimates in table 2. 

TABLE 2—VESSEL TRAFFIC BY TIME OF YEAR

Months Vessels transiting the canal per day 

January through March ............................................................................ 20 vessels per day. 

April ........................................................................................................... 75 vessels per day. 

May through September ........................................................................... More than 200 vessels per day. 

October through December ...................................................................... 50 vessels per day. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47577 

The vessel traffic in the canal is 

entirely recreational. There are no 

commercial vessels that transit the 

canal. Moreover, the canal is quite 

shallow. The Coast Guard’s 27-foot 

vessels navigate the canal with 

difficulty because of the depth. Kayaks, 

canoes, and other manually powered 

watercraft are frequently used in the 

canal (not counted in the daily vessel 

traffic estimates). 

In addition to the daily traffic of 

recreational boaters wishing to transit 

the security zone, there are a number of 

boat slips located either within the 

security zone or that require transiting 

the security zone to access. There are 

also houses that border sections of the 

canal wholly inside the security zone. 

We reviewed satellite images from 

Google Maps to identify the number of 

boat slips within the security zone or 

that require transiting the security zone 

to access. Based on these satellite 

images, we estimate that 17 private 

houses that lie entirely within the canal 

security zone contain either a boat slip 

or dock. The boat slips indicate that 

recreational vessel usage might be 

undertaken by the owners or occupiers 

of these properties. Because they lie 

fully inside the security zone, they will 

be impacted every time they take out 

their vessels. 

Additionally, a small man-made canal 

branches off the main Lewes and 

Rehoboth Canal and leads into a small 

man-made lake. The southern edge of 

the safety zone continues just past the 

entrance to this second canal. Private 

houses and the North Shores Marina 

inhabit the land surrounding the second 

canal and its adjoining lake. Some of 

these houses contain docks or boat slips. 

Recreational vessel operations will 

require transiting through the security 

zone to reach either the boat slips at 

these private homes or the North Shores 

Marina. Use of this canal and lake is 

primarily local and by small 

recreational vessels, as this second canal 

may only be 3 feet deep in certain 

places. Using Google Maps, we count 14 

boat slips or docks connected to private 

houses and 30 spaces for recreational 

vessels at the North Shores Marina. 

(2) Security Zone 2: Rehoboth Beach 

This rule will also impact any 

recreational boaters that transit the area 

1 mile by 500 yards offshore of the 

North Shores section of Rehoboth 

Beach. Because of its proximity to the 

shore, the Coast Guard does not estimate 

any recreational boaters or commercial 

vessels routinely operate in this section 

of the ocean. Vessels operating this 

close to shore could face additional 

hazards due to the surf and other marine 

currents and would avoid this area. 

Costs 

As above, we assess the costs of the 

two security zones separately. 

(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes and 

Rehoboth Canal 

In table 2, we present the Coast 

Guard’s estimate of the average vessel 

traffic. Under normal course of 

operations, the Coast Guard anticipates 

that recreational boaters transiting the 

canal would have a brief conversation 

with the Coast Guard official stationed 

at the entrance to the security zone. 

Recreational boaters would then 

proceed through the security zone 

(without stopping or loitering) and exit 

the security zone. We anticipate that 

this conversation would last between 15 

and 30 seconds per recreational boater. 

Because we do not know how many 

recreational boaters are on the average 

boat and because of how small the 

amount of time per recreational boaters 

is likely to be, we do not estimate the 

total costs of these conversations. 

Additionally, above we discussed that 

there are a number of houses and a 

marina that are contained within the 

security zone or would require 

transiting the security zone in order to 

access. Recreational vessel operators 

who reside or are visiting a location 

inside the security zone should be able 

to relay this information to the Coast 

Guard personnel stationed at the 

entrance of the security zone. When 

recreational boaters provide this 

additional information, it may increase 

the duration of the conversation. 

However, there are only 17 houses with 

private docks or boat slips contained 

within the security zone. It is likely, 

therefore, that the Coast Guard 

personnel stationed at either end of the 

security zone would become aware of 

these vessels and their owners and 

operators. As a result, conversations 

may become more brief over time. 

In order to access the private docks 

and boat slips of the 14 houses and the 

North Shores Marina, recreational vessel 

operators will need to transit through a 

small portion of the security zone. The 

Coast Guard will interpret the vessels 

seeking to access this second canal as 

innocent passage. As a result, the Coast 

Guard personnel do not intend to 

converse with recreational boaters 

intending to access the second canal 

unless they notice suspicious activity. 

Instead, Coast Guard personnel will 

report vessels transiting the second 

canal to the USSS representatives. 

Because Coast Guard personnel will not 

converse with the recreational vessel 

operators transiting this region, we 

estimate that there would be no costs on 

boaters who only pass through the lower 

stretch of the canal security zone in 

order to access the North Shores Marina 

or the private houses on the canal or 

lake. 

The costs discussed above cover the 

normal operations when access to the 

canal is still permitted. However, when 

certain individuals protected by the 

USSS are transiting the area, the Coast 

Guard may shut down access to the 

canal. Such closures could last from 1 

to 3 hours, or longer. If the security zone 

is closed to all traffic, recreational 

boaters will not be able to transit the 

length of the canal. Recreational boaters 

wishing to transit through the security 

zone will be unable to do so. 

If this closure happens suddenly, 

recreational boaters could be stranded 

on either side of the canal. The distance 

through the canal is about 10 miles, but 

to avoid the canal by taking a more 

circuitous route around Rehoboth Beach 

would add 25 miles to the journey. 

Additionally, a significant portion of 

this distance requires operating in the 

Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is 

considerably rougher than the 

intracoastal waterways. As a result, 

many of the recreational watercraft 

unable to transit the security zone may 

be unable to take an alternate route, 

either because they may not have a 

vessel suitable to a coastwise route or 

may not have the time to add an 

additional 25 miles on to the journey. 

Because we do not know the 

frequency or duration of full closures of 

the security zone, we are unable to 

quantitatively assess the costs to either 

temporarily stranded vessel operators or 

to vessel operators wishing to transit the 

closed waterway. 

(2) Security Zone 2: North Shores 

Section of Rehoboth Beach on the 

Atlantic Ocean 

We do not estimate that any vessels 

routinely operate in this section of 

Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the 

Affected Population section above. 

Additionally, were recreational vessel 

operators to transit this security zone, it 

is far easier to exit or avoid the security 

zone than in the canal. Recreational 

boaters merely will need to be greater 

than 500 yards from shore. As a result, 

we do not estimate any costs incurred 

by the second security zone. 

Benefits 

Upon request by the USSS for the 

Coast Guard to implement security 

measures in certain sections of the 

Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and certain 

sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the Coast Guard is establishing two 

security zones covering these areas. The 

security zones are necessary to prevent 

waterside threats and incidents that 

could impact the safety and security of 

USSS protectees when present in the 

area. 

Both security zones aid the USSS in 

controlling the area and preventing 

actors wishing to cause harm to the 

functioning of the U.S. Government by 

attacking persons protected by the 

USSS. Were such an attack to be 

attempted or to occur, the societal 

impacts could be sizable and potentially 

severe to the Nation’s Government. 

Additionally, the local impacts would 

be substantial as well. The area could be 

closed for a significant period as any 

necessary investigations occur. This 

regulatory action will greatly decrease 

the likelihood of these potential 

impacts. The Coast Guard has no way to 

quantify the frequency of malfeasant 

actors or the extent to which this rule 

will diminish the frequency of their 

attempted or successful actions. 

However, we believe that the value of 

these benefits justify the costs of the 

regulation. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

We considered alternatives to the 

regulatory action to determine if an 

alternative could accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and 

could minimize any economic impact 

on small entities. In developing this 

rule, the Coast Guard considered the 

following alternatives: 

Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo 

Without this rule, malfeasant actors 

could have unfettered access to 

locations near persons protected by 

USSS. We believe that this unfettered 

access presents an unacceptable security 

risk to the United States. As such, we 

rejected this alternative. 

Alternative 2: Do Not Permit any Traffic 

Inside the Security Zone 

The Coast Guard considered closing 

the security zone to traffic entirely, 

which would have had the added cost 

of making it impossible to fully transit 

the canal. We rejected this alternative 

because there are potentially over 200 

recreational boaters a day transiting the 

security zones in the summer. These 

boaters would lose their ability to have 

recreational access of the waterway and 

any enjoyment that provides them. 

Additionally, 31 homes with boat slips 

and a marina with 30 spots are 

inaccessible without transiting the 

security zones. These homes, despite 

existing on the canal with a dock, would 

be unable to use the waterway. 

Consequently, we rejected this 

alternative because the costs would be 

too high. 

Alternative 3: Allow Vessels To Transit 

the Waterway, but Do Not Permit 

Vessels To Transit During the 

Movement of Certain Individuals 

Protected by USSS 

This is our preferred alternative and 

discussed throughout the regulatory 

analysis. We believe it balances the 

costs to public in the form of quick 

conversations with transiting 

recreational vessels and the occasional 

inconvenience of a temporary canal 

closure due to USSS protectees moving 

around the area with the benefits of 

ensuring the security of these protected 

persons. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 people. 

As discussed above, the affected 

population is entirely recreational. As a 

result, the individuals directly regulated 

by this rule are not small entities as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Based on this analysis, we found 

this rulemaking will not affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, 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. If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this 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 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47579 

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 two 

security zones for the protection of 

USSS protectees while present in the 

vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. It 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L[60a] of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

Record of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. 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 is amending 

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. 

■ 2. Add § 165.561 to read as follows:. 

§ 165.561 Security Zones; Lewes and 

Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, 

Rehoboth Beach, DE. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

security zones; these coordinates are 

based on North American Datum 83 

(NAD83): 

(1) Security zone one: All waters of 

the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal bounded 

on the north by a line drawn from 38° 

44.35′ North Latitude (N), 075°5.32′ 

West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 

38°44.37′ N, 075°5.31′ W proceeding 

from shoreline to shoreline on the 

Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a 

Southeasterly direction where it is 

bounded by a line drawn from 38°43.89′ 

N, 075°5.31′ W, thence easterly to 

38°43.90′ N, 075°5.07′ W thence 

northerly across the entrance to the 

yacht basin to 38°43.93′ N, 075° 5.09′ W. 

(2) Security zone two: All waters of 

the Atlantic Ocean extending 500 yards 

seaward from a line beginning at 

38°44.86′ N, 075°4.86′ W, proceeding 

southerly along the shoreline to 

38°43.97′ N, 075°4.70′ W. 

(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 and a Federal, State, and 

local officer designated by or assisting 

the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay 

(COTP) in the enforcement of the 

security zone. 

USSS protectee means any person for 

whom the United States Secret Service 

requests implementation of a security 

zone in order to supplement protection 

of said person(s). 

Official patrol vessel means any Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, State, or 

local law enforcement vessel assigned or 

approved by the COTP. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations contained in 

§ 165.33 of this part, entry into or 

movement within this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP, Sector Delaware Bay, or 

designated representative. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in a 

security zone described in paragraph (a) 

of this section is prohibited unless 

authorized by the COTP or designated 

representative when the security zones 

are being enforced. At the start of each 

enforcement, all persons and vessels 

within the security zone must depart the 

zones immediately or obtain 

authorization from the COTP or 

designated representative to remain 

within either zone. All vessels 

authorized to remain in the zone(s) must 

proceed as directed by the COTP or 

designated representative. 

(3) A person or vessel operator who 

intends to enter or transit the security 

zones while the zones are being 

enforced must obtain authorization from 

the COTP or designated representative. 

While the zones are being enforced the 

COTP or designated representative will 

determine access to the zones on a caseby-case basis. A person or vessel 

operator requesting permission to enter 

or transit the security zone may contact 

the COTP or designated representative 

at 215–271–4807 or on marine band 

radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz), 

or by visually or verbally hailing the onscene law enforcement vessel enforcing 

the zone. On-scene Coast Guard 

personnel enforcing this section can be 

contacted on marine band radio, VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The 

operator of a vessel must proceed as 

directed upon being hailed by a U.S. 

Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agency 

vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or 

other means. When authorized by the 

COTP or designated representative to 

enter the security zone all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the COTP or designated 

representative and proceed at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course while within the security 

zone. 

(4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or 

local law enforcement agency vessel, by 

siren, radio, flashing light or other 

means, a person or operator of a vessel 

must proceed as directed. Failure to 

comply with lawful direction may result 

in expulsion from the regulated area, 

citation for failure to comply, or both. 

(5) Unless specifically authorized by 

on-scene enforcement vessels, no vessel 

or person will be permitted to stop or 

anchor in the security zone. A vessel 

granted permission to enter or transit 

within the security zone(s) must do so 

without delay or pause for the entirety 

of its time within the boundaries of the 

security zone(s). At times, for limited 

duration, it is anticipated that vessels 

may be prohibited from entering the 

zone due to movement of persons 

protected by USSS. During those times, 

the Coast Guard will provide actual 

notice to vessels in the area. 

(6) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure 

the entirety of either or both security 

zones if deemed necessary to address 

security threats or concerns. 

(7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be 

assisted by Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Enforcement. (1) The Coast Guard 

activates the security zones when 

requested by the U.S. Secret Service for 

the protection of individuals who 

qualify for protection under 18 U.S.C 

3056(a) or Presidential memorandum. 

The COTP will provide the public with 

notice of enforcement of security zone 

by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), 

information release at the website: 

https://homeport.uscg.mil/myhomeport/coast-guard-prevention/ 

waterway-management?cotpid=40 as 

well as on-scene notice by designated 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47580 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 86 FR 30204. 

2 86 FR 30234. 

representative or other appropriate 

means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 

(2) These security zones may be 

enforced individually or 

simultaneously. 

Dated: August 20, 2021. 

Jonathan D. Theel, 

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

Port, Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18427 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0341; FRL–8728–02– 

R9] 

Severe Area Submission Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; California; 

Eastern Kern Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is establishing a schedule for the the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

to submit revisions to the state 

implementation plan (SIP) addressing 

‘‘Severe’’ area requirements for the 2008 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for the 

Eastern Kern nonattainment area 

(‘‘Eastern Kern’’). CARB will be required 

to submit SIP revisions addressing 

Severe area requirements for Eastern 

Kern, including revisions to new source 

review (NSR) rules, no later than 

January 7, 2023. Submittal of any 

necessary revisions to the title V rules 

that apply in Eastern Kern are due no 

later than January 7, 2022. Lastly, the 

EPA is establishing a deadline for 

implementation of new reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

rules as expeditiously as practicable but 

no later than July 7, 2024. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0341. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 947–4279, leers.ben@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comment Period 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On June 7, 2021, the EPA issued a 

final rulemaking granting a request by 

CARB to reclassify Eastern Kern from 

‘‘Serious’’ to Severe for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS under section 181(b)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA).1 Our 

reclassification of Eastern Kern from 

Serious to Severe is in effect as of July 

7, 2021. In a separate document 

published on June 7, 2021, the EPA 

proposed a schedule for CARB to submit 

revisions to the California SIP 

addressing Severe area requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and to submit 

revisions to the title V operating permit 

rules for Eastern Kern.2

Our June 7, 2021 proposed rule 

includes background information 

concerning the EPA’s promulgation of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and history of 

the designation and classification of 

Eastern Kern for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Our proposed rule also 

describes the Severe area SIP 

requirements that apply to Eastern Kern 

as a result of the reclassification and 

proposes a schedule for CARB to submit 

Severe area SIP requirements and title V 

rule revisions. 

More specifically, in our proposed 

rule, we proposed to establish a 

deadline for CARB to submit SIP 

revisions addressing Severe area 

requirements for Eastern Kern, 

including revisions to NSR rules, no 

later than 18 months from the effective 

date of the EPA’s final rule reclassifying 

Eastern Kern to Severe for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. We also proposed to 

establish a deadline of no later than six 

months from the effective date of the 

reclassification for CARB to submit any 

corresponding revisions to title V rules 

for Eastern Kern. Lastly, we proposed to 

establish a deadline for implementation 

of new RACT rules in Eastern Kern as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than 18 months from the date when the 

Severe area RACT SIP is due. The 

effective date of the EPA’s final rule 

reclassifying Eastern Kern to Severe for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS is July 7, 2021. 

In this final rule, we are taking final 

action to establish the various deadlines 

based on the July 7, 2021 effective date 

for reclassification. 

II. Public Comment Period 

The public comment period on the 

proposed rule opened on June 7, 2021, 

the date of its publication in the Federal 

Register, and closed on July 7, 2021. 

During this period, the EPA did not 

receive any comments on our proposed 

action. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons described in our June 

7, 2021 proposed rule, the EPA is 

invoking its CAA section 301(a) 

authority to establish a deadline of no 

later than January 7, 2023 (i.e., 18 

months from the effective date of our 

final rule reclassifying Eastern Kern as 

Severe) for CARB to submit SIP 

revisions addressing all Severe area SIP 

elements for the Eastern Kern ozone 

nonattainment area. We are also 

establishing a deadline of January 7, 

2022 (i.e., six months from the effective 

date of reclassification to Severe) for 

CARB to submit any necessary revisions 

to title V rules for Eastern Kern. Lastly, 

the EPA is establishing a deadline for 

implementation of Severe area RACT 

controls in Eastern Kern as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than July 7, 2024 (i.e., 18 months from 

the date when the Severe area RACT SIP 

is due, or 36 months from the effective 

date of reclassification to Severe). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Because the statutory requirements are 

clearly defined with respect to the 

differently classified areas, and because 

those requirements are automatically 

triggered by classification, the timing of 

the submittal of the Severe area 

requirements does not impose a 

materially adverse impact under 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES