Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7041 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2016–1288/Airspace 

Docket No. 15–ASW–23.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_

traffic/publications/airspace_

amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the Central 

Service Center, Operation Support 

Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort 

Worth, TX 76177. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking 

(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents Proposed for Incorporation 

by Reference 

This document would amend FAA 

Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations 

and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 

2015, and effective September 15, 2015. 

FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available 

as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 6-mile 

radius of South Grand Lake Regional 

Airport, Ketchum, OK, to accommodate 

new standard instrument approach 

procedures. Controlled airspace is 

needed for the safety and management 

of IFR operations at the airport. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, 

dated August 6, 2015, and effective 

September 15, 2015, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current, is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in 

adverse or negative comments. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air) 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2015, and 

effective September 15, 2015, is 

amended as follows: 

Section 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASW OK E5 Ketchum, OK [New] 

South Grand Lake Regional Airport, OK 

(Lat. 36°32′47′′ N., long. 095°00′49′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius 

of South Grand Lake Regional Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 27, 

2016. 

Robert W. Beck, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02549 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SSA–2015–0025] 

20 CFR Part 411 

RIN 0960–AH50 

Revising the Ticket to Work Program 

Rules 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: We are soliciting public input 

on whether and how we might revise 

the current Ticket to Work program 

rules. The Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 

established the Ticket to Work program 

to allow individuals with disabilities to 

seek services to obtain and retain 

employment in order to reduce 

dependency on cash benefit programs. 

In creating the program, Congress found 

that eliminating barriers to work and 

providing individuals with real choice 

in obtaining services and technology to 

find, enter, and maintain employment 

can greatly improve the short and longterm financial independence and 

personal well-being of our beneficiaries. 

We want to explore improving our 

Ticket to Work program as part of our 

ongoing effort to help our beneficiaries 

find and maintain employment that 

leads to increased independence and 

enhanced productivity. If we propose 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7042 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The BLS uses a different definition of 

‘‘disability’’ than we do. The BLS defines a person 

with disability as someone with at least one of the 

following conditions: Is deaf or has serious 

difficulty hearing; is blind or has serious difficulty 

seeing even when wearing glasses; has serious 

difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making 

decisions because of a physical, mental, or 

emotional condition; has serious difficulty walking 

or climbing stairs; has difficulty dressing or bathing; 

or has difficulty doing errands alone such as 

visiting a doctor’s office or shopping because of a 

physical, mental, or emotional condition. Sections 

223(d)(1)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A), 

define ‘‘disability’’ as the inability to engage in any 

substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental 

impairment. The impairment must be one that can 

be expected to result in death or that has lasted or 

can be expected to last for a continuous 12-month 

period. 

specific revisions to our regulations, we 

will publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: To ensure that we consider your 

comments, we must receive them by no 

later than April 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit 

the same comments multiple times or by 

more than one method. Regardless of 

which method you choose, please state 

that your comments refer to Docket No. 

SSA–2015–0025 so that we may 

associate your comments with this 

ANPRM. 

Caution: You should be careful to 

include in your comments only 

information you wish to make publicly 

available. We strongly urge you not to 

include in your comments any personal 

information, such as Social Security 

numbers or medical information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

this method for submitting your 

comments. Visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Use the Web 

page’s Search function to find docket 

number SSA–2015–0025. Once you 

submit your comment, the system will 

issue you a tracking number to confirm 

your submission. You will not be able 

to view your comment immediately 

because we post each comment 

manually. It may take up to a week for 

your comment to appear. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

3. Mail: Address your comments to 

the Office of Regulations and Reports 

Clearance, Social Security 

Administration, 3100 West High Rise 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Green, Deputy Director, Office of 

Beneficiary Outreach and Employment 

Support, Office of Research, 

Demonstration and Employment 

Support, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–9852. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772– 

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit 

our Internet site, Social Security Online, 

at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

The purpose of this ANPRM is to 

solicit ideas for improving the Ticket to 

Work program. We are considering 

whether and how we might update the 

Ticket to Work program rules to help 

both our beneficiaries and the providers 

that serve our beneficiaries in the 

program. The Ticket to Work program 

rules are contained in 20 CFR part 411. 

We last updated the program rules on 

May 20, 2008. Through this ANPRM, we 

are requesting comments and 

suggestions from the public on what we 

might include in new Ticket to Work 

program rules. 

Why are we considering new Ticket to 

Work program rules? 

According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ (BLS) Current Population 

Survey (http://www.bls.gov/

news.release/empsit.t06.htm), the July 

2015 unemployment rate for individuals 

with a disability 1 was 10.4 percent, 

compared to 5.4 percent for people 

without disability. This number refers to 

those who were actively seeking a job, 

and were willing, able and available to 

work, but unable to find a job in the 

month prior to the survey. The July 

2015 employment-population ratio, 

which measures the percent of people in 

a given population who are working, 

was 17.7 percent for persons with a 

disability, versus 65.3 percent for those 

without a disability. 

Employment programs that assist 

people with finding jobs may focus on 

either short-term or long-term goals. For 

example, the Individual Placement and 

Support (IPS) model emphasizes rapid 

job search and placement. Other models 

focus on equipping people with the 

education, skills, and supports that are 

building blocks of sustainable success in 

the labor market. We seek comments on 

the effectiveness of different 

employment support models and on 

how we can change the structure of the 

Ticket to Work program to incorporate 

the most successful models. 

Since the last change in the Ticket to 

Work rules, there has been increased 

research in the fields of financial 

literacy, behavioral economics, and 

psychology. This could inform us on 

how to improve Ticket to Work program 

outcomes. For example, research shows 

that the way information is presented 

influences the decisions an individual 

makes. Therefore, it is essential to 

present information clearly and 

effectively, particularly for decisions 

that are complex or have long-term 

consequences. Beneficiaries in the 

Ticket to Work program face complex 

decisions regarding employment and 

benefits options. We are seeking your 

suggestions on effective ways to present 

information to beneficiaries to improve 

participation and outcomes in the 

Ticket to Work program. 

Further, beneficiaries may need other 

supports to manage their finances and 

benefits. In our preliminary research, we 

noticed three areas of possible interest 

to beneficiaries in the program: (1) 

Financial education and counseling, (2) 

access to financial services and 

products, and (3) asset building. We 

request comments on how the Ticket to 

Work program might assist beneficiaries 

in understanding the options for 

increasing their earnings and achieving/ 

sustaining greater financial 

independence, and whether financial 

education, financial services, and asset 

building are necessary to foster work 

outcomes that are likely to lead to exit 

from the disability rolls. 

We also welcome your ideas on 

fostering program success for and with 

employment networks (ENs), which are 

the approved service providers for the 

program. Beneficiaries may obtain 

assistance from ENs in locating, 

retaining, and advancing in jobs/careers. 

We want your input on how we can 

remove service barriers for and increase 

the effectiveness of ENs, and which 

services the ENs might provide to help 

beneficiaries to secure employment and 

increase their earnings. In particular, we 

welcome comments and actual 

examples of how ENs can best assist 

individuals—in concert with employers, 

VR agencies, public work force systems, 

WIPAs and other entities—to achieve 

and sustain our beneficiaries’ 

employment success. 

Under the current program rules, the 

amount of our payments to ENs remains 

the same as long as a beneficiary meets 

our earnings requirements. We do not 

increase EN payments when a 

beneficiary earns more than the 

substantial gainful activity (SGA) level 

for sustained periods. (SGA describes a 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7043 

level of work activity and earnings, 

which we use as one factor to determine 

disability. We ordinarily consider an 

individual earning more than a certain 

monthly amount, excluding 

impairment-related work expenses, as 

engaging in SGA.) For 2015, earnings of 

more than $1,090 per month for nonblind individuals or $1,820 per month 

for blind individuals indicate SGA. We 

invite your comments on whether we 

should structure the payment system to 

provide ENs with increased payments 

for helping beneficiaries locate and keep 

higher paying jobs. 

In general, with regard to removing 

service barriers for the ENs or changing 

the payment structure, we seek 

comments on how to foster a robust 

market of employment support services 

for our beneficiaries. 

We are committed to identifying 

strategies that help people find and 

maintain employment and improve 

their economic status. Any changes we 

make to the Ticket to Work program 

should be based on strong research and 

effective practices that are evidencebased and data-driven. By adapting 

these practices to the Ticket to Work 

program, we hope to improve the longterm employment and economic 

prospects of our beneficiaries. If we 

propose specific revisions, we will 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

in the Federal Register. 

On which rules are we inviting 

comments and suggestions? 

We are interested in any comments 

and suggestions you have on whether 

and how we should revise our Ticket to 

Work rules found in 20 CFR part 411. 

You can find the current rules for the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Program on the Internet at: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009- 

title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2009-title20-vol2- 

part411.pdf. 

We issued initial Ticket to Work 

program rules on December 28, 2001 (66 

FR 67370). Based on our experience 

administering the program, we 

published amendments to those rules on 

May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29324). The 

revised rules simplified the program 

and made it more attractive to 

beneficiaries and potential service 

providers. In our ongoing effort to 

improve employment outcomes for 

beneficiaries, we are inviting your 

comments on whether and how we 

should revise the rules again. 

We would like your comments on the 

program rules and your thoughts on our 

specific questions below. If you know of 

research studies supporting your 

recommendations, please attach the 

study to your comments or provide the 

name of the study, date of publication, 

and name(s) of the researcher(s) in your 

response. 

Who should send us comments and 

suggestions? 

We invite comments and suggestions 

from the following individuals and 

groups: Current and former 

beneficiaries, State Agencies 

(particularly State Vocational Agencies 

and Job Development Programs), 

advocates, current and former 

employment networks, and interested 

members of the public. 

What should you comment about? 

We are interested in any comments 

and suggestions on ways to improve the 

Ticket to Work program. For example: 

1. Overall, how can we support the 

employment goals of social security 

beneficiaries through the Ticket to Work 

program? 

2. How could we structure and 

present information to increase 

participation in and effectiveness of the 

program? 

3. What employment support models 

are likely to be most effective in 

achieving the intent and goals of the 

program? 

4. What incentives could we offer to 

help ensure ENs are financially and 

organizationally viable? 

5. What incentives could we offer ENs 

for collaborating effectively with 

employers, VR agencies, public work 

force systems, WIPAs and other entities 

assisting our disability beneficiaries? 

6. How could the program encourage 

youth with disabilities to pursue 

apprenticeships, career development 

programs, post-secondary education, 

and other work-related opportunities in 

a manner similar to their peers without 

disabilities? 

7. How could ENs become integral to 

transition planning with youth who 

have disabilities, their families, and 

local schools? 

8. Would offering beneficiaries 

financial education and planning 

services be appropriate for the program? 

If so, how could we accomplish this 

through changes to the program 

regulations? 

9. What service barriers or 

administrative complexities do ENs face 

that inhibit their ability to serve our 

beneficiaries? 

10. How might we encourage more 

organizations that can provide 

appropriate services to our beneficiaries 

to participate as ENs? 

11. Should we adjust our payment 

systems to increase EN payments when 

a beneficiary earns more than the SGA 

level for sustained periods? If so, what 

adjustments could we make without 

increasing overall program costs? 

12. Should we adjust our payment 

systems to provide even more EN 

payments than we currently do for 

helping a beneficiary secure and 

maintain part-time employment below 

the SGA level? If so, how might such a 

payment differ from the EN payments 

for a beneficiary earning at or above the 

SGA level? 

13. The blanket purchase agreement 

we award to contractors to serve as ENs 

outlines their requirements to provide 

ongoing support services to 

beneficiaries. How should we define 

‘‘ongoing support services’’ for the ENs? 

What ongoing services are necessary to 

support beneficiaries in jobs above SGA 

levels for sustained periods? 

14. Under the program, State VR 

agencies participate either as ENs or 

under the cost reimbursement payment 

system (20 CFR 411.355) applicable to 

them. Should State VR agencies 

participating as ENs offer the same 

services and have the same 

responsibilities as other ENs? If not, 

what services and supports should State 

VR agencies participating as ENs 

provide? 

15. In measuring EN performance, we 

consider factors such as: 

• Completing employment support 

services as planned; 

• the percentage of Ticket to Work 

clients who were placed in a job within 

9–12 months; 

• the percentage of clients who 

retained their jobs for significant 

periods; and 

• the percentage of clients who 

progressed to long-term earnings above 

SGA. 

Are these appropriate measures and, 

if not, what measures should we use? 

16. What are some barriers that ENs 

face? How might we adjust our rules to 

help ENs succeed at providing the 

services and support beneficiaries need 

to find and maintain employment? 

Will we respond to your comments 

from this notice? 

We will consider all comments and 

suggestions we receive. However, we 

will not respond directly to the 

comments you send in response to this 

ANPRM. 

What will we consider when we decide 

whether to propose revisions? 

When we decide whether to propose 

revisions to our rules for the program, 

we will consider: 

• All comments and suggestions we 

receive in response to this notice, and 

• Our own experience working with 

the program. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

If we decide to propose specific 

revisions, we will publish a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, and you will have an 

opportunity to comment on the 

revisions we propose. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 411 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Public assistance programs, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Social 

security, Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI), Vocational rehabilitation. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02657 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2016–0009] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/

Lake Murray Drag Boat Spring 

Nationals, Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway; Bucksport, SC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a special local regulation on 

the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in 

Bucksport, South Carolina during the 

Bucksport/Lake Murray Drag Boat 

Spring Nationals, on June 4 and June 5, 

2016. This special local regulation is 

necessary to ensure the safety of 

participants, spectators, and the general 

public during the event. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from being in the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before March 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2016–0009 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

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 Lieutenant 

John Downing, Sector Charleston Office 

of Waterways Management, Coast 

Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email 

John.Z.Downing@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport 

Marina notified the Coast Guard that it 

will be sponsoring a series of drag boat 

races from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. on June 4 

and June 5, 2016. The legal basis for the 

proposed rule is the Coast Guard’s 

Authority to establish special local 

regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The 

purpose of the proposed rule is to 

ensure safety of life on the navigable 

water of the United States during the 

Bucksport/Lake Murray Drag Boat 

Spring Nationals, a series of high speed 

boat races. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a special local regulation on the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, 

South Carolina during the Bucksport/

Lake Murray Drag Boat Spring 

Nationals, on June 4 and June 5, 2016. 

Approximately 50 powerboats are 

anticipated to participate in the races 

and approximately 35 spectator vessels 

are expected to attend the event. 

Persons and vessels desiring to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area may contact 

the Captain of the Port Charleston by 

telephone at (843) 740–7050, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area is granted by the Captain 

of the Port Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. The Coast 

Guard will provide notice of the special 

local regulation by Local Notice to 

Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, 

and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

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. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

E.O.s 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. E.O.13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This NPRM has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. 

The economic impact of this proposed 

rule is not significant for the following 

reasons: (1) The special local regulation 

would be enforced for only six hours a 

day over a two-day period; (2) although 

persons and vessels would not be able 

to enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area 

without authorization from the Captain 

of the Port Charleston or a designated 

representative, they would be able to 

operate in the surrounding area during 

the enforcement periods; (3) persons 

and vessels would still be able to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area if authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Charleston or 

a designated representative; and (4) the 

Coast Guard would provide advance 

notification of the regulated area to the 

local maritime community by Local 

Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners. 

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’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2