Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29727 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

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 proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREA 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. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0379 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0379 Safety Zone; Lake Charles, 

Lake Charles, Louisiana. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Lake Charles west of 93°13′51.2′′ W, east 

of 93°14′8.3′′ W, and extending 500 

yards south from the northern shore of 

Lake Charles. The duration of the safety 

zone is intended to protect participants, 

spectators, and other persons and 

vessels, on the navigable waters of the 

Lake Charles during the watercross 

races. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 

p.m. on August 28, 2021 and August 29, 

2021. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

of vessels or persons into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit 

Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM channel 13 or 16, or by 

phone at by telephone at 337–912–0073. 

(2) The COTP or a designated 

representative may forbid and control 

the movement of all vessels in the 

regulated area. When hailed or signaled 

by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall 

come to an immediate stop and comply 

with the directions given. Failure to do 

so may result in expulsion from the 

area, citation for failure to comply, or 

both. 

(3) The COTP or a designated 

representative may terminate the event 

or the operation of any vessel at any 

time it is deemed necessary for the 

protection of life or property. 

(4) The COTP or a designated 

representative will terminate 

enforcement of the special local 

regulations at the conclusion of the 

event. 

(d) Informational broadcasts. The 

COTP or a designated representative 

will inform the public of the effective 

period for the safety zone as well as any 

changes in the dates and times of 

enforcement through Local Notice to 

Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to 

Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety 

Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as 

appropriate. 

Dated: May 27, 2021. 

Molly A. Wike, 

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

Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11584 Filed 6–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish 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 would 

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 would prohibit 

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. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rule. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before July 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0208 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer 

Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector 

Delaware Bay, Waterways Management 

Division; telephone 215–271–4889, 

email Edmund.J.Ofalt@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USSS United States Secret Service 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On occasion, persons protected by the 

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

to Presidential memorandum will visit 

Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and the 

surrounding vicinity. These visits 

require the implementation of 

heightened security measures for 

persons protected by the USSS who may 

be present in the vicinity of Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware. Due to the close 

proximity of the Lewes and Rehoboth 

canal, and the Atlantic Ocean, these 

security zones are necessary for USSS 

protectees, the public, and the 

surrounding waterway. 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to protect USSS 

protectees and the public from 

destruction, loss, or injury from 

sabotage, subversive acts, or other 

malicious or potential terrorist acts. The 

Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as 

delegated by Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation no. 0170.1, section 

II, paragraph 70, 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. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP is proposing to establish 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
29728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 would be 

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 would typically be authorized to 

transit without pause or delay by onscene 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 on 

scene enforcement vessels. Any vessel 

or person permitted to transit the 

security zone would 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 would issue a BNM 

and/or SMIB via VHF–FM channel 16. 

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. 

The regulatory text we are proposing 

appears at the end of this document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘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 proposed 

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 proposed rule would 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 

would 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). 

In order to implement this rule, the 

Coast Guard proposes to 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 

would 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 

proposed rule’s costs and qualitative 

benefits. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS

Category Summary 

Potentially Affected Population.This rule would 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 would need to speak with Coast Guard personnel stationed at the 

entrances of the security zones. These recreational boaters would 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 Rehoboth canal. In these instances, recreational boaters wishing to use the canal would instead need to take a circuitous route or forgo their trip all together. 

Unquantified 

Benefits.

This rule would secure the area to meet objectives of the USSS and keep USSS protectees safe. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29729 

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. 

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 proposed rule. To estimate the 

affected population, we used 

information directly observable from 

Google Maps, as well as the subjectmatter expertise of Coast Guard 

personnel with knowledge of the area. 

The proposed 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 proposed regulation would 

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 would begin 

approximately two-thirds of the way 

through the canal (if starting from the 

Delaware Bay) and last 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 

proposed 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. 

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 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 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 would be impacted every 

time they took 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 operators would 

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 proposed rule would also impact 

any recreational boaters that would 

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 than 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 to 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 very 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. The Coast Guard observes that 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
29730 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

2 Details as to what type of boat or vessel, the 

frequency, number of people usually onboard, and 

the location from which the vessel came from are 

requested. 

become aware of these vessels and their 

owners and operators. As a result, 

conversations may become more brief 

overtime. 

In order to access the private docks 

and boat slips of the 14 houses and the 

North Shores Marina, recreational vessel 

operators would need to transit through 

a small portion of the security zone. The 

Coast Guard would 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 would 

report vessels transiting the second 

canal to the USSS representatives. 

Because Coast Guard personnel would 

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 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 

would not be able to transit the length 

of the canal. Recreational boaters 

wishing to transit through the security 

zone would 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 operations 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. Public comments as to 

the frequency and use of the canal in 

this security zone are encouraged.2

(2) Security Zone 2: North Shores 

Section of Rehoboth Beach on the 

Atlantic Ocean 

We do not estimate that any vessels 

would 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 would need to be greater 

than 500 yards from shore. As a result, 

we do not estimate any costs incurred 

by the second proposed 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, 

the Coast Guard is proposing to create 

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 

proposed regulatory action would 

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 proposed rule would diminish the 

frequency of their attempted or 

successful actions. However, we believe 

that the value of these benefits would be 

greater than the costs of the proposed 

regulation. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

We considered alternatives to the 

proposed 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 proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed 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 impacted by this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29731 

proposed rule cannot be small entities 

fitting the definitions set out by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this 

analysis, we found this proposed 

rulemaking, if promulgated, would not 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 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 proposed 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. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370(f)), 

and have made a preliminary 

determination that this action is one of 

a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves two security zones for the 

protection of USSS protectees while 

present in the vicinity of Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware. Normally such actions 

are 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 

preliminary 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. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. If 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

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 proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
29732 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 105 / Thursday, June 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

§ 165.561 Security Zones; Lewes and 

Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean, 

Rehoboth Beach, DE. 

(a) Location. The following area 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 

representative or other appropriate 

means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 

(2) These security zones may be 

enforced individually or 

simultaneously. 

Dated: May 27, 2021. 

Jonathan D. Theel, 

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

Port, Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11764 Filed 6–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 20 

International Mailing Services: Price 

Changes 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes 

to revise Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, 

International Mail Manual (IMM®), to 

reflect changes coincident with the 

recently announced mailing services 

price adjustments. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before July 6, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver comments to 

the manager, Product Classification, 

U.S. Postal Service®, 475 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, RM 4446, Washington, DC 20260– 

5015. You may inspect and photocopy 

all written comments at USPS®

Headquarters Library, 475 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW, 11th Floor N, Washington DC 

by appointment only between the hours 

of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday by calling 1–202–268–2906 in 

advance. Email comments, containing 

the name and address of the commenter, 

to: PCFederalRegister@usps.gov, with a 

subject line of ‘‘August 2021 

International Mailing Services Proposed 

Price Changes.’’ Faxed comments are 

not accepted. All submitted comments 

and attachments are part of the public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS