Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41521 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2017–0543] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Delaware River, 

Philadelphia, PA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

multiple fireworks events launched in 

the vicinity of Penn’s Landing in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the 

waters of Delaware River, Philadelphia, 

PA. Enforcement of this safety zone is 

necessary and intended to enhance 

safety of life on navigable waters 

immediately prior to, during, and 

immediately after these fireworks 

events. During the enforcement periods, 

no vessel may enter in or transit this 

regulated area without approval from 

the Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

September 3, 2017 to September 13, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2017– 

0543 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email MST2 Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast 

Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways 

Management Division, telephone (215) 

271–4814, email Amanda.N.Boone@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for foregoing public 

comment with respect to this rule. 

Insufficient time remains to publish a 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(NPMR) and allow for a public comment 

period before the events, which are 

scheduled to take place September 3, 

September 10, and September 13, 2017. 

The safety zone must be in effect on 

those dates in order to serve its purpose 

of ensuring the safety of spectators and 

the general public from hazards 

associated with the fireworks display. 

Hazards may include accidental 

discharge of fireworks, dangerous 

projectiles, and falling hot embers or 

other debris. For those reasons, it would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest to publish an NPRM. 

For the reason discussed above, 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 would be 

contrary to the rule’s objectives of 

ensuring safety of life on the navigable 

waters and protection of persons and 

vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks 

display. The events have been widely 

publicized in local media outlets. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The 

Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has 

determined that this temporary safety 

zone is necessary to enhance the safety 

of the public, spectators, vessels, and 

navigable waters immediately prior to, 

during, and immediately after these 

fireworks events. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

On September 3, September 10, and 

September 13, 2017 fireworks display 

events will take place in the vicinity of 

Penn’s Landing in Philadelphia, PA. 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary safety zone in a portion of 

Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA to 

ensure the safety of persons, vessels, 

and the public during the event. The 

safety zone includes all waters of the 

Delaware River, adjacent to Penn’s 

Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded 

from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on 

the south by a line running east to west 

from points along the shoreline 

commencing at latitude 39°56′31.2′′ N., 

longitude 075°08′28.1′′ W.; thence 

westward to latitude 39°56′29′′.1 N., 

longitude 075°07′56.5′′ W., and bounded 

on the north by the Benjamin Franklin 

Bridge where it crosses the Delaware 

River. 

Access to this safety zone will be 

restricted during the specified date and 

time period. Only vessels or persons 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port Delaware Bay or designated 

representative may enter or remain in 

the regulated area. This safety zone will 

be enforced on September 3, September 

10, and September 13, 2017 from 7:45 

p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each day. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. Executive Order 13771 

(‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’), directs agencies to 

reduce regulation and control regulatory 

costs and provides that ‘‘for every one 

new regulation issued, at least two prior 

regulations be identified for elimination, 

and that the cost of planned regulations 

be prudently managed and controlled 

through a budgeting process.’’ 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

As this rule is not a significant 

regulatory action, this rule is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum 

titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing 

Section 2 of the Executive Order of 

January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, and 

duration of the safety zone. Vessel 

traffic will be unable to transit the safety 

zone for the duration of the fireworks 

events; however, this safety zone will 

impact a small designated area of the 

Delaware River, in Philadelphia, PA, for 

less than 2 hours during the fireworks 

events. Moreover, the Coast Guard will 

issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
41522 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

VHF–FM marine channel 16 regarding 

the safety zone; under the regulation 

vessel operators may request permission 

to enter the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section V.A above, this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any vessel owner 

or operator. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact 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 calls for no 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. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

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 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

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 it is one of a category 

of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule 

adjusts rates in accordance with 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

mandates. It is categorically excluded 

under section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, 

paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, 

which pertains to minor regulatory 

changes that are editorial or procedural 

in nature. A Record of Environmental 

Consideration (REC) supporting this 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

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.T05–0543 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0543 Safety Zone; Delaware 

River; Philadelphia, PA. 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

petty officer, warrant or commissioned 

officer operating on board a Coast Guard 

vessel and or on board another Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement vessel 

assisting the Captain of the Port, 

Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the 

safety zone. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: all waters of the Delaware 

River, adjacent to Penn’s Landing, 

Philadelphia, PA, bounded from 

shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the 

south by a line running east to west 

from points along the shoreline 

commencing at latitude 39°56′31.2′′ N., 

longitude 075°08′28.1′′ W.; thence 

westward to latitude 39°56′29′′.1 N., 

longitude 075°07′56.5′′ W., and bounded 

on the north by the Benjamin Franklin 

Bridge where it crosses the Delaware 

River. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general safety 

zone regulations found in § 165.23 

apply to the safety zone created by this 

temporary section. 

(2) Under the general safety zone 

regulations in § 165.23, persons may not 

enter the safety zone described in 

paragraph (b) of this section unless 

authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41523 

(3) To request permission to enter the 

safety zone, contact the COTP or the 

COTP’s representative on VHF–FM 

channel 16. All persons and vessels in 

the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced on September 3, 2017, 

September 10, 2017, and September 13, 

2017 from 7:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each 

day. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Scott E. Anderson, 

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

Port, Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18617 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 62 

RIN 2900–AP61 

Supportive Services for Veteran 

Families Program 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations 

that govern the Supportive Services for 

Veteran Families (SSVF) Program. This 

rulemaking clarifies VA’s procedures for 

continuing to fund SSVF Program 

services in communities that have lost 

grants due to the non-renewal or 

termination of services of an existing 

award to a grantee. VA can now award 

the non-renewed or deobligated funds to 

other existing SSVF grantees in or near 

the affected community. This award of 

non-renewed or deobligated funds 

prevents potential access issues 

associated with grant termination. This 

rulemaking also reduces the number of 

satisfaction surveys grantees are 

required to provide to participants in 

order to reduce the burden on grantees 

and participants. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 2, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kuhn, National Center for Homelessness 

Among Veterans, Supportive Services 

for Veteran Families Program Office, 

4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 200, 

Philadelphia, PA 19104, (877) 737– 

0111. (This is a toll-free number) 

John.Kuhn2@va.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on July 27, 2016, VA proposed 

to revise its regulations that addressed 

the Supportive Services for Veteran 

Families (SSVF) Program. 81 FR 49198. 

VA provided a 60-day comment period, 

which ended on September 26, 2016. 

We received 14 comments on the 

proposed rule. Section 2044 of title 38 

U.S.C. requires the Secretary to provide 

financial assistance to eligible entities to 

provide and coordinate the provision of 

supportive services for very low-income 

veteran families occupying permanent 

housing. The Secretary’s implementing 

regulations are in 38 CFR part 62, which 

established the SSVF Program. Through 

the SSVF Program, VA awards 

supportive services grants to private 

non-profit organizations or consumer 

cooperatives to provide or coordinate 

the provision of supportive services to 

very low-income veteran families who 

are residing in permanent housing and 

at risk of becoming homeless. The grants 

provide services to low-income families 

who are lacking a fixed, regular, and 

adequate nighttime residence, are at risk 

of remaining so but for grantee 

assistance, and scheduled to become 

residents of permanent housing within 

90 days pending the location or 

development of housing suitable for 

permanent housing. The grants also 

provide services to low-income families 

who, after exiting permanent housing, 

are seeking other housing that is 

responsive to their needs and 

preferences. This rulemaking clarifies 

existing VA policy regarding award of 

non-renewed or deobligated funds to 

other existing SSVF grantees in or near 

the affected community where the funds 

were originally used in order to 

maintain continuity in the services 

offered to these communities. This 

rulemaking also reduces the number of 

satisfaction surveys grantees are 

required to provide to participants in 

order to reduce the burden on grantees 

and participants. 

We received several comments in 

support of the proposed rule. One 

commenter stated that the proposed rule 

was ‘‘needed from multiple 

perspectives, most importantly, in 

maintaining all momentum toward 

ending Veteran homelessness.’’ A 

commenter stated that ‘‘non-renewed 

and deobligated funds are critical to our 

community as we are seeing a strong 

inflow of newly homeless in our area.’’ 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed rule would eliminate the 

‘‘hoops to jump through and the grant 

will still be awarded to those who 

qualify.’’ A commenter agreed that 

reducing the number of surveys would 

yield a higher response rate. Lastly, a 

commenter stated that the proposed 

changes ‘‘are reasonable and would 

make an effective program more so.’’ We 

thank the commenters for supporting 

the rule. 

One commenter recommended that 

VA revise the proposed rule to ‘‘take 

into account the impact of unexpected 

need, such as occurs in natural disasters 

where Federal Disaster Area designation 

is affirmed.’’ The commenter further 

recommended that VA distribute SSVF 

grant assistance to grantees serving in 

Federal disaster areas to assist veterans 

in need or who are displaced from their 

homes or become homeless ‘‘due to a 

natural disaster, regardless of whether 

the Veteran family meets the income 

eligibility requirements of SSVF.’’ 

Additionally, VA should focus the 

availability of SSVF funds to those 

veterans who were impacted by a 

natural disaster and do not have 

sufficient resources to relocate to ‘‘new 

housing because of trauma, an inability 

to access records, and/or an inability to 

access personal resources.’’ As 

previously stated in this rulemaking 38 

U.S.C. 2044 is the authority that 

establishes the SSVF program. Under 

this program, VA may only provide 

assistance to very low-income veteran 

families. Section 2044(f)(6) defines 

‘‘very low-income veteran family’’ to 

mean ‘‘a veteran family whose income 

does not exceed 50 percent of the 

median income for an area’’ as 

determined by VA. Because the SSVF 

funds are limited, VA cannot use these 

funds to assist veteran families that do 

not otherwise meet the eligibility 

criteria under section 2044. Also, the 

loss of SSVF funds would adversely 

affect the veterans being served in the 

community whose deobligated funds 

were lost due to the funds being 

transferred to a different community 

that was affected by a natural disaster. 

We are not making any edits based on 

this comment. 

Several commenters suggested that 

VA reconsider the requirement that 60% 

of funding support rapid re-housing of 

homeless veterans and 40% may be 

used for prevention of homelessness in 

rural communities and instead allow an 

even 50/50 split of funding because the 

needs for homeless veteran families in 

rural communities differ from those in 

urban settings. The commenters further 

stated that there is a housing shortage 

and it is difficult to use all of the SSVF 

funds, ‘‘particularly when Veterans who 

are in danger of literal homelessness 

present to our program and we are 

unable to assist them due to the 60/40 

mandate. If that mandate was to be 

lifted, and we could focus a larger pool 

of resources on prevention, fewer of our 

clients would cycle back through as 

RRH.’’ Under section 2044(a)(4), SSVF 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES