Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-20-01, Amendment 39-19058 (82 FR 45173, September 28, 2017), (“AD 2017-20-01”). AD 2017-20-01 applied to Honeywell TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines with fan disk part number (P/N) 3060287-2 and a serial number (S/N) listed in Table 9 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2018 (83 FR 46664). The NPRM was prompted by two fan disks found with surface rollovers in the dovetail slot area. The NPRM proposed to require removing the Honeywell TFE731-20 turbofan engine from the applicability and prohibit the installation of affected fan disks that do not have “T43374” marked adjacent to the fan disk P/N or S/N. The NPRM also proposed adding Honeywell TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, and TFE731-40AR, -40BR, and -40R turbofan engines to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Honeywell requested that we correct the P/N from “P/N 3060267-2” to “P/N 3060287-2” in the “Actions Since AD 2017-20-01 Was Issued” paragraph and the Installation Prohibition paragraph.

We agree that we had a typographical error in the “Actions Since AD 2017-20-01 Was Issued” paragraph and the Installation Prohibition paragraph of the NPRM. We did not update the “Actions Since AD 2017-20-01 Was Issued” paragraph because this language is not included in this final rule. We, however, updated the P/N in the Installation Prohibition paragraph of this AD to “P/N 3060287-2.”

Honeywell requested that we update the location references in the AD of the “T43374” marking from the “engine P/N or S/N” to the “fan disk P/N or S/N.”

We agree. Because we want to maintain technical correctness and consistency with the service information, we updated the location of the “T43374” marking from “engine P/N or S/N” to “fan disk P/N or S/N” throughout this AD.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested that we update the applicability to include all Honeywell TFE731 engines for which the affected parts are eligible. EASA reasoned that the consequence of the applicability is that the Installation Prohibition, paragraph (h), of this AD, is not valid for those engines that do not have the affected parts installed. The commenter indicated that only revising the applicability paragraph will ensure that no spare (or removed) parts are installed on any engine that does not have an affected part installed.

We partially agree. We agree that the applicability paragraph will result in limiting the Installation Prohibition to only those engines that have the affected fan disk installed on the effective date of the AD. To be consistent with the Applicability paragraph, we revised the Installation Prohibition paragraph of this AD to refer only to engines identified in the Applicability paragraph of this AD.

We disagree with rewording the Applicability paragraph of this AD because this paragraph meets the safety requirements of this AD. Further, revising the applicability of this AD would require renoticing the NPRM and therefore delay the effectivity of this AD. We did not change this AD.

An individual commenter expressed support for the NPRM as written.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The SB identifies affected fan disks by S/N and describes procedures for removing, inspecting, and replacing the affected fan disks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 61 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary fan disk replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We estimate that six engines will need this replacement:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus SAS Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes, identified in the following affected ADs. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67156). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the affected ADs are no longer necessary because we have since issued other ADs to address the various unsafe conditions. The NPRM proposed to remove the affected ADs. We are issuing this AD to remove the affected ADs, which have been terminated by other ADs.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

This AD adds no cost. This AD removes the affected ADs from 14 CFR part 39; therefore, operators are no longer required to show compliance with the affected ADs.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(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),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports amending the air traffic service route structure in the western United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0232 (83 FR 22891; May 17, 2018), and corrected on May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24047), to amend six United States Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-88, Q-90, Q-114, Q-126, Q-136, and Q-150) and establish one RNAV route (Q-92) in the western United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending United States RNAV routes Q-88, Q-90, Q-114, Q-126, Q-136, Q-150; and establishing United States RNAV routes Q-92. The route changes are outlined below.

Q-88: Q-88 extends from the HAKMN, NV, waypoint (WP) to the CHESZ, UT, WP. This action extends the route from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the DKOTA, SD, WP. The amended route connects airports in the northeastern United States (U.S.) and Canada with Los Angeles and Las Vegas and provides Denver International Airport departures to the north a routing to Minneapolis.

Q-90: Q-90 is amended from the DNERO, CA, WP to the WELKY, IA, WP. The amended route connects to Chicago O'Hare Airport. Additionally, the route provides an alternate south departure route from Denver International Airport to the Los Angeles, CA, basin satellite airports.

Q-92: Q-92 is established to support departures from Denver International Airport bound for airports in the midwest and east coast.

Q-114: Q-114 is amended from the NATEE, NV, WP to the LEONG, IA, WP. The route connects Chicago area airports to the Los Angeles basin airports. Additionally, the route supports Denver International Airport west departures to the Los Angeles, CA, basin satellite airports.

Q-126: Q-126 is amended from the TIPRE, CA, WP to the BRAFF, CO, WP. The route links airports on the U.S. west coast to airports in the Midwest. Q-126 adds utility by supporting Denver International Airport arrival traffic from the west. Additional waypoints were added to the airway to provide for oxygen escape routes.

Q-136: Q-136 is amended from the Coaldale, NV, VORTAC to the BAACN, IA, WP. The route links airports on the U.S. west coast to airports in the Midwest. Q-136 supports Denver International Airport west departures to the San Francisco Bay area and departures to the Midwest and east coast airports. Additional waypoints were added to the airway to provide for oxygen escape routes.

Q-150: Q-150 is amended from the STEVS, WA, WP to the EXHAS, KS, WP. The route supports overflight traffic between Seattle area airports and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, as well as Calgary and Edmonton airports in Canada. Q-150 supports Denver departures enroute to Boise, ID; Portland, OR; and Seattle, WA.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2006, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying six RNAV routes (Q-88, Q-90, Q-114, Q-126, Q-136, and Q-150) and establishing one RNAV route (Q-92) qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F—Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Section 157.208(d) of the Commission's Regulations provides for project cost limits applicable to construction, acquisition, operation and miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities (Table I) authorized under the blanket certificate procedure (Order No. 234, 19 FERC ¶ 61,216). Section 157.215(a) specifies the calendar year dollar limit which may be expended on underground storage testing and development (Table II) authorized under the blanket certificate. Section 157.208(d) requires that the “limits specified in Tables I and II shall be adjusted each calendar year to reflect the 'GDP implicit price deflator' published by the Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year.”

Pursuant to § 375.308(x)(1) of the Commission's Regulations, the authority for the publication of such cost limits, as adjusted for inflation, is delegated to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects. The cost limits for calendar year 2019, as published in Table I of § 157.208(d) and Table II of 157.215(a), are hereby issued.

This final rule is effective March 21, 2019. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules does not apply to the Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. The Final Rule merely updates amounts published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the Department of Commerce's latest annual determination of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) implicit price deflator, a mathematical updating required by the Commission's existing regulations.

Accordingly, 18 CFR part 157 is amended as follows:

I. Background

Under section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which is incorporated by reference in section 105 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 207 of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), and 29 CFR 1601.30(a), every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program covered by Title VII, ADA, or GINA must post notices describing the pertinent provisions of Title VII, ADA, or GINA. Such notices must be posted in prominent and accessible places where notices to employees, applicants, and members are customarily maintained.

The EEOC first adjusted the civil monetary penalty for violations of the notice posting requirements in 1997 pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIA Act), 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, Sec. 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1373. A final rule was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 1997, at 62 FR 26934, which raised the maximum penalty per violation from $100 to $110. The EEOC's second adjustment, made pursuant to the FCPIA Act, as amended by the DCIA, was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2014, at 79 FR 15220 and raised the maximum penalty per violation from $110 to $210.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, Sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 599, further amended the FCPIA Act, to require each federal agency, not later than July 1, 2016, and not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed pursuant to each agency's statutes. The EEOC's initial adjustment made pursuant to the 2015 Act was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2016, at 81 FR 35269 and raised the maximum penalty per violation from $210 to $525. The EEOC's second adjustment made pursuant to the 2015 Act was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2017, at 82 FR 8812 and raised the maximum penalty per violation from $525 to $534. EEOC's third adjustment made pursuant to the 2015 Act was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2018 at 83 FR 2537 and raised the maximum penalty per violation from $534 to $545.

The purpose of the annual adjustment for inflation is to maintain the remedial impact of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law. These periodic adjustments to the penalty are to be calculated pursuant to the inflation adjustment formula provided in section 5(b) of the 2015 Act and, in accordance with section 6 of the 2015 Act, the adjusted penalty will apply only to penalties assessed after the effective date of the adjustment. Generally, the periodic inflation adjustment to a civil monetary penalty under the 2015 Act will be based on the percentage change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U.

The adjustment set forth in this final rule was calculated by comparing the CPI-U for October 2018 with the CPI-U for October 2017, resulting in an inflation adjustment factor of 1.02522. The first step of the calculation is to multiply the inflation adjustment factor (1.02522) by the most recent civil penalty amount ($545) to calculate the inflation-adjusted penalty level ($558.7449). The second step is to round this inflation-adjusted penalty to the nearest dollar ($559). Accordingly, we are adjusting the maximum penalty per violation specified in 29 CFR 1601.30(a) from $545 to $559.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides an exception to the notice and comment procedures where an agency finds good cause for dispensing with such procedures, on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. EEOC finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) good cause exists to not utilize notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule because this adjustment of the civil monetary penalty is required by the 2015 Act, the formula for calculating the adjustment to the penalty is prescribed by statute, and the Commission has no discretion in determining the amount of the published adjustment. Accordingly, the EEOC is issuing this revised regulation as a final rule without notice and comment.

In promulgating this final rule, EEOC has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and applicable principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EEOC has coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, the EEOC and OMB have determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. The great majority of employers and entities covered by these regulations comply with the posting requirement, and, as a result, the aggregate economic impact of these revised regulations will be minimal, affecting only those limited few who fail to post required notices in violation of the regulation and statue. The rule only increases the penalty by $14 for each separate offense, nowhere near the $100 million figure that would amount to a significant regulatory action. 1 This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because the rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. This final rule contains no new information collection requirements, and therefore, will create no new paperwork burdens or modifications to existing burdens that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only requires a regulatory flexibility analysis when notice and comment is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or some other statute. As stated above, notice and comment is not required for this rule. For that reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EEOC will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the effective date of the rule. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by the CRA at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Accordingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1601 as follows:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

On August 30, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Fort Pierce, FL” in the Federal Register (83 FR 44233). We received 113 comments.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) owns the Fort Pierce North Causeway A1A Bridge (Banty Sanders) across the AICW, mile 964.8 in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, FL. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.

The duration of the initial test deviation was 180 days. During the initial test, the majority of comments received were in support of scheduled openings. However, most felt that the bridge was still opening too frequently. A review of the bridge tender logs did not support the claim that the bridge was opening too frequently. The logs did show, however, that openings tended to be twice per hour as opposed to three times per hour. In addition, the majority of comments recommended scheduled openings during the evening and on weekends.

In order to meet the reasonable needs of navigation, while benefiting vehicle transportation, the Coast Guard is publishing this alternate temporary deviation to the proposed schedule change to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate to better balance the needs of marine and vehicle traffic.

Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 7 a.m. on February 28, 2019 to 7 a.m. on August 26, 2019, the draw shall open on the hour and half-hour. Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States, and tugs with tows must be passed at any time.

This waterway is utilized by vessels of the United States, commercial vessels, as well as recreational vessels. There is no alternate route for vessels desiring to travel north in the AICW. Vessels that may pass through the bridge without a requested opening may do so at any time.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.

Documents mentioned in this notification as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, 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.

The Coast Guard will enforce Safety Zone; Tulip Time Festival Fireworks listed as (c)(1) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 on May 11, 2019 from 9:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. This safety zone will encompass all of Lake Macatawa within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from a center point launch position at 42°47.496′ N, 086°07.348′ W (NAD 83). This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waterways prior to, during, and immediately after this fireworks display.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.930, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Lake Michigan via channel 16, VHF-FM. If you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area during the enforcement period you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.929 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (414) 747-7182.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable because there is not enough time for Notice and Comment procedures before the event. The date for the State of the Coast Guard event was not set until February 15, 2019, and the Coast Guard's normal Security Zone and Safety Zone processes were interrupted by the extended government shutdown in the beginning of 2019.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , as delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and potentially threaten the Coast Guards ability to enforce safety measures in to protect for the safety of life in these navigable waters in the area of the Coast Guard asset demonstration.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with navigation safety that arise because of the potentially hazardous conditions associated with event safety due to the expected high-speed maneuvers from waterborne vessels and aircraft Search and Rescue demonstration related to this event along the main shipping channel of the nation's most economically vital port complex. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that a safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk to, the public, and the participants of the event in the Port of Los Angeles.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on March 21, 2019, encompassing all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within 500-foot radius in approximate position: 33°43.241′ N, 118°15.942′ W. All coordinates displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984. This temporary safety zone will only be enforced between 7:00 a.m. PST and 5:00 p.m. PST March 21, 2019. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated representative. Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or (310) 521-3801. The general boating public will be notified prior to the enforcement of the temporary safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O.s 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. E.O.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.”

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the waterways users, adjoining areas, and the public. The zone will be in place during the scheduled Commandant's State of the Coast Guard Address at U. S. Coast Guard base Los Angeles—Long Beach, which will be conducted in the vicinity of Reservation Point, San Pedro, CA. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

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.

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 this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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.

The M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is transporting three post-Panamax gantry cranes to ports within the United States. These large cranes extend beyond the width of M/V ZHEN HUA 25 on both sides of the vessel and create a navigational hazard to vessels operating within a certain proximity. The cranes are fastened in manner to facilitate passage through open ocean. Upon arrival with the Delaware River, M/V ZHEN HUA 25 will transit to anchorage and begin an approximately four day process of removing the sea fastenings. The M/V ZHEN HUA 25 will then proceed, conditions permitting, to berth at the Port of Philadelphia Greenwich Terminal. The vessel will deliver two of the three cranes then proceed outbound to Wilmington, NC, with one gantry crane remaining onboard.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the anticipated arrival of M/V ZHEN HUA 25 to the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port zone. The rule must be in force by March 15, 2019, to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of waterway users and the general public from hazards associated with the transport of post-Panamax gantry cranes within the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with transportation of post-Panamax gantry cranes.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that there are potential hazards associated with the transportation of post-Panamax gantry cranes. The COTP Delaware Bay has determined that the potential hazards will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the vessel unless moored at Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The safety zone includes all navigable waters within 200 yards of M/V ZHEN HUA 25 unless moored at Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Enforcement of the safety zone will begin when the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 arrives at the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port zone and continue, unless the vessel is moored, until departure from the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port zone. The anticipated date of arrival for the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is March 15, 2019. However, inclement weather and other unforeseen circumstances may necessitate a change in the date of transit upriver. Sector Delaware Bay will notify the maritime community of the date of transit, at a minimum, via marine safety information bulletin and broadcast notice to mariners.

To ensure a safe transit within the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port zone, the vessel may stop in a designated anchorage area, as set forth in 33 CFR 110.157, for a short time if needed due to weather and tidal requirements. The safety zone will remain in place during the time the vessel spends anchored. Vessels may be able to transit through the safety zone while the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is anchored in a designated anchorage area if they meet the following requirements: Transit through the safety zone at the minimum safe speed to reduce wake and maintain steerage, and, except for towing vessels designated as assist tugs and operating in such capacity, do not overtake, meet, or otherwise pass any other unmoored or unanchored vessel while transiting through the safety zone. Vessels which do not meet all of the requirements listed above are prohibited from entering or transiting the safety zone without prior approval of the COTP Delaware Bay. Additionally, vessels must ask permission to enter or transit the safety zone any time the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is underway. Vessels requesting to enter or transit the safety zone may contact the Sector Delaware Bay Command Center via VHF-FM channel 16. The Coast Guard anticipates that most vessels will be able to freely transit around the safety zone and will not need to seek permission to enter the zone while the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is underway.

There will be a pre-designated safety vessel escorting the ZHEN HUA 25 while it is underway to monitor the flow of traffic and inform mariners that the gantry crane transit is in progress.

The Coast Guard is establishing a second safety zone through a separate rulemaking found in Docket number USCG-2019-0122, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , to ensure the safety of vessels and persons transiting the area during offloading operations once the vessel is moored at the terminal.

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.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the short duration and traffic management of the safety zone. The safety zone will allow for vessels to transit through the safety zone with permission while the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is underway or in a designated anchorage without permission if certain requirements are met. The Coast Guard anticipates that most vessels will be able to freely transit around the safety zone and will not need to seek permission to enter the zone while the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is underway. For these reasons, the impact on waterway traffic is expected to be minimal.

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 will 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.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a moving safety zone lasting only the duration of transit of a vessel carrying post-Panamax gantry cranes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable because we must establish this safety zone immediately and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone and compromise public safety.

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 this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with floodwaters threatening to overtop levees along the river.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with flood waters threaten to overtop levees along the river. The USACE Kansas City District has expressed concern that vessel traffic in the affected area could cause damage to the levees resulting in overtopping or failure. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters due to the flood impacts to USACE levees.

On March 15, 2019, the USACE Kansas City District contacted the Coast Guard to report an increase in flood waters approaching the tops of levees along the Missouri River between Mile Marker (MM) 360 and MM 450 and requested a river closure to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment that would result if floodwaters overtop the levees. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from March 15, 2019 until April 1, 2019, or until cancelled by the COTP, whichever occurs first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Missouri River from MM 360 to MM 450, unless reduced in scope by the COTP as flood conditions warrant.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. 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, as well as reductions in size of the safety zone as flood conditions improve, through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the emergency nature of the action and after consultation with representatives of the shipping industries that use this reach of river indicate that the many shipping companies have already made arrangements to avoid this area. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNM via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis.

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 temporary 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.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone prohibiting entry on a ninety mile stretch of the Missouri River that is experiencing significant flooding that is impacting levees. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be made available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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 IFR Interim final rule MD-DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code USSS United States Secret Service II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act, as amended, provides the Coast Guard the authority to establish water or waterfront safety zones, or other measures, for limited, controlled, or conditional access and activity when necessary for the protection of any vessel, structure, waters, or shore area, 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(3). On several occasions between March 24, 2017, and July 10, 2017, the USSS requested that the U.S. Coast Guard close the Potomac River during events held at the Trump National Golf Club at Potomac Falls, VA, to protect persons protected by the USSS, hereafter referred to as “USSS protectees.” The Coast Guard did not have sufficient notice of these events to provide opportunity for public comment prior to these rules taking effect, and advance public notice of specific events could thwart the purpose of the security zone. As required by 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coast Guard found that good cause existed for not providing the normal notice and comment procedure.

Given the frequency of the past need for a security zone at this location and the likelihood for similar events to continue in the foreseeable future, the Coast Guard determined that a permanent security zone would be the preferable course of action. We would be able to provide advance notification to the public that a security zone may be enforced in the future at this location and provide the public with an opportunity to provide feedback to the agency—neither of which we had been able to do before. The Coast Guard published an IFR, “Security Zone; Potomac River, Montgomery County, MD” on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31719). The rule was written with the same geographic scope and operating requirements as the previous temporary rulemakings, to be activated and enforced at the request of the USSS. The rule was made immediately effective to prevent the need for additional temporary final rules, but provided the public a 30-day comment period.

In response to the IFR, the Coast Guard received 636 submissions to the docket. After reviewing the public input, the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is modifying the security zone established by the IFR. The legal authority for this rule is 46 U.S.C. 70034, as delegated by Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, section II, paragraph 70, from the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Commandant of the United States 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. This rule safeguards the lives of persons protected by the Secret Service, and of the general public, by enhancing the safety and security of navigable waters of the United States during heightened security events at the Trump National Golf Club.

Because this rule relieves a restriction, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act allows this rule to take effect less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule relieves the restrictions imposed by the original IFR that created this security zone. The Coast Guard is reducing the size of the zone both on the upriver portion of the security zone near Sharpshin Island and on the downriver portion of the security zone near the dam at Seneca Breaks. This reduction in length will allow increased river access from Algonkian Park west of the Trump National Golf Club. East of the golf course, the reduction in length will allow waterway users to transit across the river just upstream from the Seneca Breaks, allowing water access to the George Washington (GW) Canal and Patowmack Canal, which is popular for paddling.

We received 636 comments on our interim rule published July 10, 2017. The Coast Guard considered all of these comments and has made revisions to the security zone in response. The comments received are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under docket USCG-2017-0448. In addition to changes made in response to the comments, we also made small editorial revisions for grammar and to clarify language that was potentially unclear. Unless specifically described in the preamble to this rule, such revisions were not intended to change the meaning of the language that was revised.

A large number of commenters expressed concern about the rule's impacts on the wide variety of people who regularly use the portion of the river within the security zone. Commenters stated veterans, specifically disabled veterans, would be impacted because rehabilitative kayak/canoe training and classes are held near Riley's Lock (Lock 24) and Violette's Lock (Lock 23), both located on the Maryland side of the river across from the Trump National Golf Club. We were also informed that professional athletic teams use this part of the river for training. Many commenters were concerned about impact on the two summer camps for local youth that operate on the Maryland side across from Trump National Golf Club. Camp attendees for both camps access the Potomac River at Riley's Lock for kayaking, canoeing, and sailing lessons. Commenters also stated that the security zone impacts recreational boaters, jet skiers, swimmers, hunters, fishermen and family paddlers that wish to access this popular portion of the river, from either Algonkian or Seneca Regional Parks located on the Virginia side, as well as the Riley's and Violette's Locks access points on the Maryland side. The Coast Guard appreciates all of the commenters who took time to provide feedback on this security zone. Through the review of the comments, the Coast Guard learned more about how people use this busy stretch of the Potomac River.

One commenter requested to know whether activating this zone would affect bikers and hikers on the C&O Canal towpath, which follows along the Maryland shoreline. This zone covers navigable waters of the Potomac River, shoreline to shoreline; it does not extend shoreward and will not affect bikers and hikers on the C&O towpath.

We received comments stating that the Coast Guard did not have the authority to issue the July 2017 IFR without prior notice and comment. As discussed in the July 2017 IFR, section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) allows 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. The Coast Guard found that good cause existed for not publishing an NPRM and discussed those findings in the IFR. The Coast Guard found that issuing an NPRM was impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action was necessary to provide waterway and waterside security and protection. If the Coast Guard waited the requisite 30 days for public comment, this would have put USSS protectees at the Trump National Golf Club and the nearby public at risk. However, the Coast Guard recognizes the importance of public comment and allowed for a 30 day, post-effective comment period on the IFR.

We received two requests for extension of the comment period on the IFR and one request for a public meeting. The Coast Guard has made the decision not to extend the comment period on the July 2017 IFR. The Administrative Procedure Act does not specify the number of days that an agency must provide for public comment. And, based on the number and quality of the responses that we received, we believe that the 30-day comment period provided adequate opportunity for interested members of the public to review the July 2017 IFR and provide us with currently available information that would enhance our knowledge about the rule, including impacts. The Coast Guard carefully reviewed each of the comments we received on the July 2017 IFR and has addressed those concerns in this second interim final rule. But, to ensure that all concerns of the public have been brought to our attention, the Coast Guard is providing for a 90-day public comment period with this second interim rule. The Coast Guard believes this provides sufficient opportunity for public feedback without the need for public meetings.

A number of comments questioned the size and location of the security zone. Many commenters stated that the security zone needlessly interfered with the public's access to the river. Commenters suggested that the Coast Guard could reduce the size of the zone while still maintaining security. Local paddling clubs, people associated with the camps, and recreational kayakers requested we find a way to share the river when the security zone is being enforced. A common theme was requesting a way for paddlers to enter the water on the Maryland side and access the GW Canal on the Virginia side. Many commenters felt that the zone could potentially force waterway users close to the dam. The president of a local recreational boating association asked for a 100-foot lane immediately west of Seneca Breaks, so that paddlers can safely cross upriver from the dam, as well as access to the Maryland side of the river. Additionally, some comments expressed concern over what would happen if a paddler launched and went downriver, only to find out upon return to that launch site that the security zone was activated. Commenters stated that this would leave a paddler stranded if the paddler could not access the paddler's launch point and could pose a safety risk to the paddler.

After reviewing the concerns raised by the commenters, we revised the security zone to create a 250 yard wide transit lane parallel to the Maryland shoreline that may be accessed with permission from the COTP or designated representative. While this means waterway users accessing the Potomac River from Riley's Lock will immediately enter the security zone when entering the river, the transit lane provides the opportunity for them to access the Potomac River once granted permission from the COTP or the COTP's representative. We moved the eastern edge of the security zone approximately 600 yards west. This provides approximately 170 yards of clearance between Seneca Falls and the edge of the zone. This also means waterway users launching from Violette's Lock have almost 400 yards to travel before reaching the edge of the zone instead of entering the zone almost immediately as they enter the Potomac River. We moved the western edge of the zone approximately 500 yards east. This means waterway users launching from Algonkian Regional Park boat ramp may travel three quarters of a mile due east before reaching the western edge of the zone. These modifications, together, should allow waterway users to launch from three nearby launch sites (Algonkian Park, Riley's Lock, and Violette's Lock), transit through the security zone on the Maryland side to access Seneca Falls and the George Washington Canal, and then return to their launch site.

We received comments about the size of this security zone as compared to other zones in the area that provide protective measures. Many commenters said that this security zone was much larger and more restrictive than those other zones. The list of zones referenced by commenters includes: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, White House “campaign style rallies,” Camp David, Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center, and naval vessels. Of these, the Coast Guard is not the issuing authority for zones that implement security measures around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, the White House, Camp David, or Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center. The Coast Guard has issued temporary security zones for high profile events adjacent to waters of the United States, like the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. The Coast Guard designed each of these zone's size and restrictions based on the unique factors each venue presented. Regarding naval vessels, the Coast Guard issues Naval Vessel Protective Zones considering both Coast Guard and naval vessel capabilities. There are other Coast Guard-issued security zones on different portions of the Potomac River, which vary in size, duration, and restrictions based on the unique factors each location and event presents (33 CFR 165.508). While all of these comments bring up other locations and circumstances where security can be an issue, they do not address the specific technical security needs for protecting USSS protectees on this particular waterfront property. The Coast Guard did not make any changes to the zone's size following its analysis of other security zones near this location.

One comment asked about why the Coast Guard is setting up a shore-to-shore security zone when, previously, USSS was only keeping boaters away from the shore. The temporary rules issued prior to the July 2017 IFR established shore-to-shore security zones which allowed the public to request permission to transit from the COTP's representative. The July 2017 IFR also provided the opportunity to request permission to enter and transit the zone in paragraph (c)(2).

Some commenters believed the zone would decrease the public's safety. While many of the comments were general in nature and did not provide specifics, some stated that they felt unsafe because of fear that the eastern edge of the security zone forced waterway users into Seneca Falls. One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard provide a 300-foot wide corridor parallel to the falls.

The security zone does not negatively impact public safety. The Coast Guard's establishment of the security zone allows enforcing agencies more time to respond to threats and take the lowest level of enforcement needed to protect USSS protectees. As previously discussed in the “size and location” section above, in an abundance of caution, the Coast Guard is moving the zone's eastern edge 500 yards west to provide ample room for waterway users to launch from Violette's Lock and cross from the Maryland side to the Virginia side of the river. But, the Coast Guard does not believe that the original coordinates of the safety zone put the public at risk. Under the original IFR people could transit the zone parallel to the falls, provided they first received permission from the COTP or the COTP's representative and followed transit instructions.

Many comments questioned whether there was a need for the security zone given that this segment of the river is almost exclusively used by kayaks, canoes, and paddleboards. Commenters stated the rocky, shallow bottom, debris, and ever changing water conditions would make it very difficult for someone unfamiliar with the area to approach the golf course at a high rate of speed without being overtaken or neutralized. Several comments suggested that the riverfront cliff in front of the Trump National Golf Club could be easily protected with security personnel on the shoreline due to its height. Others commented that there is a clear line of sight across the Potomac River, and that a Coast Guard security zone does not add to the security of the area since USSS protectees will be in plain sight of the opposite bank with or without the security zone.

The Coast Guard has authority to take action on the river and, in consultation with USSS, has deemed a security zone the most effective way to control access to the shores of the Trump National Golf Club. The Coast Guard recognizes that anyone can use any waterborne vessel, including paddle craft, to operate with malicious intent against USSS protectees. Therefore, the agency has concluded the security zone is necessary. To accommodate waterway users, the Coast Guard is adding a transit lane that allows use of this segment of the river while the Coast Guard, along with the USSS, maintains appropriate levels of security.

Several commenters requested that the Coast Guard consider alternatives to rulemaking.

Physical barriers. Some non-Coast Guard alternatives proposed by commenters included having the Trump National Golf Club establish visible barriers on shore to provide security or replant vegetation along the shoreline to provide a barrier. Another commenter suggested the Coast Guard put up physical barriers to provide security. The Coast Guard cannot require land owners to alter their property as an alternative to creating and enforcing a security zone. Such alterations would need to be at the landowner's discretion. And, providing physical barriers is not a method the Coast Guard uses to mitigate ports and waterways security concerns.

Land-based security. One commenter suggested having land-based security on the golf course, either private security or federal law enforcement. The USSS in consultation with the Coast Guard has determined that waterborne security is required when USSS protectees are present at Trump National Golf Club.

Skipping holes. Other commenters suggested that USS protectees skip the golf holes that are closest to the river's edge. The Coast Guard does not direct movements of USSS protectees on the golf course.

Random searches. One commenter requested that instead of a security zone, the Coast Guard patrol and conduct random searches. Random searches would not provide an adequate level of security that is required for these events.

Assistance from community members. One comment requested that the Coast Guard develop a partnership with the local paddling community and request assistance from paddlers in securing the waterway. Only the Coast Guard has authority to enforce a security zone.

Inspections. One comment asked if the Coast Guard could conduct security inspections at “popular launch sites” instead, and also provide a permit or pass that allows that paddler to use that segment of the river. Such an inspection process does not currently exist, and if implemented, would not account for paddlers already on this segment of the river. The COTP, in consultation with the USSS, has determined that a security zone is the most effective means to mitigate security concerns at the Trump National Golf Club.

There were numerous comments requesting that the security zone not apply to human powered kayaks, canoes, or paddleboards, and only to motorized watercraft. Commenters argued that paddle craft are slow, easily tracked, and easily overtaken for security boardings. Other commenters requested that the security zone only apply to vessels above a certain speed, allowing kayaks and canoes to operate without restriction. A few proposals requested that permits be available to provide ongoing exemptions to future security zones. These permits would apply to local businesses and groups that are deemed not threatening and rely heavily on this particular segment of the river.

These recommendations would undermine the security measures this rule intends to provide. An exemption for paddle craft would allow persons with harmful intent immediate access to the Trump National Golf Club shoreline while USSS protectees were present. Organizations exempted by permit could be exploited, similarly allowing persons with harmful intent access to the shoreline. Instead, the Coast Guard will continue maintaining a shoreline-to-shoreline security zone activated when USSS protectees are present and will continue to allow vessels to use the transit lane as conditions permit. This helps the Coast Guard manage waterborne security risk by maintaining positive control of entry into the zone and keeping a minimum stand-off distance from the Virginia shoreline for all vessels.

Many comments questioned the Coast Guard's authority to establish a security zone in Maryland State waters. The Coast Guard's legal authority to establish security zone regulations comes from 33 U.S.C.1221. A discussion of the geographic application of security zones is provided in regulation in 33 CFR 165.9(c), and explains that security zones may be established in “waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” defined in 33 CFR 2.38. This definition incorporates “navigable waters of the United States” as defined in 33 CFR 2.36, which are further described to include: (1) Territorial seas of the United States; (2) internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence; and (3) internal waters not subject to tidal influence that: are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce. This portion of the Potomac River is a navigable waterway of the United States and meets the definition described in 33 CFR 2.36(a)(3)(i). Because this portion of the river is a navigable waterway, the Coast Guard has authority stemming from 33 U.S.C. 1221 to issue a security zone on these waters.

The July 2017 IFR said that the safety zone was for the protection of “high ranking government officials.” Several comments requested clarification about who is considered a “high ranking government official.” Commenters were concerned about the frequency of enforcement if “high ranking government officials” covered a very large group of individuals. Some commenters wanted the security zone to be activated only for the President of the United States, while others thought the zone should be able to be activated only for the Vice President of the United States, Speaker of the House, and other members of Congress in addition to the President. Many commenters were concerned that President Trump's business partners or other non-governmental persons would trigger the security zone's activation.

The Coast Guard will only activate the security zone when requested by the USSS for the protection of those who qualify for USSS protection. The list of personnel who qualify for USSS protection is found in 18 U.S.C 3056(a). This list includes the President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, President-elect and Vice President-elect, immediate families of those individuals, former Presidents and Vice Presidents, major United States Presidential candidates, and visiting heads of state or foreign governments. The Coast Guard has amended the regulatory text to clarify this for the public.

Many commenters argued that the right of USSS protectees to use private land for recreational activities does not take precedence over the right of taxpayers to use publicly owned land and waterways. Comments stated that a golf game for USSS protectees would limit a wide range of rehabilitative, recreational, educational and conservation activities for many citizens and stakeholders. Other comments expressed frustration that the interests and activities of the public were not taken in to consideration when the location and size of the security zone was established. Comments pointed out that there are few areas on the Potomac River that offer such varied public access and usage opportunities as the area initially covered by the security zone, and that there are other options for USSS protectees to play golf.

The Coast Guard cannot change the location and travel choices of USSS protectees. The USSS is tasked with providing the highest level of security for certain individuals, and has requested the Coast Guard's assistance in this location. The need for and level of security does not change based on the activities of protected individuals. Shortening the size of the security zone and adding the transit lane along the Maryland shore provides an opportunity for the public to enjoy the river while USSS protectees participate safely in their chosen activities.

Many commenters stated that taxpayer money should not be used to obtain security services for a private business or to engage in activities that would unfairly benefit a private entity. The security zone is not intended to support a private business. It will only be activated as needed to protect USSS protectees, not the Trump National Golf Club generally.

Many commenters requested clarification on how long the security zone would be in effect, including whether the security zone would be terminated after the current President's term. After reviewing any comments received on this second IFR, the Coast Guard will issue a final rule addressing any new comments that we receive during the comment period. The security zone will remain in place until the Coast Guard conducts a future rulemaking to withdraw it. But, the security zone will only be enforced at the request of USSS.

Many commenters requested clarification about how frequently the zone would be activated and the length of enforcement. Several comments asked about whether the security zone could ever be enforced for a multi-day event. Additionally, other comments asked if the security zone could be activated only when recreational river users were less likely to be present, such as from Monday through Friday. One commenter requested that the security zone be activated no more than 3 times each year.

The Coast Guard will activate this security zone in consultation with the USSS whenever deemed needed to protect USSS protectees. There is a possibility that the security zone could be enforced multiple days at a time. But, to date, the USSS has not requested multi-day enforcement.

Many comments indicated confusion over how and by whom the security zone would be enforced. Some stated that the MD-DNR has enforcement jurisdiction over the security zone and would be able to make changes to the size of the security zone. This is not correct. While the CG may be assisted by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone, only the CG is authorized to establish or modify the size of the zone. MD-DNR is a vital partner, present while the zone is being enforced. Currently, the Coast Guard partners with MD-DNR, placing Coast Guard personnel on MD-DNR vessels to provide on-scene enforcement capabilities.

Many comments requested advance notice of when the security zone is going to be enforced. Specific suggestions included advance notice durations of two weeks, two days, and twenty-four hours. Several other comments requested a website, application development, or text notification. Many comments requested signs be posted at popular launch sites, indicating in advance that the security zone is activated. Some requested a dedicated telephone line with a pre-recorded message. Some comments asked if local paddling clubs could be notified when the security zone is activated.

The Coast Guard can only provide minimal advance notice of activation. Announcing the arrival of USSS protectees, even twenty-four hours in advance, would put their security at risk. The USSS will request enforcement of the security zone when required. The Coast Guard will provide the public with notice of enforcement of the security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), updated information at www.news.uscg.mil/Baltimore/ and by a recorded message at telephone number (410) 576-2675. Local businesses, recreational boaters, and recreational associations should check the website and phone message prior to making plans that may be impacted by enforcement of the security zone, but should keep in mind that enforcement could begin at any time at the request of USSS. The Coast Guard does not intend to use shore-based signage as a means to notify the public of security zone enforcement.

It was of great concern to many commenters that they would not know when the security zone was activated, particularly if the only means of communication is by means of Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM. And, some comments stated that paddlers do not carry cellular telephones on the river. For river users who do not carry a Marine Band Radio, a telephone, or have other means of access to the internet while on the river, the COTP or designated representative will be on scene to provide notification. At the time of enforcement, the Coast Guard will provide instructions to persons and vessels in the security zone on how to depart the zone. Vessels may request permission to remain in the zone from the COTP or designated representative.

Commenters asked if the use of installed air horns, loud hailers, flags or special lights at the Trump National Golf Club could be used to indicate when the security zone is activated. The designated representative of the COTP on scene will decide on the most appropriate and feasible method of communication; however, the Coast Guard cannot require land owners to alter their private property. Commenters also asked about paddlers with hearing impairments and those speaking different languages. The Coast Guard will use visual signals or other alternative means of non-verbal communication as needed for these paddlers. A designated representative of the COTP on scene will ensure that all vessels and people within the security zone recognize that the security zone is activated, and that they must either immediately depart the security zone or transit through it in accordance with directions from the COTP or designated representative. It was also requested that temporary buoys be established to mark a transit lane. The Coast Guard does not intend to use buoys, however, the COTP's designated representative on scene will inform waterway users how to proceed while within the security zone.

Some commenters argued that the security zone impacts First Amendment rights, specifically freedom to assemble and freedom of speech. Many commenters felt that the security zone was not promulgated to keep USSS protectees secure, but to keep protestors away from the Trump National Golf Club. The commenters stated that the Potomac River was a public forum and that kayakers had a right to peaceably assemble there and petition the Government.

The Coast Guard agrees that First Amendment considerations must be evaluated during the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard believes that this zone is narrowly tailored and minimizes intrusion into the rights of protestors while providing necessary security measures for USSS protectees. As stated in the “Protest Activities” section of the Regulatory Analysis portion of both the July 2017 IFR and this current action, the Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protestors. 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.

We received some comments arguing that the security zone violates the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, comments argued that the Coast Guard was taking private property because the security zone overlaps part of Sharpshin Island, which is owned by the Potomac Conservancy. This would not amount to a regulatory taking because the Coast Guard's actions did not permanently diminish the value of the property, did not physically invade the property and did not permanently eliminate the economic value of the property. However, this second interim rule shortens the area of the security zone, so that the island is not located within the security zone.

Commenters raised concerns about possible economic impact of the security zone on local businesses and waterway users. Commenters stated that the many different waterway users contribute significantly to the local economy—local retailers, restaurants and river related businesses depend on these patrons. Comments also stated that the Coast Guard is privileging a private business, the Trump National Golf Club, by allowing for their financial gain while closing the river to many smaller businesses and organizations that could also make a profit off tourists and the public. There was significant concern in many comments that without advanced notice of the security zone, paddlers and other vessel operators would undergo a financial burden after traveling to their planned destination only to find that the river is closed. Changing plans last minute would cost time, fuel, and possibly other incidentals while groups or individuals assess and analyze options and then travel to other kayaking locations. Commenters stated several times that there are no other local kayaking spots that offer such diverse opportunities for many different levels of paddlers. Whitewater race coordinators were also concerned that there would be a significant economic impact if a planned event has to be cancelled or rescheduled because of activation of the security zone. Comments stated that lack of advance notice precludes river-related businesses from making alternative arrangements for sailing classes, kayak lessons, planned group outings, or major events.

The Coast Guard views this current security zone rulemaking as distinct from other existing or potential protective security regulations at other locations. The shortening of the security zone and the addition of the transit lane is intended to allow for many of the above mentioned river related activities to continue even when the security zone is activated. In other words it was designed to minimize to the extent possible, the impact on commerce and legitimate waterway use. The security zone does not negatively impact public safety. More importantly the Coast Guard's establishment of the security zone allows enforcing agencies more time to respond to threats and take the lowest level of enforcement needed to protect USSS protectees. Ultimately the Coast Guard deems the benefits and need for this security zone to provide protection the pertinent protectees to exceed the indirect impacts on the entities the commenters noted.

One comment also specified that use of the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in Bedminster, New Jersey, has damaged the local economy, because in that situation, hot air balloons and small airports have to cancel reservations when the President and other high level government officials use the golf course. The Coast Guard views this current security zone rulemaking as distinct from other existing or potential protective security regulations at other locations or by other agencies; economic impacts are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Another comment stated that the security zone would limit access to Camp Calleva's private property. The shortening of the security zone and the addition of the transit lane is intended to allow for many of the above mentioned river related activities to continue even when the security zone is activated. These modifications are intended to reduce the economic impact that the security zone will have on river-based businesses, local residents, and paddlers coming to this segment of the Potomac River.

Many small entities have already been mentioned, but this section addresses more specific concerns relating to the security zone's impact on them. The Director of Camp Calleva gave detailed comments addressing the camp's status as a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit organization that provide summer camp, field trips, and other programming for youth and adults in the area. The director stated that if the camp could not obtain access to the river at Riley's Lock, there would be a daily economic impact of $14,000 Monday-Friday for each cancelled day of children's camps and $2,800 on Sunday for other classes offered. It was also stated that there are many difficulties associated with moving the camp's operations, because of the amount of equipment and watercraft. Also, retraining the employees for different activities or areas, as well as learning new outdoor skills in order to change programming, would be difficult and cost time and money. One comment noted that most day camps are only 5 days long, so if a child misses one day on the water during a paddling camp, they will be missing 20% of what they paid for and camp staff would have to fill these days with alternate activities. Using the new transit lane, camp operations may continue within 250 yards of the Maryland shore when the security zone is activated, pending permission from the COTP's designated representative. Comments mentioned transportation to Calleva Camp at Riley's Lock location from the Virginia side includes a canoe trip from the Trump National Golf Club for some attendees and that if the security zone goes into effect, children using this mode of transportation would have to find another route to camp. This is true. Persons intending to travel to Camp Calleva from a canoe that departs from Trump National Golf Club will have to commute to camp through another means when the security zone is activated. At the time of this publication, the Calleva Camp website states that they provide bus transportation to camp at Riley's Lock from 17 locations, including one in McLean, VA, which is roughly 25 minutes from Trump National Golf Club.

Another small entity that would be effected by the security zone is Valley Mill Camp that operates on a lake and 60 acres of forested land in Germantown, MD. Valley Mill also offers canoeing and kayaking programs on the Potomac River. According to their website, river trips leave camp daily and access the Potomac from the Maryland side. Valley Mill's paddling programs will be able to use the security zone's transit lane pending permission from the COTP's representative. Another small entity that commented about the security zone's impact was Swift water Rescue Instructors. They state that volunteer instructors access the Potomac through either Riley's or Violette's Locks, and cross the Potomac just upriver from the Seneca Breaks with their students to access the old Patowmack Canal, where there is a historic set of rapids ideal for training all levels of paddlers in rescue methods. The transit lane and shortened security zone will allow Swift water Rescue Operations to continue, even when the security zone is activated, pending permission from the COTP's representative.

Another small entity, sailing instructors, stated that they conduct lessons on this segment of the river and that closing the river entirely would put them out of business. Using the transit lane will allow for sailing lessons to continue across from Trump National Golf Club with permission from the COTP's designated representative when the security zone is activated.

Finally, the Program Manager at Riverbend Park, a Fairfax County Park Authority Park in Great Falls, VA, commented that they use Algonkian Regional Park, on the Virginia side upstream from Trump National Golf Club, as a launch site for an 8-mile paddling trip back to Riverbend Park. The shortened security zone and transit lane on the Maryland side of the river would allow paddlers that enter at Algonkian Regional Park to cross the Potomac from the Virginia side when the security zone is activated and access the transit lane on the Maryland side of the river, pending permission from the COTP's representative. Then paddlers could cross back to the Virginia side near Seneca Breaks to continue the trip back to Riverbend Park.

In conclusion, the Coast Guard has reduced the length of the security zone on the Potomac River, and added in a transit lane in order to accommodate the above small entities and their operations that depend heavily on access to the Potomac River.

Some comments pointed out that the original coordinates submitted for the corners of the security zone were incorrect. The Coast Guard agrees that the latitude was erroneously entered as degrees West, instead of degrees North. This second interim rule makes that correction.

One commenter recommended against law enforcement agencies displaying firearms as to not alarm the many children that operate in this part of the river. The Coast Guard appreciates this comment's concern and will operate as agency policy and security needs dictate.

One commenter stated that if structures would be erected on the Potomac River pursuant to demarking or providing other information about the security zone, then U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted to conduct Section 10 Clean Water Act review. Currently, there is no intention of installing fixed structures. If such structures are deemed necessary in the future, the Coast Guard would follow its processes for establishing aids to navigation.

One commenter asked which two regulations were being removed to add this one. Per Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” agencies should identify two regulations to be eliminated for every new one issued. 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.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).

In the first interim rule, the security zone included all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°04′02″ W, longitude 077°19′48″ W, thence south to latitude 39°03′39″ W, longitude 077°20′02″ W, and bounded on the west by longitude 077°22′06″ W, located between Pond Island and Sharpshin Island, in Montgomery County, MD. This second interim rule amends the security zone at 33 CFR 165.557 to include all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the west by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°03′44.7″ N, longitude 077°21′47″ W, thence north to latitude 39°04′03″ N, longitude 077°21′47″ W, and bounded on the east by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°04′04″ N, longitude 077°19′58″ W, thence south to latitude 39°03′41.35″ N, longitude 077°20′05.30″ W. Although the length of the security zone is decreased at both the eastern and western ends, creating a waterside area for recreational egress and access, the width of the security zone is unchanged, remaining from shoreline to shoreline. This rule provides additional information about an area within the security zone along the Maryland shoreline, designated the “Transit lane,” including a definition and the restrictions that apply within the lane to waterway users. However, permission for waterways users to operate within this lane will be determined by the COTP, or designated representative. The public can learn the status of the security zone via an information release for the public via website www.news.uscg.mil/Baltimore/ and a recorded message at telephone number (410) 576-2675

Entry into the security zone is prohibited, unless public use of the transit lane is specifically authorized by the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. Except for public vessels, this rule will require all vessels in the designated security zone to immediately depart the security zone. Federal, State, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of this rule. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the security of USSS protectees while at Trump National Golf Club. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will notify waterway users and the boating community of the security zone, via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), an information release at the website: www.news.uscg.mil/Baltimore/ and a recorded message at telephone number (410) 576-2675.

Coast Guard developed this interim final rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below Coast Guard summarizes its analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s.

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. 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.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This rule is considered to be an Executive Order 13771 non-significant regulatory action. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017). A regulatory evaluation follows.

A combined regulatory evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows and provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this rule. In this interim final rule, USCG revised the security zone to include a dedicated transit lane. The public can move through the area using the dedicated transit lane during the enforcement of the security zone, with permission from the COTP or COTP's designated representative as proscribed by the interim final rule. This interim final rule also includes changes to the geographic boundaries of the security zone from the boundaries in the interim final rule of July 10, 2017. The following table provides a summary of the rule's costs and qualitative benefits.

Data is not collected by USCG on the vessels and individuals that use this area of the Potomac River. Based on comments to the Coast Guard's original interim final rule (dated July 10, 2017), USCG estimates that this rule affects recreational boaters including kayakers, personal water crafts (PWCs) operators, 3 stand up paddle boarders (SUPs); persons using the area for exercise activities; fishermen; commercial vessel operators; and political protesters. This interim final rule impacts the Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) directly; other Federal governmental agencies may be impacted indirectly by this rulemaking. No governmental jurisdictions at the State, Tribal or municipal level will be impacted directly by this interim final rule

Exact numbers are not available, but the Coast Guard estimates the total size of the population affected by this interim final rule to be in the hundreds. USCG attempted to collect further data by using USGS's  4 satellite technology. The technology was not accurate enough to do a count of individuals such as swimmers or inner tube users. Likewise, the technology was not precise enough to do a count of a vessel as small as a kayak or SUP. The comments suggested these counts ranged from “a dozen” to “thousands.” The most often cited of these estimates was “hundreds.”

USCG also sought an estimate from its personnel who manage the enforcements of the security zone. Data are not collected normally by USCG on the number of vessels and individuals that use this area. But, USCG onsite personnel estimate of up to six recreational vessels and up to 25 kayakers transiting during the enforcement of the security zone.

This interim final rule modifies the existing security zone established by the IFR, “Security Zone; Potomac River, Montgomery County, MD” on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31719). The security zone covers waters of the Potomac River next to Trump National Golf Club at Potomac Falls, VA, and prevents waterside threats and incidents while persons protected by the Secret Service are at the club. The modification due to this interim final rule reduces the overall length of the existing security zone and formalizes a 250-yard-wide transit lane that provides passage for vessels through the zone near the Maryland shoreline with permission of the COTP or designated representative. It continues to prohibit vessels and people from entering the security zone unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. This interim final rule also governs activities of vessels and persons already in the security zone when activated. The modification of this rule will not require any entity to take action beyond what was already required under the 2017 interim final rule. As a result, this interim final rule does not impose additional direct costs on the public or to the USCG. A description of the purpose of the rule's provisions follows.

Section 165.557(a) establishes the definitions to be used to understand the provisions of the regulations. These definitions do not add direct cost to the public or Government. The definition of vessel establishes the applicability of these regulations on a multitude of watercraft including but not limited to kayaks, stand up paddleboards and inner tubes. Therefore, users of these types of vessels would be applicable to the provisions of the interim final rule.

Section 165.557(b) describes where the security zone is located. The location of the security zone does not cause costs to be incurred by the public nor the Government. In § 165.557(b), this interim final rule establishes where the Potomac River security zone is and, thereby, declares that area to be a security zone which is defined by the regulations. Actions that are necessitated when a security zone is declared are specified in existing regulations. Under 33 CFR 165.7(a), when the establishment of these limited access areas occurs, notification may be made by marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice, as well as publication in the Federal Register . These requirements are akin to but in addition to the authorization requirements specified in this interim final rule; under § 165.557(c)(1), entry into or remaining in the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative in consultation with the USSS when the security zone is being enforced. Section 165.557(d) requires that the COTP provide notice of enforcement of security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), information release at the website and pre-recorded message at telephone number as well as on-scene notice.

Although this interim final rule does result in actions being taken by the Coast Guard and USSS directly it does not result in any new costs or burdens. The impact that this interim final rule will have on these two federal agencies is considered part of their mission and responsibility, and thus part of their current responsibilities to the public and other Federal entities.

Upon request by the USSS to close down this section of the river to ensure the safety of individuals under USSS protection, USCG created a security zone in certain waters of the Potomac River adjacent to Trump National Golf Course Club at Potomac Falls, Virginia. This security zone is necessary to prevent waterside threats and incidents for events held at Trump National Golf Clubhouse when persons protected by the USSS are at the club.

Within the agency's consideration, alternatives to the regulatory action were considered to determine if any alternative could accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and could minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives:

(1) Issue a rulemaking that would not require any vessel to get permission from the Coast Guard prior to entering the transit lane, with or without changes to the zone's boundaries described in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

(2) Issue a rulemaking that would not require human-powered vessels to get permission from the Coast Guard prior to entering the transit lane, with or without changes to the zone's boundaries described in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

(3) Keep boundaries as noted in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

Alternative 1: Issue a rulemaking that would not require any vessel to get permission from the Coast Guard prior to entering the transit lane, with or without changes to the zone's boundaries described in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

The Coast Guard considered issuing a rulemaking that did not require any vessel to get permission from the COTP or the designated representative prior to entering the transit lane. But, we rejected this option because this approach would undermine the security measures this rule intends to provide. This option would allow persons with harmful intent immediate access to the Trump National Golf Club shoreline while USSS protectees were present. Instead, the Coast Guard chose to continue to allow vessels to use the transit lane as conditions permit with approval from the COTP or designated representative. This helps the Coast Guard manage waterborne security risk by maintaining positive control of entry into the zone and keeping a minimum stand-off distance from the Virginia shoreline for all vessels.

Alternative 2: Issue a rulemaking that would not require human-powered vessels to get permission from the Coast Guard prior to entering the transit lane, with or without changes to the zone's boundaries described in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

The Coast Guard considered amending the security zone to require only powered vessels to get permission from the COTP or the designated representative prior to entering the transit lane. Under this option human-powered vessels such as kayaks, canoes, and paddleboards would not need permission from the COTP or designated representative before entering the transit lane. We rejected this option because this approach would undermine the security measures this rule intends to provide. An exemption for paddle craft would allow persons with harmful intent immediate access to the Trump National Golf Club shoreline while USSS protectees were present. Instead, the Coast Guard will continue maintaining a shoreline-to-shoreline security zone activated when USSS protectees are present and will continue to allow vessels to use the transit lane as conditions permit. This helps the Coast Guard manage waterborne security risk by maintaining positive control of entry into the zone and keeping a minimum stand-off distance from the Virginia shoreline for all vessels.

Alternative 3: Keep boundaries as noted in the July 10, 2017, interim final rule.

For this alternative USCG considered releasing a rule which would use the boundaries as promulgated in the interim final rule of July 10, 2017. The boundaries of the previous interim final rule are wider than the boundaries of this interim final rule. This alternative would exclude a provision which was favored by the public  5 and is part of the preferred alternative ( e.g., this interim final rule). The alternative would continue the status quo from the 2017 interim final rule. It also would also have higher costs for the public as the opportunity costs of lost leisure time would magnify. This alternative does not provide any increased security over the preferred alternative of this interim final rule. For these reasons, USCG has chosen not to continue the status quo and continue with this alternative.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we considered whether this interim final rule will have a significant economic impact 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 fewer than 50,000 people.

As described in the “Regulatory Planning and Review” section, the Coast Guard expects this interim final rule to result no direct costs to any entities, including small entities. It does note that there are potential indirect costs from the July 2017 interim final rule, for some entities. The affected population for the indirect costs consists of private individuals who own recreational vessels or who engage in recreational activities in this area of the Potomac River, commercial entities and nonprofits which have activities or operate vessels in this area of the Potomac and governmental entities. The indirect costs are opportunity costs for loss leisure time to access to the restricted area of the Potomac River. Since indirect are not considered when determining the impacts on small entities for regulatory flexibility assessment purposes, this rulemaking will have no significant economic impact on any small entities. In actuality this interim final rule reduces the impact on entities from the 2017 interim final rule because it reduces the overall length of the existing security zone and creates a 250-yard-wide transit lane that provides passage for vessels through the zone near the Maryland shoreline with permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated representative.

This interim final rule also indirectly may impact four governmental units  6 in two governmental jurisdictions; none are considered by RFA definitions to be small governmental jurisdictions. Thus, the compliance with this interim final rule does not represent a significant economic impact on small entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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 made a 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 rule involves the reduction in size of a security zone that prohibits entry on specified waters of the Potomac River during frequently occurring heightened security events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Memorandum for Record for Categorically Excluded Actions supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

Although this interim rule is effective upon publication, we are seeking further public comment on it. 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 USCG-2017-0448 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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The M/V ZHEN HUA 25 is transporting three post-Panamax gantry cranes to ports within the United States. These large cranes extend beyond the width of M/V ZHEN HUA 25 on both sides of the vessel and create a navigational hazard to vessels operating within a certain proximity. The cranes are fastened in manner to facilitate passage through open ocean. Upon arrival with the Delaware River, M/V ZHEN HUA 25 will transit to anchorage and begin an approximately four day process of removing the sea fastenings. The M/V ZHEN HUA 25 will then proceed, conditions permitting, to berth at the Port of Philadelphia Greenwich Terminal. The vessel will deliver two of the three cranes then proceed outbound to Wilmington, NC, with one gantry crane remaining onboard.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the anticipated arrival of M/V ZHEN HUA 25 to the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port zone. The rule must be in force by March 15, 2019, to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of waterway users and the general public from hazards associated with the offloading of post-Panamax gantry cranes with the Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with the offloading of the post-Panamax gantry cranes.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that there are potential hazards associated with the offloading of the post-Panamax gantry cranes. These potential hazards will be a safety concern for anyone transiting navigable waters of the Delaware River bounded to the south by a line drawn from the southeast corner of Pier 124S at 39°53′41.751″ N, 075°08′19.1419″ W, thence east-southeast to the New Jersey Shoreline at 39°53′34″ N, 075°07′49″ W, and bounded to the north by the southernmost edge of the Walt Whitman Bridge.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the Delaware River bounded to the south by a line drawn from the southeast corner of Pier 124S at 39°53′41.751″ N, 075°08′19.1419″ W, thence east-southeast to the New Jersey Shoreline at 39°53′34″ N, 075°07′49″ W, and bounded to the north by the southernmost edge of the Walt Whitman Bridge. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel and vessels, in the navigable waters within the safety zone as well as persons on the adjacent shoreline during offloading of two Post-Panamax gantry cranes. This safety zone will be enforced for approximately seven days beginning from the time of the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 moors at Greenwich Terminal until the vessel departs from the terminal, unless cancelled earlier by the COTP Delaware Bay. Enforcement of the safety zone will be announced via broadcast notice to mariners.

Vessels will be able to transit through the safety zone without permission from the COTP Delaware Bay if they meet the following requirements: (1) Transit through the safety zone at the minimum safe speed to reduce wake and maintain steerage, (2) except for towing vessels designated as assist tugs and operating in such capacity, do not overtake, meet, or otherwise pass any other unmoored or unanchored vessel while transiting through the safety zone, and (3) regardless of travel direction, vessels shall remain east of the centerline of the main navigation channel. The centerline is depicted on U. S. Electronic Navigational Chart US5PA12M and is a line drawn approximately from 39°53′39″ N, 075°08′11″ W, thence north-northeast to approximate position 39°54′19″ N, 075°07′54″ W, and thence north to approximate position 39°54′20″ N, 075°07′54″ W. Vessels which do not meet all of the requirements listed above will be prohibited from entering or transiting the safety zone without prior approval of the COTP Delaware Bay. Vessels requesting to enter or transit the safety zone may contact the Sector Delaware Bay Command Center via VHF-FM channel 16.

Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the short duration and traffic management of the safety zone. This rule will allow for vessels to transit through the safety zone while the M/V ZHEN HUA 25 moored at Greenwich Terminal in Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania if certain requirements are met, and the Coast Guard anticipates that most vessels will be able to freely transit around the safety zone and will not need to seek permission to enter the zone. For these reasons, the impact on waterway traffic is expected to be minimal.

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 will 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.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone to be enforced only during the offload of a vessel carrying post-Panamax gantry cranes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 165 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our November 7, 2018, proposal (83 FR 55656). In that document we proposed to approve the SIP revision that provides an alternative to BART for Unit 3 at the Naughton Power Plant.

Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before December 7, 2018. The EPA received a total of three public comment submissions on the proposed approval, including a comment letter from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (AQD). All public comments received on this rulemaking action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that one of the comment submissions is outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fails to identify any material issue necessitating a response. Our responses to the remaining two comment submissions are below.

Comment: In a comment letter dated December 7, 2018, AQD stated that it “agrees with EPA that both the EPA's and Wyoming's analyses demonstrate that the emissions reductions achievable through the alternative are better-than-BART.” However, the AQD maintained that “given the flexibilities afforded states under the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39129), the State's use of potential-to-emit emissions in order to calculate reductions is permissible.” The AQD construed “EPA's use of `anticipated annual emission rate' as an EPA policy preference, not a requirement.”

Response: In 2006, the EPA finalized regulations that govern alternatives to source-specific BART determinations such as that contemplated in the Wyoming SIP revision for Naughton Unit 3. 1 These regulations “make clear that the emissions reductions that could be achieved through implementation of the BART provisions at § 51.308(e)(1) [for source-by-source BART] serve as the benchmark against which States can compare an alternative program.”  2 In turn, the emissions reductions that could be achieved through source-by-source BART are calculated in accordance with the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule. 3 The BART Guidelines are mandatory for powerplants exceeding 750 megawatts such as the Naughton Power Plant. 4 The BART Guidelines specify, in general, that actual emissions, rather than potential emissions, should be used to calculate the emission reductions from BART. For example, when calculating both the baseline and anticipated emissions, and thereby the emission reductions, the BART Guidelines state:

Finally, note that the citation to the BART Guidelines given by AQD (to 70 FR 39129) refers to flexibilities afforded to the states in the context of assessing visibility improvements due to potential BART controls, and does not speak to whether actual or potential emissions should be used to calculate the emission reductions from BART in the course of a better-than-BART demonstration. Even still, in the context of assessing visibility improvements, the BART Guidelines are clear that actual, and not allowable, emission rates should be used:

Accordingly, because the BART Guidelines are mandatory for the Naughton Power Plant, and in this case require the use of actual emissions when calculating BART emission reductions, we disagree that the EPA's use of actual annual emissions represents a policy preference and that Wyoming's use of potential emissions for that purpose is permissible. Nonetheless, as noted by the commenter, the EPA agrees that in the case of the Naughton Unit 3 SIP revision, regardless of whether the emission reductions achievable with the BART alternative are assessed on a projected actual or allowable emissions basis, the anticipated NO X emissions are lower under the BART alternative than under BART. 8

Comment: AQD stated that, for the reasons noted in its SIP submittal, the AQD continues to maintain that use of an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) is the appropriate BART emission limit for comparison purposes instead of EPA's use of an 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate.

Response: The BART Guidelines state that for EGUs, such as Naughton Unit 3, emission limits should specify an averaging time of a 30-day rolling average. 9 In our 2014 final rule, we approved Wyoming's 30-day rolling average emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Naughton Unit 3. 10 However, as discussed in the comment response immediately above, in this case the BART regulations require that estimated actual emissions should be used when comparing the emission reductions from BART to those from a BART alternative. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the 30-day rolling average emission limit (lb/MMbtu) to an actual annual (lb/MMBtu) basis for this purpose. The former value will necessarily be higher than the latter value because of (1) the shorter averaging period, and (2) a margin for compliance. The need to adjust between the two values was discussed in the EPA's 2014 final rule approving the BART determination for Naughton Unit 3. 11 The need to adjust between these two values has also been recognized by other states ( e.g., Colorado and North Dakota) in their regional haze SIPs that have been approved by the EPA. 12   13 In addition, the relationship between the two values can be observed at other BART sources where selective catalytic reduction (SCR) has been installed and is subject to a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. For example, as discussed in our proposed rule, Units 3 and 4 at the Jim Bridger Power Plant, which are subject to a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, are achieving actual annual emissions rates of approximately 0.05 lb/MMBtu. 14 For these reasons, we find that an estimated actual annual emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu appropriately corresponds to the emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average for Naughton Unit 3.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for the EPA's proposed approval of the SIP revision which would result in the transition of Naughton Unit 3 from coal to natural gas. The commenter stated that “natural gas is cleaner and more sustainable for our future, and therefore a public benefit.” The commenter also stated that “PacifiCorp will have to modernize their coal combustion power plants at some point regardless.”

Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support for our proposed approval of the SIP revision for Naughton Unit 3.

In this action, the EPA is approving Wyoming's SIP revision for the Alternative to BART for NO X and PM for PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3, including the associated emission and operational limitations, compliance dates, and monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements. Specifically, the EPA is approving the following federally enforceable elements of the SIP revision for Naughton Unit 3:

• The NO X and PM emission limits found in Wyoming air quality permits MD-15946 (condition 5, lb/hr and tons/year) and P0021110 (condition 7, lb/MMbtu), as shown in the table below.

• The operational limit on annual heat input of 12,964,800 MMBtu (based on 12-month rolling average of hourly heat input values) found in Wyoming air quality permit P0021110 (condition 18).

• The compliance dates found in Wyoming air quality permit P0021110; specifically including that PacifiCorp shall (1) remove the coal pulverizers from service (cease firing coal) by January 30, 2019 (P0021110, condition 19), (2) comply with the NO X and PM emission limits in lb/MMBtu upon conversion to natural gas firing (P0021110, condition 7), and (3) comply with the heat input limit by January 30, 2019 (P0021110, condition 18).

• The compliance dates found in Wyoming air quality permit MD-15946 (conditions 5 and 6), requiring that PacifiCorp comply with the NO X and PM emission limits in lb/hr and tons/year upon completion of the initial performance tests.

• The monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements found in air quality permit P0021110 (NO X CEMs, conditions 8 and 9; heat input, condition 18; PM stack testing, condition 10; reporting, conditions 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19; record keeping, condition 17; notification, conditions 4 and 6; good practice, condition 21; credible evidence, condition 24).

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SIP amendments described in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 15

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, the EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In FR Doc. 2019-04044 appearing on page 8029 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, March 6, 2019, the following correction is made:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 568 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 550 mt and is setting aside the remaining 18 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 15, 2019.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.