[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29727-29732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2021-0208]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic Ocean,
Rehoboth, DE
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish two security zones
for certain waters of Rehoboth Beach to prevent waterside threats and
incidents for persons under the protection of the United States Secret
Service (USSS) in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. These
security zones would be enforced intermittently and only for the
protection of persons protected by USSS when in the area and will
restrict vessel traffic while the zone is being enforced. This rule
would prohibit vessels and people from entering the zones unless
specifically exempt under the provisions of this rule or granted
specific permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or
a designated representative. Any vessel requesting to transit the zones
without pause or delay, will typically be authorized to do so by on
scene enforcement vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed
rule.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0208 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, U.S.
Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division;
telephone 215-271-4889, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USSS United States Secret Service
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On occasion, persons protected by the USSS under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or
pursuant to Presidential memorandum will visit Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware, and the surrounding vicinity. These visits require the
implementation of heightened security measures for persons protected by
the USSS who may be present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware. Due to the close proximity of the Lewes and Rehoboth canal,
and the Atlantic Ocean, these security zones are necessary for USSS
protectees, the public, and the surrounding waterway.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to protect USSS
protectees and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist
acts. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in
46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as delegated by Department
of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, section II, paragraph 70,
from the Secretary of DHS to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard,
and further redelegated by 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 to
the Captains of the Port.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish two security zones for the
protection of USSS protectees when present in the vicinity of Rehoboth
Beach, Delaware. This rule is necessary to expedite the
[[Page 29728]]
establishment and enforcement of these security zones when short notice
is provided to the COTP for USSS protectees who may be present in the
area.
Security Zone One is bounded on the north by a line drawn from
38[deg] 44.36' North Latitude (N), 075[deg] 5.32' West Longitude (W),
thence easterly to 38[deg] 44.37' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W proceeding from
shoreline to shoreline on the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a
Southeasterly direction where it is bounded by a line drawn from
38[deg] 43.89' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W, thence easterly to 38[deg] 43.90'
N, 075[deg] 5.07' W thence northerly across the entrance to the yacht
basin to 38[deg] 43.93' N, 075[deg] 5.09' W.
Security Zone Two extends 500 yards seaward from the shoreline,
into the Atlantic Ocean beginning at 38[deg] 44.86' N, 075[deg] 4.83'
W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38[deg] 43.97' N,
075[deg] 4.70' W.
These security zones may be activated individually or
simultaneously with respect to the presence of USSS protectees. These
zones will be enforced intermittently. Enforcement of these zones will
be broadcast via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and/or local Safety
Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) on VHF-FM marine channel 16, as
well as actual notice via on scene Coast Guard Personnel. The public
can learn the status of the security zone via an information release
for the public via website https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40.
No vessel or person would be permitted to enter either security
zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. However, we anticipate that vessels requesting to
transit these zones would typically be authorized to transit without
pause or delay by on-scene enforcement vessels. When a vessel or person
is permitted to enter the security zone after obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative, the vessel or person must
proceed as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. Any vessel or
person permitted to transit the security zone would be required to
continue through the zone without pause or delay as directed by on
scene enforcement vessels. No vessel or person will be permitted to
stop or anchor in the security zone. At times, for limited duration, it
is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone
due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times,
actual notice will be given to vessels in the area.
When these security zones are enforced, the COTP would issue a BNM
and/or SMIB via VHF-FM channel 16. The public can learn the status of
the security zone via an information release for the public via website
https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A combined
regulatory analysis (RA) and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows.
This proposed rule would establish the following two security
zones: (1) A half-mile stretch of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal; and (2)
a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach stretching 500 yards from the
shoreline. The enforcement of these two security zones is expected to
be intermittent. Vessels would normally be allowed to transit but not
stop within the security zones. However, when persons protected by the
USSS are moving in or out of the area, the Coast Guard may halt traffic
in these two security zones. The Coast Guard expects such instances to
happen relatively infrequently and for a short duration (1-3 hours).
In order to implement this rule, the Coast Guard proposes to
station Coast Guard personnel at the borders of the security zones with
the authority to enforce this security zone. In the few instances where
USSS protectees are in transit, these Coast Guard personnel would
ensure that no traffic transits through the security zones.
Recreational boaters wishing to transit the area may inquire directly
with the Coast Guard personnel posted at the boundaries of the security
zones, rather than being required to contact the COTP.
Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's costs and
qualitative benefits.
Table 1--Summary of the Proposed Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially Affected This rule would impact recreational
Population. boaters wishing to use the Lewes and
Rehoboth Canal or the North Shores
section of Rehoboth Beach.
Unquantified Costs........... Recreational boaters of the Lewes and
Rehoboth Canal would need to speak with
Coast Guard personnel stationed at the
entrances of the security zones. These
recreational boaters would be informed
that they will be unable to stop or
loiter inside the security zone. In
certain instances where persons
protected by USSS are in transit,
traffic may be halted on the Lowes
Rehoboth canal. In these instances,
recreational boaters wishing to use the
canal would instead need to take a
circuitous route or forgo their trip all
together.
Unquantified Benefits........ This rule would secure the area to meet
objectives of the USSS and keep USSS
protectees safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29729]]
Affected Population
The Coast Guard does not collect data on the vessels and
individuals using either the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North
Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach, the areas that would be impacted by
this proposed rule. To estimate the affected population, we used
information directly observable from Google Maps, as well as the
subject-matter expertise of Coast Guard personnel with knowledge of the
area.
The proposed two security zones--a half-mile section of the Lowes
Rehoboth Canal and a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach--are distinct.
As such, we assess the affected populations for these two areas
separately.
(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes Rehoboth Canal
This proposed regulation would impact any recreational boater
wishing to transit the Lewes Rehoboth Canal. The Lewes Rehoboth Canal
is about 10 miles long and connects the Broadkill River and the
Delaware Bay to Rehoboth Bay. The security zone would begin
approximately two-thirds of the way through the canal (if starting from
the Delaware Bay) and last for about a half mile. As such, recreational
boaters wishing to transit the canal from the communities of Lewes,
Dewey Beach, North Shores, Rehoboth Beach, and West Rehoboth may be
impacted by this proposed rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dewey Beach lies on the isthmus between Rehoboth Bay and the
Atlantic Ocean south of Rehoboth beach and north of the Delaware
Seashore State Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These communities are seasonal; their populations are much larger
and more active in the summer than in the winter. Vessel traffic in the
canal follows the same pattern. Coast Guard officers stationed in this
region estimated the numbers of vessels transiting this zone per day by
season. We present these estimates in table 2.
Table 2--Vessel Traffic by Time of Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels transiting the canal
Months per day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January through March.................. 20 vessels per day.
April.................................. 75 vessels per day.
May through September.................. More than 200 vessels per day.
October through December............... 50 vessels per day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vessel traffic in the canal is entirely recreational. There are
no commercial vessels that transit the canal. Moreover, the canal is
quite shallow. The Coast Guard's 27-foot vessels navigate the canal
with difficulty because of the depth. Kayaks, canoes, and other
manually powered watercraft are frequently used in the canal (not
counted in the daily vessel traffic estimates).
In addition to the daily traffic of recreational boaters wishing to
transit the security zone, there are a number of boat slips located
either within the security zone or require transiting the security zone
to access. There are also houses that border sections of the canal
wholly inside the security zone. We reviewed satellite images from
Google Maps to identify the number of boat slips within the security
zone or require transiting the security zone to access. Based on these
satellite images, we estimate that 17 private houses that lie entirely
within the canal security zone contain either a boat slip or dock. The
boat slips indicate that recreational vessel usage might be undertaken
by the owners or occupiers of these properties. Because they lie fully
inside the security zone, they would be impacted every time they took
out their vessels.
Additionally, a small man-made canal branches off the main Lewes
and Rehoboth Canal and leads into a small man-made lake. The southern
edge of the safety zone continues just past the entrance to this second
canal. Private houses and the North Shores Marina inhabit the land
surrounding the second canal and its adjoining lake. Some of these
houses contain docks or boat slips. Recreational vessel operators would
require transiting through the security zone to reach either the boat
slips at these private homes or the North Shores Marina. Use of this
canal and lake is primarily local and by small recreational vessels, as
this second canal may only be 3 feet deep in certain places. Using
Google Maps, we count 14 boat slips or docks connected to private
houses and 30 spaces for recreational vessels at the North Shores
Marina.
(2) Security Zone 2: Rehoboth Beach
This proposed rule would also impact any recreational boaters that
would transit the area 1 mile by 500 yards offshore of the North Shores
section of Rehoboth Beach. Because of its proximity to the shore, the
Coast Guard does not estimate than any recreational boaters or
commercial vessels routinely operate in this section of the ocean.
Vessels operating this close to shore could face additional hazards due
to the surf and other marine currents and would avoid this area.
Costs
As above, we assess the costs to the two security zones separately.
(1) Security Zone 1: Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
In table 2, we present the Coast Guard's estimate of the average
vessel traffic. Under normal course of operations, the Coast Guard
anticipates that recreational boaters transiting the canal would have a
very brief conversation with the Coast Guard official stationed at the
entrance to the security zone. Recreational boaters would then proceed
through the security zone (without stopping or loitering) and exit the
security zone. We anticipate that this conversation would last between
15 and 30 seconds per recreational boater. Because we do not know how
many recreational boaters are on the average boat and because of how
small the amount of time per recreational boaters is likely to be, we
do not estimate the total costs of these conversations.
Additionally, above we discussed that there are a number of houses
and a marina that are contained within the security zone or would
require transiting the security zone in order to access. The Coast
Guard observes that recreational vessel operators who reside or are
visiting a location inside the security zone should be able to relay
this information to the Coast Guard personnel stationed at the entrance
of the security zone. When recreational boaters provide this additional
information, it may increase the duration of the conversation. However,
there are only 17 houses with private docks or boat slips contained
within the security zone. It is likely, therefore, that the Coast Guard
personnel stationed at either end of the security zone would
[[Page 29730]]
become aware of these vessels and their owners and operators. As a
result, conversations may become more brief overtime.
In order to access the private docks and boat slips of the 14
houses and the North Shores Marina, recreational vessel operators would
need to transit through a small portion of the security zone. The Coast
Guard would interpret the vessels seeking to access this second canal
as innocent passage. As a result, the Coast Guard personnel do not
intend to converse with recreational boaters intending to access the
second canal unless they notice suspicious activity. Instead, Coast
Guard personnel would report vessels transiting the second canal to the
USSS representatives. Because Coast Guard personnel would not converse
with the recreational vessel operators transiting this region, we
estimate that there would be no costs on boaters who only pass through
the lower stretch of the canal security zone in order to access the
North Shores Marina or the private houses on the canal or lake.
The costs discussed above cover the normal operations when access
to the canal is still permitted. However, when certain individuals
protected by USSS are transiting the area, the Coast Guard may shut
down access to the canal. Such closures could last from 1 to 3 hours,
or longer. If the security zone is closed to all traffic, recreational
boaters would not be able to transit the length of the canal.
Recreational boaters wishing to transit through the security zone would
be unable to do so.
If this closure happens suddenly, recreational boaters could be
stranded on either side of the canal. The distance through the canal is
about 10 miles, but to avoid the canal by taking a more circuitous
route around Rehoboth Beach would add 25 miles to the journey.
Additionally, a significant portion of this distance requires
operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is considerably
rougher than the intracoastal waterways. As a result, many of the
recreational watercraft unable to transit the security zone may be
unable to take an alternate route, either because they may not have a
vessel suitable to a coastwise route or may not have the time to add an
additional 25 miles on to the journey.
Because we do not know the frequency or duration of full closures
of the security zone, we are unable to quantitatively assess the costs
to either temporarily stranded vessel operators or to vessel operators
wishing to transit the closed waterway. Public comments as to the
frequency and use of the canal in this security zone are encouraged.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Details as to what type of boat or vessel, the frequency,
number of people usually onboard, and the location from which the
vessel came from are requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Security Zone 2: North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach on the
Atlantic Ocean
We do not estimate that any vessels would routinely operate in this
section of Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the Affected Population
section above. Additionally, were recreational vessel operators to
transit this security zone, it is far easier to exit or avoid the
security zone than in the canal. Recreational boaters merely would need
to be greater than 500 yards from shore. As a result, we do not
estimate any costs incurred by the second proposed security zone.
Benefits
Upon request by the USSS for the Coast Guard to implement security
measures in certain sections of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and
certain sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, the Coast Guard is
proposing to create two security zones covering these areas. The
security zones are necessary to prevent waterside threats and incidents
that could impact the safety and security of USSS protectees when
present in the area.
Both security zones aid the USSS in controlling the area and
preventing actors wishing to cause harm to the functioning of the U.S.
Government by attacking persons protected by the USSS. Were such an
attack to be attempted or to occur, the societal impacts could be
sizable and potentially severe to the Nation's Government.
Additionally, the local impacts would be substantial as well. The area
could be closed for a significant period as any necessary
investigations occur. This proposed regulatory action would greatly
decrease the likelihood of these potential impacts. The Coast Guard has
no way to quantify the frequency of malfeasant actors or the extent to
which this proposed rule would diminish the frequency of their
attempted or successful actions. However, we believe that the value of
these benefits would be greater than the costs of the proposed
regulation.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
We considered alternatives to the proposed regulatory action to
determine if an alternative could accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and could minimize any economic impact on small
entities. In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the
following alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action/Status Quo
Without this proposed rule, malfeasant actors could have unfettered
access to locations near persons protected by USSS. We believe that
this unfettered access presents an unacceptable security risk to the
United States. As such, we rejected this alternative.
Alternative 2: Do Not Permit any Traffic Inside the Security Zone
The Coast Guard considered closing the security zone to traffic
entirely, which would have had the added cost of making it impossible
to fully transit the canal. We rejected this alternative because there
are potentially over 200 recreational boaters a day transiting the
proposed security zones in the summer. These boaters would lose their
ability to have recreational access of the waterway and any enjoyment
that provides them. Additionally, 31 homes with boat slips and a marina
with 30 spots are inaccessible without transiting the security zones.
These homes, despite existing on the canal with a dock, would be unable
to use the waterway. Consequently, we rejected this alternative because
the costs would be too high.
Alternative 3: Allow Vessels To Transit the Waterway, But Do Not Permit
Vessels To Transit During the Movement of Certain Individuals Protected
by USSS
This is our preferred alternative and discussed throughout the
regulatory analysis. We believe it balances the costs to public in the
form of quick conversations with transiting recreational vessels and
the occasional inconvenience of a temporary canal closure due to USSS
protectees moving around the area with the benefits of ensuring the
security of these protected persons.
B. Impact on Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 people.
As discussed above, the affected population is entirely
recreational. As a result, the individuals impacted by this
[[Page 29731]]
proposed rule cannot be small entities fitting the definitions set out
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on this analysis, we found
this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
Under Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(f)), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves two
security zones for the protection of USSS protectees while present in
the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. If you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts,
you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.561 to read as follows:.
[[Page 29732]]
Sec. 165.561 Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Atlantic
Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE.
(a) Location. The following area are security zones; these
coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83):
(1) Security zone one: All waters of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
bounded on the north by a line drawn from 38[deg] 44.35' North Latitude
(N), 075[deg] 5.32' West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 38[deg]
44.37' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W proceeding from shoreline to shoreline on
the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a Southeasterly direction where it is
bounded by a line drawn from 38[deg] 43.89' N, 075[deg] 5.31' W, thence
easterly to 38[deg] 43.90' N, 075[deg] 5.07' W thence northerly across
the entrance to the yacht basin to 38[deg] 43.93' N, 075[deg] 5.09' W.
(2) Security zone two: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean extending
500 yards seaward from a line beginning at 38[deg] 44.86' N, 075[deg]
4.86' W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38[deg] 43.97' N,
075[deg] 4.70' W.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section--
Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP)
in the enforcement of the security zone.
USSS protectee means any person for whom the United States Secret
Service requests implementation of a security zone in order to
supplement protection of said person(s).
Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessel assigned or approved
by the COTP.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations
contained in Sec. 165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within
this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Sector Delaware
Bay, or designated representative.
(2) Entry into or remaining in a security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP or designated representative when the security zones are being
enforced. At the start of each enforcement, all persons and vessels
within the security zone must depart the zones immediately or obtain
authorization from the COTP or designated representative to remain
within either zone. All vessels authorized to remain in the zone(s)
must proceed as directed by the COTP or designated representative.
(3) A person or vessel operator who intends to enter or transit the
security zones while the zones are being enforced must obtain
authorization from the COTP or designated representative. While the
zones are being enforced the COTP or designated representative will
determine access to the zones on a case-by-case basis. A person or
vessel operator requesting permission to enter or transit the security
zone may contact the COTP or designated representative at 215-271-4807
or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by visually
or verbally hailing the on-scene law enforcement vessel enforcing the
zone. On-scene Coast Guard personnel enforcing this section can be
contacted on marine band radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The
operator of a vessel must proceed as directed upon being hailed by a
U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other
means. When authorized by the COTP or designated representative to
enter the security zone all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative and proceed at
the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the
security zone.
(4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, a person or operator of a vessel
must proceed as directed. Failure to comply with lawful direction may
result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to
comply, or both.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by on scene enforcement vessels,
no vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security
zone. A vessel granted permission to enter or transit within the
security zone(s) must do so without delay or pause for the entirety of
its time within the boundaries of the security zone(s). At times, for
limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from
entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During
those times, the Coast Guard will provide actual notice to vessels in
the area.
(6) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entirety of either or both
security zones if deemed necessary to address security threats or
concerns.
(7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Enforcement. (1) The Coast Guard activates the security zones
when requested by the U.S. Secret Service for the protection of
individuals who qualify for protection under 18 U.S.C 3056(a) or
Presidential memorandum. The COTP will provide the public with notice
of enforcement of security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM),
information release at the website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/my-homeport/coast-guard-prevention/waterway-management?cotpid=40 as well
as on-scene notice by designated representative or other appropriate
means in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
(2) These security zones may be enforced individually or
simultaneously.
Dated: May 27, 2021.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2021-11764 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P