[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 193 (Friday, October 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56208-56213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21981]



[[Page 56208]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 334

[COE-2020-0015]


Pacific Ocean at Marine Corps Base, Camp Blaz, Mason Live-Fire 
Training Range Complex, on the North Coast of Guam; Danger Zone

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers (Corps) is amending its regulations to 
establish a danger zone in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Mason 
Live-Fire Training Range Complex at Marine Corps Base, Camp Blaz on the 
north coast of Guam. The danger zone is located entirely within the 
Pacific Ocean, comprising 3,660 acres and extending approximately 2.8 
miles into the ocean from the high tide line. Establishment of the 
danger zone will intermittently prohibit vessels from lingering in the 
danger zone when the range is in active use in order to ensure public 
safety.

DATES: Effective date: November 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO (David Olson), 
441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, 
Operations and Regulatory Division, at [email protected] or 
202-761-4922.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to a request by the United 
States Marine Corps, and pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of 
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and 
Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 
U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers (Corps) is amending its danger zone 
regulations to establish a permanent danger zone in the Pacific Ocean 
adjacent to the Mason Live-Fire Training Range Complex (LFTRC) on Guam. 
The danger zone regulation will be added at 33 CFR 334.1425. The danger 
zone is needed for the Department of Defense to meet its mission under 
10 U.S.C. 5063, which is to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready 
military forces, deter aggression, and maintain freedom of the seas. 
Due to the strategic location of Guam and the Department of Defense's 
relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, there will be an increased 
need for training and testing areas on Guam. The construction of the 
Mason LFTRC and its associated danger zone are designed to meet this 
increased need. The danger zone is necessary to protect the public from 
hazards associated with small arms training.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 
29, 2020 (85 FR 68507). The regulations.gov docket number is COE-2020-
0015. Concurrently, a local public notice for the proposed danger zone 
was sent out from the Corps' Honolulu District. In response to the 
proposed rule, 89 comments were received. Two commenters were in 
support of establishing the danger zone. The remaining 87 comments are 
summarized below with the Corps' responses to those comments.
    Four commenters requested either a public hearing with the Corps or 
public meetings with representatives of the Navy and/or the Corps. The 
commenters requested these meetings to better understand the impacts of 
the Mason LFTRC and the proposed danger zone, and to have an open 
dialogue and discussion. Some commenters requested additional time to 
comment on the public notice and said that multiple comment periods 
should be conducted. One commenter stated that a mailing list should be 
set up for people who wish to be sent public notices directly for 
similar proposals.
    The Corps determined that 30 days was sufficient to provide 
comments on the proposed danger zone regulation. The Corps reviewed all 
of the requests for a public hearing or public meetings as well as the 
comments received in response to the proposed rule. As stated in the 
Corps' regulations at 33 CFR 327.3(a), a public hearing is to be held 
``for the purpose of acquiring information or evidence'' to be 
considered in the Corps' decision for a proposed action. The Corps 
determined that the record for this rulemaking action, including the 
public comments received in response to the proposed rule, contains 
adequate information regarding public concerns about the proposed 
danger zone and that a public hearing was not necessary. Public hearing 
denial letters were sent by the Honolulu District to each requestor on 
January 14, 2021.
    Many commenters stated that no map was available and that they 
could not provide substantive comments without knowing the geographic 
limits of the proposed danger zone. A few commenters requested 
clarification on the times the range would be used or recommended that 
the rule specify the exact times the range would be in use and danger 
zone activated. One person said that the Corps had incorrectly 
calculated the amount of time the area of the danger zone would be 
closed to navigation.
    The Corps provided a map with the district public notice, which was 
posted on the Corps' website, the Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz (MCBCB) 
website, and by multiple news outlets in print and on their respective 
websites. Additionally, the proposed rule that was published in the 
Federal Register and the district public notice both contained 
coordinates for the proposed danger zone, as well as a narrative 
location description suitable to inform public comments. Upon review of 
the map provided with its public notice, the Corps discovered an error 
in mapping. The map showed the danger zone extending shoreward of the 
mean high water line. This is incorrect. As stated in the 
aforementioned narrative description, the danger zone would follow the 
mean high water line of the Pacific Ocean and would not extend 
shoreward of this line. A new map has been made which corrects this and 
shows that the danger zone extends seaward of the mean high water line.
    The times proposed for the danger zone to be active were provided 
in the proposed rule. The exact days of the week during which live fire 
exercises would occur are at the discretion of the Marines in 
accordance with their training requirements. Those training 
requirements may change over time. The Marines will have a strategic 
communication plan (COMMSTRAT) for alerting the public to future range 
use. This plan includes posting the schedule on their website, having a 
public hotline for questions concerning range operations, and issuing 
Notices To Mariners (NTM). Concerning the comment about miscalculating 
the total amount of closure times, the Corps did not provide a total 
amount of training days the danger zone would be activated because 
training sessions are to be scheduled in the future. Also, the total 
number of training days is not relevant to this rulemaking action 
because the Marines establish the training schedules and those training 
schedules fall outside of the Corps' authority to issue regulations to 
establish danger zones.
    Concerning the requests for extension of the comment period for the 
proposed rule, the Corps disagrees that additional time is necessary. 
The Corps provided sufficient time for interested parties to provide 
their comments on the proposed rule. For most proposed danger zone and 
restricted area regulations, the Corps provides a 30-day

[[Page 56209]]

comment period. The Corps agrees that a mailing list should be 
available to people who wish to be alerted of public notices. The 
Honolulu District mailing list can be found at https://www.poh.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices/.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed danger zone should be 
evaluated through the preparation of an environmental impact statement 
(EIS). Some commenters stated that an EIS should be prepared because of 
the lack of economic analysis or because they believe that the danger 
zone would have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment. One commenter said that specific sections of the 
environmental assessment should be referenced and stated that the 
public notice was incomplete. Another commenter said that the Corps was 
placing the responsibility on the public to provide the analysis of 
impacts. Several commenters said that the establishment of the danger 
zone is a significant regulatory action. Some commenters requested 
consultation documents for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the 
essential fish habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act so that they 
could comment on the completeness of those consultations.
    For the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
the Federal action being undertaken by the Corps is the promulgation of 
the danger zone regulation under its authorities at 33 U.S.C. 1 and 3 
and the procedures in 33 CFR part 334. The Corps is responsible for 
assessing the impacts of the proposed danger zone on the human 
environment, and for preparing appropriate NEPA documentation for its 
decision on whether to issue the final rule that would establish the 
danger zone. After evaluating the comments received in response to the 
proposed rule, to comply with NEPA requirements the Corps prepared an 
environmental assessment for this rulemaking action and concluded that 
the establishment of the danger zone would not have a significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment and therefore does not 
require the preparation of an EIS. A copy of the environmental 
assessment is available from the Corps' Honolulu District office. The 
establishment of this danger zone will not result in work, structures, 
or any construction within the Pacific Ocean, or any modification to 
any vegetation, habitat, or structures in the Pacific Ocean, on the 
shore, or on the land. Therefore, the Corps Federal action, which is 
the establishment of this danger zone, will not have any impacts on 
natural resources or historical and cultural resources. With respect to 
impacts to people on Guam, the danger zone is intended to protect the 
public from hazards that may result from the use of the Mason LFTRC. 
The boundaries of the danger zone will be plotted by National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its nautical charts, which 
will help alert users of those navigable waters to the presence of the 
danger zone, and to the text of the regulations governing that danger 
zone.
    The establishment of a future Marine Corps base on Guam is a 
separate action that is outside of the Corps' rulemaking action for the 
establishment of this danger zone. Therefore, in its NEPA documentation 
for the rulemaking to establish the danger zone, the Corps is not 
required to address the potential future establishment of a Marine 
Corps base on Guam. Because the danger zone will be in effect only when 
the range is in use, the establishment of the danger zone will promote 
public safety, and impacts to the human environment caused by the 
establishment of the danger zone have been minimized. Vessel operators 
and fishers can use the navigable waters within the danger zone when 
the danger zone is not activated for live fire training exercises. The 
Corps has determined there is no need or requirement for mitigation 
beyond incorporating measures into the regulation governing the danger 
zone to minimize impacts to maritime traffic and fishing activities. 
The Corps determined that this rulemaking action is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it does not 
trigger any of the four significance thresholds identified in that 
Executive order.
    At Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz, the Navy is the Federal agency 
responsible for compliance with applicable Federal laws, which may 
include Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Essential Fish 
Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 
and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Navy's documents demonstrating 
compliance with these laws and concurrences from the agencies 
administering these laws can be obtained from the Navy's 2015 Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Guam and 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation.
    A couple of commenters said that the Corps does not have the 
authority to establish the danger zone. One of these comments was 
specific to Chamoru lands and the other comment pertained to the area 
shoreward of waters of the United States. Some commenters stated that 
specifics on land restrictions should be made clear and studied for how 
these restrictions would affect cultural and historic sites. One 
commenter said that the restrictions were arbitrarily decided upon.
    The Corps' authority for establishing danger zones is provided in 
Chapter 143, Subchapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 
Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3). The Corps agrees that it does not have the 
authority to establish danger zones in uplands landward of the mean 
high water line. The danger zone does not extend into areas landward of 
the mean high water line. Therefore, there will be no land restrictions 
caused by the establishment of this danger zone. With respect to the 
comment asserting that the restrictions were arbitrarily decided, the 
Corps disagrees that the decision was arbitrary. The Marines conducted 
extensive studies on the ballistics of weapons to be fired at the Mason 
LFTRC. The design of each range further limited the space in navigable 
waters needed for the danger zone. The Marines requested that the 
danger zone be comprised of two areas to close off the smallest amount 
of area necessary for specific training sessions, to minimize impacts 
to the public's use of navigable waters.
    A couple of commenters asked about the consequences of entering the 
danger zone and requested information regarding how the public could 
inform the Marines if someone violated the danger zone. These 
commenters said there is a need for public outreach and education on 
the use of the danger zone.
    Concerning potential consequences for entering the danger zone 
while it is being used for small arms training, the most immediate 
consequence would be the potential for being struck by bullets, which 
on rare occasions may ricochet beyond the range's containment berms. 
This safety hazard is the reason for the establishment of this danger 
zone, which is to help provide for public safety when the range is in 
use. If a person, vessel, watercraft, etc. enter the danger zone 
without authorization, MCBCB Range Control will notify the U.S. Coast 
Guard for action. Concerning how the public can notify the Marines if 
someone appears to violate the danger zone regulation, notification of 
alleged violations of the danger zone regulation can be provided to the 
MCBCB Range

[[Page 56210]]

Control, U.S. Coast Guard, or by calling 911. The Corps agrees that 
public outreach and education on the danger zone can help provide for 
the safety of the public. The Marines' COMMSTRAT will establish a 
method of public notification that will provide a snapshot of the range 
utilization calendar. Once the MCBCB Range Control Facility is 
established it will have a phone number for public inquiries. 
Additionally, the Marines will issue NTMs prior to active live fire 
training exercises and the danger zone will be depicted on applicable 
NOAA nautical charts.
    Many commenters said that that the establishment of the danger zone 
would have negative impacts on local fishers. One commenter asserted 
that the danger zone would deprive the people of Guam of their 
traditional fishing activities. One commenter stated that the danger 
zone would deny growth and development for the people Guam. Other 
commenters noted that the impacted fishers would no longer be able to 
sell fish at local markets to support their families. A few commenters 
said that the federal government is taking too much of Guam's waters 
and submerged lands.
    The establishment and use of the danger zone would restrict access 
to navigable waters within the danger zone only during small arms 
training exercises. Those navigable waters will be available for 
fishing when the Mason LFTRC is not being used for small arms training. 
The Marines have included a two-tiered approach to ensure that the 
least amount of area of navigable waters is restricted during live fire 
training, thus reducing the amount of closure time in the larger area. 
Practicing traditional, commercial, or recreational fishing in this 
area would continue to be allowed when the danger zone is not 
activated. Establishment of the danger zone would not prevent local 
fishers from being able to catch and sell fish at local markets. The 
danger zone is located over federally owned submerged lands and would 
not require the acquisition of any lands, submerged or otherwise. The 
Corps' regulations require that danger zones and restricted areas 
provide public access to the affected areas to the maximum extent 
practicable and not cause unreasonable interference with or restrict 
the food fishing industry (see 33 CFR 334.3(a) and (b), respectively). 
This final rule complies with that regulation.
    One commenter said that 15 to 20 vessels run through these waters 
each day and that it is a popular area for many types of fish. Another 
commenter stated that the danger zone would result in the loss of some 
of the best waters for fishermen. Other commenters said that this 
danger zone is within prime trolling and bottom fishing grounds used by 
many boaters and that any restriction would be unreasonable. Another 
commenter said that fishers would not be able to fish when particular 
fish are running or in migration with good sea conditions.
    Offshore fishing areas located within the danger zone would not be 
allowed when the range is in use. Recreational boating and fishing 
would be permitted within the danger zone when live-fire training is 
not being conducted at the range. To provide for their safety, fishers 
and recreational boaters cannot enter the danger zone when live firing 
exercises are being conducted. All live fire training will cease if 
watercraft inadvertently enter the danger zone and training would 
resume once the vessel has cleared the danger zone. When live fire 
training is occurring, fishers and recreational boaters will need to 
navigate around the danger zone.
    As stated in the Navy's 2015 SEIS, approximately 65% of fishing 
trips occur on the weekends and 35% of fishing trips occur on weekdays. 
Training at the Mason LFTRC will typically occur on weekdays when fewer 
vessels would potentially be transiting the danger zone. However, 
periodic weekend use of the Mason LFTRC could occur as needed. To 
provide awareness of times that the range is in use, the Marines will 
provide the proposed training schedule to the U.S. Coast Guard, who 
will issue and broadcast NTMs that would identify the danger zone as 
being in active use and direct vessel operators to navigate clear of 
the active danger zone. Additionally, boaters and fishers will be able 
to contact range control via radio or phone to get real time updates of 
active use of the Mason LFTRC, which will also minimize impacts on 
vessel operators. This communication will allow boaters to transit the 
danger zone during scheduled training days when the range is 
temporarily inactive. Range lookouts will scan the active area prior to 
and during live-fire training sessions to ensure that there are no 
vessels within or approaching the danger zone. If vessels are at risk 
of entering the active area, use of the range would be suspended until 
the vessel leaves the danger zone.
    A few commenters said that restrictions of the navigable waters for 
up to 75% of the year is too great for local fishers. A couple of 
commenters stated that if the danger zone is established it should be 
active fewer days out of the year to ensure that main fishing seasons 
are not impacted. One commenter asserted that due to the amount of time 
the Marines could restrict access to the danger zone, the entire 
fishing community would be at the mercy of the Marines' training 
schedule.
    The proposed rule did not include estimates of the number of 
training days expected to occur during a typical year because the 
number of training days may vary from year-to-year. In response to 
these comments the Marines clarified, through Marine Corps Order 
3550.10, that their standard for range availability is 242 days per 
calendar year, and that their annual goal is to utilize each range for 
at least 70 percent of the available days per year, or 169 days if the 
range is available the entire 242 days. Therefore, if the Mason LFTRC 
meets the goal of 169 days per year then the active areas of the danger 
zone would be restricted intermittently for 24 weeks. Additionally, for 
the larger of the two areas (Area 1), the danger zone would be 
activated only for training on larger caliber weapons, which would 
occur with less frequency. As stated above, fishing activities can 
occur in navigable waters within the danger zone when the danger zone 
is not in use for live firing exercises.
    A few commenters said that the danger zone would result in fishing 
restrictions that affect the local economy. A few commenters stated 
that some fishers use these waters to sustain their families and that 
the activation of the danger zone would limit their ability to feed 
themselves. Another commenter asked whether the timing of range 
activities could adjusted to reduce impacts during fishing seasons. One 
commenter suggested that the Marines provide mitigation for impacts to 
fishing in the form of placing new Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), 
assisting the Guam government in maintaining existing FADs, and/or 
conducting harbor maintenance around the island.
    The Corps acknowledges that the establishment and use of the danger 
zone will have some impacts on fishing activities but determined that 
these impacts would not unreasonably interfere with or restrict the 
food fishing industry. The establishment of the danger zone is 
necessary for public safety, including the safety of fishers that may 
fish in the waters within the danger zone. Fishers may utilize these 
waters for fishing activities when the danger zone is not activated for 
live firing training sessions. When the danger zone is activated, 
fishers may utilize navigable waters outside of the danger zone for 
fishing activities. As discussed in the Navy's 2015 SEIS, the Marines 
have committed to work with

[[Page 56211]]

fishing community leaders and members to ensure the greatest 
practicable consideration is given to measures that would minimize or 
offset concerns about fishing impacts due to the regulations governing 
the danger zone. The Corps has determined that the establishment of the 
danger zone would not require any compensatory mitigation, such as the 
installation of new FADs or the maintenance of existing FADs.
    The Corps' regulations also require the Corps to consult with the 
Regional Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 
Marine Fisheries Service regarding potential impacts to the food 
fishing industry. The Corps' Honolulu District sent each agency a 
letter dated January 18, 2021, requesting comments in relation to the 
food fishing industry. Neither agency responded to those letters.
    Many commenters expressed opposition to the proposed danger zone 
because it would restrict recreational access to the waters and 
coastline. One commenter said that the beaches of Ritidian should be 
open to the public. A commenter stated that establishing the danger 
zone would result in beach closures for nine consecutive months. One 
commenter said that they visit Ritidian every week and the danger zone 
would limit their access to the beach to only several days a year. A 
number of commenters indicated that the danger zone would restrict 
access to upland areas, including public and private lands.
    The Corps acknowledges that the danger zone will restrict access to 
navigable waters within the danger zone while training activities are 
conducted. However, these restrictions will be intermittent and they 
are necessary for public safety. The establishment of the danger zone 
would not deny recreational access to waters and the coast. The danger 
zone would only restrict recreational access to certain navigable 
waters for the purposes of safety within the designated areas of the 
danger zone. Among the ranges within the Mason LFTRC, the Multi-Purpose 
Machine Gun Range has the largest danger zone (Area 1) and is the only 
one that would preclude access to a portion of the publicly accessible 
areas of the Ritidian Unit of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. When 
other ranges in the Mason LFTRC are in use, the danger zone (Area 2) 
would not restrict access to the publicly accessible portion of the 
Ritidian Unit of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The Navy has an 
agreement with the Guam National Wildlife Refuge to establish new 
recreational areas to the west of the existing refuge and completely 
outside of the boundaries of the danger zone. When completed, this area 
will ensure public access year-round.
    The establishment of the restricted area would not limit public 
access to the beaches to several days during the year. The danger zone 
would allow access several days of each week of the year. The danger 
zone would only limit access to waters that are seaward of the mean 
high water line. The establishment of the danger zone would not 
restrict access to any upland areas. Also, the Mason LFTRC's design was 
the only option that could be completed entirely on federal lands. 
Therefore, there would be no restrictions to private property as a 
result of the establishment of the danger zone.
    Many commenters expressed concerns about cultural and historic 
resources impacted by the construction of the firing range. Some 
commenters stated that the government was taking historic lands and 
destroying resources. Other commenters stated that the impacts to 
historic properties should not be allowed.
    The Corps' authority is limited to issuing regulations for the 
establishment of the danger zone, which will not cause any physical 
alteration of the environment. The establishment of the danger zone 
will not result in effects to cultural and historic resources. Impacts 
to cultural and historic resources caused by the construction of the 
base are separate from the Corps' establishment of the danger zone 
through the rulemaking process. The establishment of the danger zone is 
an administrative process, and is an undertaking of a type that does 
not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, 
cultural resources, or sacred cultural sites. The danger zone is 
located entirely in waters of the Pacific Ocean. The establishment of 
the danger zone involves no construction, structures, or in-water work. 
The Corps acknowledges that when the range is in use, there will be 
temporary impacts to access of traditional fishing grounds, and those 
impacts are discussed above.
    A few commenters asked about the efficacy of red flags and lights 
for notification of an active firing range. One commenter said that it 
is not clear how the public would know which range area was active. 
Another commenter stated that protocols should be in place beyond 
issuing NTMs to inform boaters and the public about range activities. A 
few commenters asked how the danger zone would be enforced and if 
protocols would be in place to ensure boaters do not enter the danger 
zone during training sessions. A couple of commenters expressed concern 
about how the coastline would be managed to prevent swimmers, fishers, 
divers, and others from accessing the danger zone during live fire 
exercises. Commenters also voiced concerns about how the public could 
notify the Marines if they observed a vessel or person in the danger 
zone during life firing exercises. Finally, some commenters stated 
concerns over smaller craft having to travel around the danger zone and 
having to enter more tumultuous waters to reach fishing areas.
    Similar to navigation lights or aids on buoys and approach lighting 
for airfields, the red lights used for nighttime fire would be visible 
under all weather conditions that would be conducive to small boat and 
small arms range operations. The red flag (daytime fire) method of 
identifying an active danger zone is currently in use at the Finegayan 
Range, as well as the Naval Base Guam Known Distance and Multi-Purpose 
Ranges, and has proven to be an effective method of alerting the public 
of small arms range operation. The public would be informed as to which 
area is being used through NTMs, or by viewing the range schedule which 
will be posted on the MCBCB website. The public may also contact the 
hotline for range control to be set up by the Marines. The Marines' 
COMMSTRAT plan also includes future education and outreach to the 
public on the danger zone, and will include graphics and posters 
displayed at strategic locations across the island to better inform the 
public.
    Prior to the activation of any range for live fire training, range 
inspectors will physically inspect the beach to ensure members of the 
public are not present near the danger zone. Military personnel will 
provide oversight and advise the public of danger zone restrictions. 
Road guards will have radio communications with MCBCB Range Control. 
The waters of the danger zone will be monitored by radar inside MCBCB 
Range Control. MCBCB Range Control will notify the U.S. Coast Guard of 
the presence of vessels in the danger zone so that the U.S. Coast Guard 
can take appropriate action. In additional, MCBCB Range Control would 
notify each range to cease fire until the U.S. Coast Guard removes the 
vessels or the vessels expeditiously exit the danger zone. The public 
may notify MCBCB Range Control of vessels entering the danger zone via 
the hotline that will be established, by contacting MCBCB directly, or 
by dialing 911.
    The Corps acknowledges that to avoid the active danger zones, 
vessels may

[[Page 56212]]

have to travel into deeper waters that are further off the coastline. 
Prior to leaving, these boaters would be notified when the range will 
be active via NTMs and the other outreach tools discussed above. Those 
vessel operators can plan their trips to avoid active live fire 
exercises.
    Many commenters stated concerns to land clearing, impacts to the 
local aquafer, adverse effect to plants and animals, and potential 
pollution from construction of the Mason LFTRC and its use. Other 
commenters expressed concern with how the range would affect threatened 
or endangered species. One commenter asked how the rounds fired would 
be collected and the area cleaned while other commenters were concerned 
with how the discharge of metals would affect the local water supply.
    Establishing the danger zone is an administrative process that 
would have no direct or indirect adverse effects on the environment. 
Similarly, the establishment of the danger zone would have no effect on 
threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat or 
result in the alteration of any natural resources. The impacts caused 
by the construction of the base, including the Mason LFTRC, and any 
other potential impacts shoreward of the mean high water line are 
beyond the purview of this rulemaking action.
    Many commenters said that this danger zone should not be 
established at Ritidian because other existing ranges and their 
respective danger zones should be used instead. Other commenters 
suggested that there are other areas on the island to build the ranges. 
A few commenters said that it is not possible to have the range and 
danger zone completely on land.
    The Mason LFTRC was designed to meet the specific training needs of 
the Marines. Other ranges on the island were built for different 
purposes and needs and do not meet the needs of the Marines. In 
addition, in its 2015 SEIS, the Navy analyzed five different options 
including the use of other ranges. The construction of the Mason LFTRC 
was the only option of the five that could be accomplished solely on 
federally owned lands. This danger zone is the only option for the 
Mason LFTRC currently under construction and it must be over the water.
    One commenter stated that an alternative would be to establish more 
stringent requirements for advanced notice to the public. This 
commenter suggested a minimum 72-hour notice that would allow locals to 
better plan their recreational or cultural activities in the Ritidian. 
Two commenters suggested limiting the days that small arms training is 
conducted. One commenter said that the danger zone should be reduced in 
size to provide more access to navigable waters.
    The Corps acknowledges the benefits of increased communication and 
advance notice of range operations. The regulations do not specify the 
time limit for issuing an NTM, and the Corps does not have the 
authority to impose such a time limit. The Marines have agreed to issue 
NTMs no later than 24 hours in advance to allow for maximum flexibility 
for use of the firing range. Additionally, a range schedule will be 
posted on the MCBCB website. The Marines' COMMSTRAT will establish a 
method of public notification that will provide a snapshot of the range 
utilization calendar, and the Marines will establish a phone number for 
public inquiries. While limiting training sessions may result in the 
danger zone being activated less often, it is up to the Marines to 
determine their training requirements.
    The Marines have limited the danger zone to the minimum size 
required to ensure public safety when the ranges are active. The 
Marines have requested two separate areas within the danger zone: Area 
1, which is 3,660 acres in size, and Area 2, which is 1,425 acres in 
size. Area 2 is 40% the size of Area 1 and would be activated for 
smaller caliber weapons training on the more frequently used ranges. 
Area 1 would be activated fewer times than Area 2 because the larger 
caliber weapons would be trained on less frequently. The Corps has 
determined that the approach of designating two areas within the danger 
zone will be less restrictive to the public and will provide greater 
access to the public while ensuring public safety during live-fire 
training exercises.

Procedural Requirements

    a. Regulatory Planning and Review. This final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) and it was not submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review.
    b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule has been 
reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). The 
Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The danger 
zone is necessary to protect public safety during use of the Mason 
LFTRC. To minimize impacts to maritime traffic, the Marines have 
designed a two-tiered approach for the danger zone to ensure that the 
least amount of area is restricted during training sessions. Fishers 
and other boaters can utilize navigable waters outside of the danger 
zone when the danger zone is activated for live firing exercises. When 
the range is not in use, the danger zone will be open to normal 
maritime traffic and all activities, including fishing, anchoring, and 
loitering. After considering the economic impacts of this danger zone 
regulation on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act. An 
environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the establishment 
of this danger zone. The Corps has concluded that the establishment of 
the danger zone will not have a significant impact to the quality of 
the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an EIS is not 
required. The final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact may be 
reviewed at the District Office listed at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section, above.
    d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This rule does not impose an enforceable 
duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal 
private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of 
either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. Under 
Section 203 of the Act, the Corps has also found that small governments 
will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.
    e. Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq., 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. The Corps will submit a 
report containing the final rule and other required information to the 
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This final rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 56213]]

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

    Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, 
Waterways.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR 
part 334 as follows:

PART 334--DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 334 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 
U.S.C. 3).


0
2. Add Sec.  334.1425 to read as follows:


Sec.  334.1425  Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Mason Live-Fire Training 
Range Complex located at U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Blaz, on the 
northwestern coast of Guam; danger zone.

    (a) The areas. The danger zone will consist of two areas: An outer 
area (Area 1) for larger caliber weapons and a smaller area (Area 2) 
for smaller caliber weapons that is set within Area 1. The datum for 
the coordinates in this section is NAD-83.
    (1) Area 1. The waters bounded by the following seven points: Point 
A (13[deg]38'59.443'' N; 144[deg]51'11.522'' E) following the mean high 
water line to Point B (13[deg]38'36.722'' N; 144[deg]52'50.256'' E), 
following the mean high water line to Point C (13[deg]38'33.936'' N; 
144[deg]52'53.031'' E), Point D (13[deg]40'8.336'' N; 
144[deg]53'44.876'' E), Point E (13[deg]40'56.842'' N; 
144[deg]53'42.808'' E), Point F (13[deg]41'28.434'' N; 
144[deg]52'37.582'' E), and Point G (13[deg]41'3.344'' N; 
144[deg]51'53.652'' E).
    (2) Area 2. A subset of waters within Area 1 bounded by the 
following six points: Point A (13[deg]39'7.432'' N; 144[deg]52'8.210'' 
E) following the mean high water line to Point B (13[deg]38'36.722'' N; 
144[deg]52'50.256'' E), following the mean high water line to Point C 
(13[deg]38'33.936'' N; 144[deg]52'53.031'' E), Point D 
(13[deg]39'54.724'' N; 144[deg]53'37.400'' E), Point E 
(13[deg]40'25.737'' N; 144[deg]52'43.157'' E), and Point F 
(13[deg]40'6.494'' N; 144[deg]52'7.349'' E).
    (b) The regulation. (1) The enforcing agency will designate which 
area will be closed for use on dates designated for live fire. No 
persons, watercraft, or vessels shall enter or remain in the area 
during the times designated for live fire except those authorized by 
the enforcing agency. All live-fire training will cease if a person, 
watercraft, or vessel inadvertently enters the designated area and may 
resume once they have cleared the danger zone. The Installation Range 
Control Officer will be responsible for submitting all local Notices to 
Mariners for specific dates of firing, which will be disseminated 
through the U.S. Coast Guard and on the Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz 
website. The area will be open to normal maritime traffic when the 
range is not in use.
    (2) When the range is in use red flags will be displayed from 
conspicuous and easily seen locations on the east and west boundaries 
of the danger zone to signify that the range is in use. These flags 
will be removed when firing ceases for the day.
    (3) During the night firing, red lights will be displayed on the 
east and west sides of the danger zone to enable safety observers to 
detect vessels that may attempt to enter the danger zone. All range 
flags and red lights will be visible from 360 degrees. Due to the depth 
of the ocean the danger zone will not be marked with buoys.
    (c) Enforcement. The restrictions on public access through the 
danger zone shall be enforced by the Commander, Marine Corps Base, Camp 
Blaz, and such agencies as the Commander may designate in writing.

Alvin B. Lee,
Director of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2021-21981 Filed 10-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P