[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10420-10430]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0448]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac River, Montgomery County, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule modifies the existing security zone that
covers waters of the Potomac River next to Trump National Golf Club at
Potomac Falls, VA. The security zone prevents waterside threats and
incidents while persons protected by the Secret Service are at the
club. This rule 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 rule
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. It also governs activities of
vessels and persons already in the security zone when activated. The
security zone enhances the safety and security of persons while
minimizing, to the extent possible, the impact on commerce and
legitimate waterway use. We invite your comments on this rulemaking.

DATES: This rule is effective March 21, 2019. Comments and related
material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 19,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket
Number USCG-2017-0448. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. You
may submit comments, identified by docket number, using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://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
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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
IFR Interim final rule
MD-DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  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.

III. Discussion of Comments

    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.

1. Who is affected by the security zone?

    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.

2. Did the Coast Guard need to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
before publishing the July 2017 Interim Final Rule?

    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.

3. Will the Coast Guard extend the comment period on the interim final
rule or hold a public meeting?

    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.

4. Do the size or location of the zone need to be adjusted?

    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).

5. Does the security zone make the public less safe?

    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.

6. Is a security zone needed?

    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.

7. Has the Coast Guard considered alternatives?

    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.

8. Has the Coast Guard considered only applying the security zone to
specific people or vessels?

    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.

9. Does the Coast Guard have authority to create a security zone in
Maryland state waters?

    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.

10. For whom will the security zone be activated?

    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.

11. Can the Coast Guard close a public waterway for private
recreational activities?

    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.

12. How long will the security zone be in effect?

    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.

13. How frequently and for how long will the security zone be enforced
when activated?

    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.

14. Who enforces the security zone?

    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.

15. How will the public know when the zone is going to be enforced?

    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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

16. Does this security zone impact First Amendment rights?

    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.

17. Does the security zone result in the taking of private property?

    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.

18. What are the economic impacts on local businesses and waterway
uses?

    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.

19. What are the impacts to small entities?

    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.

20. Was there an error in the original coordinates?

    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.

21. Does the Coast Guard have to display firearms?

    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.

22. What if signs were placed in the river?

    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.

23. Is the Coast Guard complying with Executive Order 13771?

    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).

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    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[deg]04'02'' W, longitude 077[deg]19'48'' W, thence south to
latitude 39[deg]03'39'' W, longitude 077[deg]20'02'' W, and bounded on
the west by longitude 077[deg]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[deg]03'44.7'' N, longitude 077[deg]21'47'' W,
thence north to latitude 39[deg]04'03'' N, longitude 077[deg]21'47'' W,
and bounded on the east by a line connecting the following points:
latitude 39[deg]04'04'' N, longitude 077[deg]19'58'' W, thence south to
latitude 39[deg]03'41.35'' N, longitude 077[deg]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<PHONE_NUMBER>
    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.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    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.

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. 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.

                 Table 1--Summary of the Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially Affected Population...  Operators and attendees of summer
                                     camps; operators of kayak and
                                     watercraft instruction schools;
                                     recreational boaters including
                                     canoeists, kayakers and, stand up
                                     paddle boarders (SUPs); fishermen;
                                     waterfowl hunters; \1\ nonprofit
                                     organizations; exercisers, as well
                                     as federal agencies such as Coast
                                     Guard and the Secret Service. The
                                     rule also may indirectly impact
                                     some federal agencies. State \2\
                                     and local law enforcement and
                                     recreational/park authorities in
                                     the area may have interests.
Costs/Cost Savings................  * Does not impose additional direct
                                     costs on the public or to the USCG.
                                    * Reduces impacts or creates leisure
                                     time savings on entities impacted
                                     by the 2017 IFR.
Unquantified Benefits.............  * Reinforces an established
                                     Presidential Security Zone.
                                    * Helps secure area to meet
                                     objectives of the USSS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on public comments, USCG has developed this list of
parties in the potentially affected population; these may be groups
that are affected either directly or indirectly. Please see comments
including USCG-2017-0448-0036, USCG-2017-0448-0026, USCG-2017-0448-
0163, USCG-2017-0448-0453, USCG-2017-0448-0481, USCG-2017-0448-0330,
USCG-2017-0448-0332, USCG-2017-0448-0385, USCG-2017-0448-0335, USCG-
2017-0448-0479 USCG-2017-0448-0537, USCG-2017-0448-0541, USCG-2017-
0448-0579 and USCG-2017-0448-0079.
    \2\ The Potomac River falls in the State of Maryland. Maryland
law enforcement personnel and vessels (http://dnr.maryland.gov/nrp/Pages/default.aspx) of the Maryland Natural Resources Police (MNRP)
have participated in past security zone enforcements. A CG officer
will deploy on a MNRP boat during an enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Predominately this includes jet ski users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Geological Survey maintains a repository of archived
and live satellite imagery. USCG had contact with U.S. Geological
Survey's Science Information Services via email in June 2018 on this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
Costs
    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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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.
Benefits
    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.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commenters (USCG-2017-0448-0059, USCG-2017-0448-0038, USCG-
2017-0448-0008, USCG-2017-0448-0067, USCG-2017-0448-0050, USCG-2017-
0448-0144, USCG-2017-0448-0099, USCG-2017-0448-0104, USCG-2017-0448-
0172, USCG-2017-0448-0183) supported a transit lane; albeit it may
have not been referred to as such in their comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact on Small Entities

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Great Falls National Historic Park and the Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal National Historic Park of the U.S. National Park Service of
the U.S. Department of the Interior; Riverbend Park, Seneca Regional
Park and Algonkian Golf Course of the Fairfax County Virginia Park
Authority. The State legislators for District 20 of Maryland
expressed comments about the 2017 interim final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This 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 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule 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 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.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. 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. Revise Sec.  165.557 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.557  Security Zone; Potomac River, Montgomery County, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port to act on his or her behalf.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port to enforce the security zone described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
    Public vessel has the same meaning as that term is defined under 46
U.S.C. 2101.
    (b) Location. Coordinates used in this section are based on datum
NAD 83.
    (1) Security zone. The following area is a security zone: 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[deg]03'44.7'' N, longitude 077[deg]21'47'' W,
thence north to latitude 39[deg]04'03'' N, longitude

077[deg]21'47'' W, and bounded on the east by a line connecting the
following points: latitude 39[deg]04'04'' N, longitude 077[deg]19'58''
W, thence south to latitude 39[deg]03'41.35'' N, longitude
077[deg]20'05.30'' W.
    (2) Transit lane. All waters within the Potomac River, contiguous
with the Maryland shoreline and extending out into the Potomac River
approximately 250 yards, within an area bounded by a line connecting
the following points: beginning at the Maryland shoreline at latitude
39[deg]04'03'' N, longitude 077[deg]21'47'' W, thence south to latitude
39[deg]03'55.3'' N, longitude 077[deg]21'47'' W, thence east to
latitude 39[deg]03'56.8'' N, longitude 077[deg]20'00.3'' W, thence
north to the Maryland shoreline at latitude 39[deg]04'04'' N, longitude
077[deg]19'58'' W, thence back along the shoreline to the originating
point.
    (c) Regulations. The general security zone regulations found in
Sec.  165.33 apply to the security zone created by this section.
    (1) Except for public vessels, entry into or remaining in the
security zone described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative
when the aforementioned security zone is being enforced. At the start
of each enforcement, all persons and vessels within the security zone
must depart the zone immediately or obtain authorization from the COTP
or designated representative to remain within the zone. All vessels
authorized to remain in the zone shall proceed as directed by the COTP
or designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessel operators who intend to enter or transit the
security zone while the zone is being enforced must obtain
authorization from the COTP or designated representative. Access to the
zone will be determined by the COTP or designated representative on a
case-by-case basis when the zone is enforced. Persons and vessel
operators requesting permission to enter or transit the security zone
may contact the COTP or designated representative at telephone number
410-576-2675, 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 shall 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.
    (3) The transit lane, described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, is the only part of the security zone through which persons
and vessels may travel. Before entering the transit lane, persons or
vessels must have authorization as described in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section. All persons and vessels shall operate at bare steerage or
no-wake speed while transiting through the lane, and must not loiter,
stop, or anchor, unless authorized or otherwise instructed by the COTP
or a designated representative.
    (4) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entire security zone,
including transit lane, if deemed necessary to address security threats
or concerns.
    (5) 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 (b)(1) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. The Coast Guard activates the security zone when
requested by the U.S. Secret Service for the protection of individuals
who qualify for protection under 18 U.S.C 3056(a). The COTP will
provide the public with notice of enforcement of security zone by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), information release at the website:
www.news.uscg.mil/Baltimore/ and via a recorded message at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> as well as on-scene notice by designated
representative or other appropriate means in accordance with Sec.
165.7.

    Dated: March 18, 2019.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-05407 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47583-47585]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0682; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Cabool, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cabool Memorial Airport,
Cabool, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Maples VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic
coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety
and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0682; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-5 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and

subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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
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 would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Cabool Memorial Airport, Cabool, MO, to support IFR
operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0682;
Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would amend Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cabool Memorial
Airport, Cabool, MO, by removing the Maples VORTAC and associated
extension northeast of the airport. This action would also update the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Maples VOR, which provided navigation
information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6005 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 Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Cabool, MO [Amended]

Cabool Memorial Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]07'57'' N, long. 92[deg]05'02'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Cabool Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 10, 2018.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-20398 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P