Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA, 23212-23214 [2010-10209]

Download as PDF 23212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2010–0021 using any one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments. Dated: April 16, 2010. L. Barndt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206–217–6175, e-mail SectorSeattleWWM@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2010–10205 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard ADDRESSES: 33 CFR Part 165 Public Participation and Request for Comments [Docket No. USCG–2010–0021] We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a security zone at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Base Support Unit Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. This permanent security zone is necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 2, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2010. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Apr 30, 2010 Jkt 220001 Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2010–0021), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via https:// www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via https:// www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert ‘‘USCG–2010–0021’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 0021’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one June 2, 2010 using one of the E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM 03MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Background and Purpose The potential for terrorist acts requires enhanced security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. This proposed rule will establish a security zone to protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts on the waters surrounding USCG Base Support Unit (BSU) Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds sufficient cause to require this security zone to protect military vessels, facilities and the maritime public located at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. This proposed security zone will be continuously activated in order to maintain the security of both moored vessels and permanent facilities regardless of the physical presence of military vessels within the zone. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would establish a permanent security zone necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. The security zone would encompass all waters in Elliot Bay east of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 20.585′ W to 47° 35.409′ N 122° 20.585′ W at USCG BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Apr 30, 2010 Jkt 220001 require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not adversely affect the transit of maritime vessels or the recreational boating public to major waterways. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 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 less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 23213 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM 03MYP1 23214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 2. Add § 165.1334 to read as follows: § 165.1334 Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. (a) Location: The following area is a security zone: All waters in Elliot Bay east of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 20.585′ W to 47° 35.409′ N 122°20.585′ W at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. (b) Regulations: Under 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone established by this section without the permission of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or Designated Representative. (c) Authorization: To request authorization to operate within this security zone, contact United States Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206–217–6001. Dated: April 6, 2010. S.E. Englebert, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. [FR Doc. 2010–10209 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] Environment We have analyzed this proposed 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. VerDate Mar<15>2010 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 16:30 Apr 30, 2010 Jkt 220001 BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 RIN 0991–AB62 HIPAA Privacy Rule Accounting of Disclosures Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act; Request for Information AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Request for information. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 SUMMARY: Section 13405(c) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act expands an individual’s right under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to receive an accounting of disclosures of protected health information made by HIPAA covered entities and their business associates. In particular, section 13405(c) of the HITECH Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services (‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘HHS’’) to revise the HIPAA Privacy Rule to require covered entities to account for disclosures of protected health information to carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations if such disclosures are through an electronic health record. This document is a request for information (RFI) to help us better understand the interests of individuals with respect to learning of such disclosures, the administrative burden on covered entities and business associates of accounting for such disclosures, and other information that may inform the Department’s rulemaking in this area. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 18, 2010. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. Please do not submit duplicate comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: You may submit electronic comments at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting electronic comments. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word. • Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Attention: HITECH Accounting of Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 509F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. • Hand Delivery or Courier: If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office for Civil Rights, Attention: HITECH Accounting of Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 509F, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM 03MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23212-23214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0021]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a security zone at U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) Base Support Unit Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. 
This permanent security zone is necessary to protect military and 
visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime 
public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive 
acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. Entry into or 
movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission 
of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before August 2, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be 
received by the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0021 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways 
Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6175, e-mail 
SectorSeattleWWM@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0021), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered 
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. 
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered 
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the 
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and 
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body 
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become 
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select 
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0021'' in the ``Keyword'' box. 
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' 
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit 
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable 
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and 
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a 
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all 
comments and material received during the comment period and may change 
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0021'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on 
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an 
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket 
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one June 2, 2010 using one of the

[[Page 23213]]

four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe 
a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would 
aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by 
a later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with 
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, 
contact Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail 
address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this notice.

Background and Purpose

    The potential for terrorist acts requires enhanced security of our 
ports, harbors, and vessels. This proposed rule will establish a 
security zone to protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels 
from subversive or terrorist acts on the waters surrounding USCG Base 
Support Unit (BSU) Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. The Coast Guard 
Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds sufficient cause to require this 
security zone to protect military vessels, facilities and the maritime 
public located at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. This proposed security zone 
will be continuously activated in order to maintain the security of 
both moored vessels and permanent facilities regardless of the physical 
presence of military vessels within the zone.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish a permanent security zone 
necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront 
facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury 
from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar 
nature. The security zone would encompass all waters in Elliot Bay east 
of a line from 47[deg] 35.450' N 122[deg] 20.585' W to 47[deg] 35.409' 
N 122[deg] 20.585' W at USCG BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, 
WA. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited 
without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated 
Representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This proposed rule is not 
a significant regulatory action because it does not adversely affect 
the transit of maritime vessels or the recreational boating public to 
major waterways.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
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 less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel 
traffic can pass safely around the security zone.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Coast Guard will not retaliate 
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed 
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

[[Page 23214]]

power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a 
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary 
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any 
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. 
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Add Sec.  165.1334 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1334  Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, 
Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location: The following area is a security zone: All waters in 
Elliot Bay east of a line from 47[deg] 35.450' N 122[deg] 20.585' W to 
47[deg] 35.409' N 122[deg]20.585' W at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, 
WA.
    (b) Regulations: Under 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or 
vessel may enter or remain in the security zone established by this 
section without the permission of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound 
or Designated Representative.
    (c) Authorization: To request authorization to operate within this 
security zone, contact United States Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint 
Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001.

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
S.E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-10209 Filed 4-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.