Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, CA, 36955-36958 [2012-14973]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules access. Kidney Int 60:1–13, 2001 (1990s data). 14. Power A, Singh SK, Ashby D, Cairns T, Taube D, Duncan N: Long-term Tesio catheter access for hemodialysis can deliver high dialysis adequacy with low complication rates. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:631–637, 2011. 15. Duncan ND, Singh S, Cairns TD, Clark M, El-Tayar A, Griffith M, Hakim N, Hamady M, McLean AG, Papalois V, Palmer A, Taube D: Tesio-Caths provide effective and safe long-term vascular access. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19:2816–2822, 2004. 16. Eisenstein I, Tarabeih M, Magen D, Pollack S, Kassis I, Ofer A, Engel A, Zelikovic I: Low infection rates and prolonged survival times of hemodialysis catheters in infants and children. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6:793–798, 2011. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 876 Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 876 be amended as follows: PART 876—GASTROENTEROLOGY— UROLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 876 continues to read as follows: 2. Section 876.5540 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(1) and by removing paragraph (c) to read as follows: pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 § 876.5540 Blood access device and accessories. (a) * * * (1) The implanted blood access device consists of various flexible or rigid tubes, such as catheters, or cannulae, which are surgically implanted in appropriate blood vessels, may come through the skin, and are intended to remain in the body for 30 days or more. This generic type of device includes: Single, double, and triple lumen catheters with cuffs, subcutaneous ports with catheters, shunts, cannula, vessel tips, and connectors specifically designed to provide access to blood. (2) The nonimplanted blood access device consists of various flexible or rigid tubes, such as catheters, cannulae or hollow needles, which are inserted into appropriate blood vessels or a vascular graft prosthesis (§§ 870.3450 and 870.3460), and are intended to remain in the body for less than 30 days. This generic type of device includes noncuffed catheters, fistula needles, single dialysis needles (coaxial flow Jkt 226001 [FR Doc. 2012–15024 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2011–0906] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, CA Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371. 15:17 Jun 19, 2012 Dated: June 15, 2012. Nancy K. Stade, Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Medical devices. VerDate Mar<15>2010 needle), and the single needle dialysis set (alternating flow needle). * * * * * (b) Classification. (1) Class II (special controls) for the implanted blood access device. The special control for this device is FDA’s ‘‘Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Implanted Blood Access Devices for Hemodialysis.’’ * * * * * The Coast Guard proposes to establish fixed security zones around and under any cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, California. This proposed regulation is needed for national security reasons to protect cruise ships, vessels, users of the waterway and the port from potential terrorist acts. These security zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750). Entry into these zones would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach (LA–LB), or his designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 20, 2012. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2011–0906 using any one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 36955 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. If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Ensign Brett M. DiManno, Prevention, Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach, Coast Guard; telephone 310–521–3869, email brett.m.dimanno@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: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 http:// 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–2011–0906), 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 http:// 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 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 email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 36956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules To submit your comment online, go to http://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–2011–0906’’ 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 http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 0906’’ 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). pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 Basis and Purpose In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–399), Congress added section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish security zones pursuant to the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack against a cruise ship would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around and under cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, California. This security zone helps the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against cruise ships. The Coast Guard has determined the establishment of security zones is prudent for cruise ships because they carry a multitude of passengers. Based on experience with security zone enforcement operations, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has concluded that these security zones should encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100yard radius of any cruise ship which is located within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34–24– 17.364 N, 119–41–16.260W). These security zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the cruise ship, vessels, and users of the waterway. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around and under cruise ships which visit Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, California. This proposed rule, for security concerns, prohibits entry of any vessel inside the security zone surrounding a cruise ship. These security zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34–24–17.364 N, 119–41– 16.260W). These security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect cruise ships, the public, and transiting vessels, from potential subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. Entry into the zone would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Vessels already moored or anchored when these security zones take effect are not required to get underway to avoid the zones unless specifically ordered to do so by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port will enforce these zones and may request the use of resources and personnel of other government agencies to assist in the patrol and enforcement of the regulation. 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to a portion of navigable waters, the effect of this regulation is not significant because: i. The zones only encompass a small portion of the waterway; ii. Vessels are able to pass safely around the zones; and iii. Vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach, or his designated representative. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for all cruise ships and other vessels operating in the vicinity of these vessels, adjoining areas, and the public. The entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Santa Barbara Harbor within a 100-yard radius of cruise ships covered by this rule. This security zone regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic can pass safely around the zones. 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. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 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 1–888–REG– FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 36957 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. This proposed rule involves the establishment of security zones. 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 recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1 36958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.1157 to read as follows: pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable waters, from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34–24–17.364 N, 119–41–16.260W). (b) Definition. ‘‘Cruise ship’’ as used in this section means any vessel, except for a ferry, over 100 feet in length, authorized to carry more than 12 passengers for hire; making voyages lasting more than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high seas; and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the U.S. or its territories. (c) Regulations. (1) Under general security zone regulations in subpart D, entry into or remaining in the zones described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach (LA– LB), or a designated representative of COTP LA–LB. (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the COTP LA–LB at telephone number 1– 310–521–3801 or on VHF–FM channel 16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. [FR Doc. 2012–14973 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 [Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0012; CFDA Number 84.412A] RIN 1810–AB15 Proposed Requirements—Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge; Phase 2 Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Proposed requirements. AGENCY: § 165.1157 Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara, California. Dated: May 11, 2012. R.R. Laferriere, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles Long Beach. 34 CFR Chapter II The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereafter ‘‘the Secretaries’’) propose requirements for Phase 2 of the Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT–ELC) program. In this phase (Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program), we would make awards to certain States that applied for, but did not receive, funding under Phase 1 of the RTT–ELC competition held in fiscal year (FY) 2011 (FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition). Specifically, we would consider eligible the five highest-scoring applicants that did not receive funding in the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition, each of which received approximately 75 percent or more of the available points under the competition. We take this action to fund down the slate of the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition and to establish the information and assurances that the eligible applicants would need to provide in order to receive funding under Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 20, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ‘‘Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Phase 2 Awards’’ at the top of your comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’ SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed requirements, address them to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Phase 2 Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–6200. Privacy Note: The Department of Education’s policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Spitz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E230, Washington, DC 20202– 6200. Telephone: (202) 260–3793 or by email: RTT.Early.Learning.Challenge@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (Departments) plan to implement Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program by funding down the slate from the FY 2011 RTT– ELC competition. Specifically, the Departments plan to make awards available to the next five highest-scoring applicants that did not receive funding under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition. Because the amount of available funds in FY 2012 is limited, this action proposes specific requirements that the five eligible applicants must meet in order to receive up to 50 percent of the funds they requested in their FY 2011 RTT–ELC applications. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this notice, we propose to establish a limited number of application requirements, assurances, and budget requirements that the five eligible applicants must meet in order to receive funds under Phase 2 of the RTT–ELC program. The Application Requirements, which can be found in section III of the Proposed Requirements section of this notice, include a requirement that each eligible applicant must: (1) Describe how it would implement the activities proposed in Core Area B (selection E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36955-36958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0906]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, 
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish fixed security zones 
around and under any cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa 
Barbara, California. This proposed regulation is needed for national 
security reasons to protect cruise ships, vessels, users of the 
waterway and the port from potential terrorist acts. These security 
zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea 
floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3 
nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List 
Number 3750). Entry into these zones would be prohibited unless 
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--
Long Beach (LA-LB), or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before July 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0906 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 email Ensign Brett M. DiManno, Prevention, Sector Los 
Angeles--Long Beach, Coast Guard; telephone 310-521-3869, email 
brett.m.dimanno@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 http://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-2011-0906), 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 http://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 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 email address, or a telephone number in the body 
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions 
regarding your submission.

[[Page 36956]]

    To submit your comment online, go to http://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-2011-0906'' 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 http://www.regulations.gov, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0906'' 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 using one of the 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.

Basis and Purpose

    In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has 
increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As 
part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 
99-399), Congress added section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act 
(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, 
including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or 
respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or 
commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish 
security zones pursuant to the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and 
implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 
and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned 
security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact 
a terrorist attack against a cruise ship would have on the public 
interest, the Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around 
and under cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, 
California. This security zone helps the Coast Guard to prevent vessels 
or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against cruise ships. The 
Coast Guard has determined the establishment of security zones is 
prudent for cruise ships because they carry a multitude of passengers.
    Based on experience with security zone enforcement operations, the 
Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach has concluded that 
these security zones should encompass all navigable waters from the 
surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship 
which is located within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Santa Barbara 
Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-
41-16.260W). These security zones are necessary to provide for the 
safety of the cruise ship, vessels, and users of the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around and 
under cruise ships which visit Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, 
California. This proposed rule, for security concerns, prohibits entry 
of any vessel inside the security zone surrounding a cruise ship. These 
security zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to 
the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located 
within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light 
(Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-41-16.260W). These 
security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect 
cruise ships, the public, and transiting vessels, from potential 
subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. Entry 
into the zone would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the 
Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Vessels already 
moored or anchored when these security zones take effect are not 
required to get underway to avoid the zones unless specifically ordered 
to do so by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    The Captain of the Port will enforce these zones and may request 
the use of resources and personnel of other government agencies to 
assist in the patrol and enforcement of the regulation.

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. We expect the economic 
impact of this rule to be so minimal that full Regulatory Evaluation is 
unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to a portion of 
navigable waters, the effect of this regulation is not significant 
because:
    i. The zones only encompass a small portion of the waterway;
    ii. Vessels are able to pass safely around the zones; and
    iii. Vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case 
basis with permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--
Long Beach, or his designated representative.
    The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate 
protection for all cruise ships and other vessels operating in the 
vicinity of these vessels, adjoining areas, and the public. The 
entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and pleasure 
craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.

[[Page 36957]]

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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be 
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit 
or anchor in Santa Barbara Harbor within a 100-yard radius of cruise 
ships covered by this rule.
    This security zone regulation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic 
can pass safely around the zones.
    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 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). 
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 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. This proposed rule involves the 
establishment of security zones. 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 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.


[[Page 36958]]


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

    2. Add Sec.  165.1157 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1157  Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara, California.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable 
waters, from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of 
any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara 
Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-
41-16.260W).
    (b) Definition. ``Cruise ship'' as used in this section means any 
vessel, except for a ferry, over 100 feet in length, authorized to 
carry more than 12 passengers for hire; making voyages lasting more 
than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high seas; and for which 
passengers are embarked or disembarked in the U.S. or its territories.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under general security zone regulations in 
subpart D, entry into or remaining in the zones described in paragraph 
(a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard 
Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach (LA-LB), or a 
designated representative of COTP LA-LB.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may 
contact the COTP LA-LB at telephone number 1-310-521-3801 or on VHF-FM 
channel 16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If 
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the 
instructions of the Captain of the Port, or his designated 
representative.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
R.R. Laferriere,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2012-14973 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P