Safety Zone; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA, 18452-18454 [2019-08800]

Download as PDF jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS 18452 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules (b) If a party files a timely notice of appeal with the DAB, the ALJ will forward the record of the proceeding to the DAB. (c) A notice of appeal will be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions. Any party may file a brief in opposition to exceptions, which may raise any relevant issue not addressed in the exceptions, within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief. The DAB may permit the parties to file reply briefs. (d) There is no right to appear personally before the DAB or to appeal to the DAB any interlocutory ruling by the ALJ, except on the timeliness of a filing of the hearing request. (e) The DAB will not consider any issue not raised in the parties’ briefs, nor any issue in the briefs that could have been raised before the ALJ but was not. (f) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DAB that additional evidence not presented at such hearing is relevant and material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence at such hearing, the DAB may remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence. (g) The DAB may decline to review the case, or may affirm, increase, reduce, reverse or remand any penalty or assessment determined by the ALJ. (h) The standard of review on a disputed issue of fact is whether the initial decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. The standard of review on a disputed issue of law is whether the initial decision is erroneous. (i) Within 120 days after the time for submission of briefs and reply briefs, if permitted, has expired, the DAB will issue to each party to the appeal a copy of the DAB’s decision and a statement describing the right of any petitioner or respondent who is found liable to seek judicial review. (j) Except with respect to any penalty or assessment remanded by the ALJ, the DAB’s decision, including a decision to decline review of the initial decision, becomes final and binding 60 days after the date on which the DAB serves the parties with a copy of the decision. If service is by mail, the date of service will be deemed to be 5 days from the date of mailing. (k)(1) Any petition for judicial review must be filed within 60 days after the DAB serves the parties with a copy of the decision. If service is by mail, the date of service will be deemed to be 5 days from the date of mailing. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Apr 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 (2) In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), a copy of any petition for judicial review filed in any U.S. Court of Appeals challenging a final action of the DAB will be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the General Counsel of the DHA. The petition copy will be time-stamped by the clerk of the court when the original is filed with the court. (3) If the General Counsel of the DHA receives two or more petitions within 10 days after the DAB issues its decision, the General Counsel of the DHA will notify the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of any petitions that were received within the 10-day period. § 200.2022 Stay of initial decision. (a) In a CMP case under section 1128A of the Act, the filing of a respondent’s request for review by the DAB will automatically stay the effective date of the ALJ’s decision. (b)(1) After the DAB renders a decision in a CMP case, pending judicial review, the respondent may file a request for stay of the effective date of any penalty or assessment with the ALJ. The request must be accompanied by a copy of the notice of appeal filed with the Federal court. The filing of such a request will automatically act to stay the effective date of the penalty or assessment until such time as the ALJ rules upon the request. (2) The ALJ may not grant a respondent’s request for stay of any penalty or assessment unless the respondent posts a bond or provides other adequate security. (3) The ALJ will rule upon a respondent’s request for stay within 10 days of receipt. § 200.2023 Harmless error. No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in any act done or omitted by the ALJ or by any of the parties, including Federal representatives or TRICARE contractors is ground for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing an otherwise appropriate ruling or order or act, unless refusal to take such action appears to the ALJ or the DAB inconsistent with substantial justice. The ALJ and the DAB at every stage of the proceeding will disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Dated: April 26, 2019. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2019–08858 Filed 4–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2019–0214] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the safety zone for the Seattle Seafair Air Show Performance by moving the safety zone location. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Air Show Performance, which include lowflying high-speed aircraft. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering or remaining in the new safety zone location unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2019. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2019–0214 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206–217–6051, email SectorPugetSoundWWM@ uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On March 12, 2019, the Seattle Seafair Organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be moving its annual Air E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS Show Performance location due to the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge construction project for the Sound Transit Light Rail and subsequent light rail operations. In order to avoid closing the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge on Lake Washington during the Air Show Performance which would be required under the current safety zone regulations, the Seattle Seafair Organization has moved Air Show Performance location south of the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge. The northern boundary of the proposed safety zone would encompass the navigable waters of Lake Washington approximately 1,700 yards south of the existing safety zone’s northern boundary to the southern Interstate 90 floating bridge. The proposed safety zone location would then overlap the existing safety zone location south of the Interstate 90 Bridge to southern boundary line, a line perpendicular to the Bailey Peninsula to Mercer Island. The southern boundary would then be extended 1,100 yards further south past the existing boundary line. The Air Show Performance poses several dangers to the public, including low-flying high-speed aircraft, excessive noise, and potential objects falling from aircraft. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Air Show Performance would be a safety concern for anyone near the Air Show Performance. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters near the new Air Show Performance location immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The COTP is proposing to amend the current safety zone location by moving it south in conjunction with the new Air Show Performance location. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of Lake Washington south of the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge and north of Bailey Peninsula. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter or remain in the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Apr 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of day the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Lake Washington during the Air Show Performance. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18453 organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 18454 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Security Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amending a safety zone by moving the regulated area south of the Interstate 90 Bridge and north of Bailey Peninsula. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration 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. 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. jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS V. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 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 https:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Apr 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 the docket, visit https:// www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://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 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.2. In § 165.1319, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 165.1319 Seafair Air Show Performance, Seattle, WA. * * * * * (b) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake Washington south of the Interstate 90 Floating West Bound Bridge and north of the points between Bailey Peninsula at 47°33′14.4″ N, 122°14′47.3″ and Mercer Island at 47°33′24.5″ N, 122°13′52.5″ W. * * * * * Dated: April 25, 2019. L.A. Sturgis, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound. [FR Doc. 2019–08800 Filed 4–30–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0694; FRL–9967–13– OW] RIN 2040–AF70 Aquatic Life Criteria for Aluminum in Oregon Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) proposes to establish SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 federal Clean Water Act (CWA) aquatic life criteria for fresh waters under the State of Oregon’s jurisdiction, to protect aquatic life from the effects of exposure to harmful levels of aluminum. In 2013, the EPA disapproved the State’s freshwater acute and chronic aluminum criteria. The CWA directs the EPA to promptly propose water quality standards (WQS) that meet CWA requirements if a state does not adopt WQS addressing the Agency’s disapproval. The State has not adopted and submitted revised freshwater acute and chronic aluminum criteria to the EPA to address the EPA’s 2013 disapproval. Therefore, in this notice, the EPA proposes federal freshwater acute and chronic aluminum criteria to protect aquatic life uses in Oregon. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OW–2016–0694, at http:// www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other methods identified in this ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The EPA is offering two online public hearings so that interested parties may provide oral comments on this proposed rule. The first public hearing will be on Tuesday, June 11, 2019, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time. The second public hearing will be on Wednesday, June 12, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. The EPA plans to make a transcript of the public hearings available to the public in the rulemaking docket. The EPA will respond to substantive comments received as part of developing the final rule and will include comment responses in the E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18452-18454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0214]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the safety zone for the 
Seattle Seafair Air Show Performance by moving the safety zone 
location. This action is necessary to safeguard participants and 
spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Air Show 
Performance, which include low-flying high-speed aircraft. This 
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering or 
remaining in the new safety zone location unless authorized by the 
Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a designated representative. We 
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before May 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0214 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector 
Puget Sound Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 
206-217-6051, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 12, 2019, the Seattle Seafair Organization notified the 
Coast Guard that it will be moving its annual Air

[[Page 18453]]

Show Performance location due to the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge 
construction project for the Sound Transit Light Rail and subsequent 
light rail operations. In order to avoid closing the Interstate 90 
Floating Bridge on Lake Washington during the Air Show Performance 
which would be required under the current safety zone regulations, the 
Seattle Seafair Organization has moved Air Show Performance location 
south of the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge.
    The northern boundary of the proposed safety zone would encompass 
the navigable waters of Lake Washington approximately 1,700 yards south 
of the existing safety zone's northern boundary to the southern 
Interstate 90 floating bridge. The proposed safety zone location would 
then overlap the existing safety zone location south of the Interstate 
90 Bridge to southern boundary line, a line perpendicular to the Bailey 
Peninsula to Mercer Island. The southern boundary would then be 
extended 1,100 yards further south past the existing boundary line.
    The Air Show Performance poses several dangers to the public, 
including low-flying high-speed aircraft, excessive noise, and 
potential objects falling from aircraft. The Captain of the Port Puget 
Sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the 
Air Show Performance would be a safety concern for anyone near the Air 
Show Performance.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels 
and the navigable waters near the new Air Show Performance location 
immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast 
Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to amend the current safety zone location by 
moving it south in conjunction with the new Air Show Performance 
location. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of Lake 
Washington south of the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge and north of 
Bailey Peninsula. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter or 
remain in the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or 
a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing 
appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and 
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control 
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been 
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, 
location, duration, and time of day the safety zone. Vessel traffic 
would be able to safely transit around the safety zone which would 
impact a small designated area of Lake Washington during the Air Show 
Performance.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please 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 proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland

[[Page 18454]]

Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 preliminary 
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do 
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This proposed rule involves amending a safety zone by 
moving the regulated area south of the Interstate 90 Bridge and north 
of Bailey Peninsula. Normally such actions are categorically excluded 
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of 
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of 
Environmental Consideration 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.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at 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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://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 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

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.2. In Sec.  165.1319, revise paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  165.1319  Seafair Air Show Performance, Seattle, WA.

* * * * *
    (b) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake 
Washington south of the Interstate 90 Floating West Bound Bridge and 
north of the points between Bailey Peninsula at 47[deg]33'14.4'' N, 
122[deg]14'47.3'' and Mercer Island at 47[deg]33'24.5'' N, 
122[deg]13'52.5'' W.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 25, 2019.
L.A. Sturgis,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2019-08800 Filed 4-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P