Safety Zone; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA, 18452-18454 [2019-08800]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
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 https://
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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://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
