Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA
The Coast Guard proposes a security zone at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Base Support Unit Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. This permanent security zone is necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.
Table of Contents
- Public Participation and Request for Comments
- Submitting Comments
- Viewing Comments and Documents
- Privacy Act
- Public Meeting
- Background and Purpose
- Discussion of Proposed Rule
- Regulatory Analyses
- Regulatory Planning and Review
- Small Entities
- Assistance for Small Entities
- Collection of Information
- Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
- Taking of Private Property
- Civil Justice Reform
- Protection of Children
- Indian Tribal Governments
- Energy Effects
- Technical Standards
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2010-0021 using any one of the following methods:
(1)Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
(3)Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4)Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.
For further information contact: ↑
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6175, e-mail SectorSeattleWWM@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
Supplementary information: ↑
Public Participation and Request for Comments ↑
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to 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-2010-0021), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via 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 http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to 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-2010-0021” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 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-2010-0021” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act ↑
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register(73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting ↑
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one June 2, 2010 using one of thefour methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
Background and Purpose ↑
The potential for terrorist acts requires enhanced security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. This proposed rule will establish a security zone to protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts on the waters surrounding USCG Base Support Unit (BSU) Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds sufficient cause to require this security zone to protect military vessels, facilities and the maritime public located at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. This proposed security zone will be continuously activated in order to maintain the security of both moored vessels and permanent facilities regardless of the physical presence of military vessels within the zone.
Discussion of Proposed Rule ↑
This proposed rule would establish a permanent security zone necessary to protect military and visiting foreign vessels, waterfront facilities, and the maritime public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. The security zone would encompass all waters in Elliot Bay east of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 20.585′ W to 47° 35.409′ N 122° 20.585′ W at USCG BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. Entry into or movement within this security zone is prohibited without the permission of the Captain of the Port or a Designated Representative.
Regulatory Analyses ↑
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review ↑
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because it does not adversely affect the transit of maritime vessels or the recreational boating public to major waterways.
Small Entities ↑
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities ↑
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information ↑
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
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 ofpower 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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of subjects in 33 cfr part 165 ↑
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:
Part 165—regulated navigation areas and limited access areas ↑
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
2. Add § 165.1334 to read as follows:§ 165.1334
(a)Location: The following area is a security zone: All waters in Elliot Bay east of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 20.585′ W to 47° 35.409′ N 122°20.585′ W at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA.
(b)Regulations: Under 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone established by this section without the permission of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or Designated Representative.
(c)Authorization: To request authorization to operate within this security zone, contact United States Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001.Dated: April 6, 2010. S.E. Englebert, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.