Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71709

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 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule would not result in 

such expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not affect 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 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 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 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 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. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. 

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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision on whether to 

categorically exclude this rule from 

further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 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. In § 165.910, revise paragraph (a)(5) 

to read as follows:

§ 165.910 Security Zones; Captain of the 

Port Chicago, Zone, Lake Michigan. 

(a) * * *

(5) Hammond Intake Crib. All 

navigable waters bounded by the arc of 

a circle with a 100-yard radius with its 

center in approximate position 

41°42′15′′ N, 087°29′49′′ W (NAD 83).

* * * * *

Dated: November 16, 2004. 

D.S. Fish, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port.

[FR Doc. 04–27099 Filed 12–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD13–04–040] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Protection of Military 

Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone Puget 

Sound, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a security zone in Budd 

Inlet, Olympia, WA to protect 

Department of Defense assets and 

military cargo in Puget Sound, 

Washington. This security zone, when 

enforced by the Captain of the Port 

Puget Sound, will regulate traffic in the 

vicinity of military cargo loading 

operations in the navigable waters of the 

United States.

DATES: This rule is effective December 

10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket CGD13–04–040 and are available 

for inspection or copying at 

Commanding Officer, Marine Safety 

Office Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way 

South, Seattle, Washington 98134 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTjg 

T. Thayer, c/o Captain of the Port Puget 

Sound, Seattle, WA, (206) 217–6232. 

For specific information concerning 

enforcement of this rule, call Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound at (206) 217–

6200 or (800) 688–6664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information 

On October 12, 2004, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Security Zones; Protection of 

71710 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone 

Puget Sound, WA’’ in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 60600). No written 

comments were received by the Coast 

Guard regarding this proposed rule. A 

public hearing was not requested and 

none was held. 

The Coast Guard finds good cause 

exists to make this rule effective less 

than 30 days after publication. This rule 

establishes security zones during 

military cargo loading and unloading 

operations. The Captain of the Port 

Puget Sound deems it necessary to make 

this rule effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register given the 

unpredictable schedule of these military 

cargo loading and unloading operations 

and because of the vital importance of 

these operations to national security. In 

fact, since October 12, 2004, the Captain 

of the Port Puget Sound has issued two 

additional temporary final rules 

establishing security zones in Budd 

Inlet, West Bay, Olympia, Washington 

(CGD13–04–41 singed November 15, 

2004; CGD13–04–042 signed November 

30, 2004). Moreover, the Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound will only enforce this 

final rule after issuing a notice of 

enforcement. 

Background and Purpose 

Hostile entities continue to operate 

with the intent to harm U.S. National 

Security by attacking or sabotaging 

national security assets. The President 

has continued the national emergencies 

he declared following the September 11, 

2001 terrorist attacks. 67 FR 58317 

((Sept. 13, 2002) (continuing national 

emergency with respect to terrorist 

attacks)); 67 FR 59447 ((Sept. 20, 2002) 

continuing national emergency with 

respect to persons who commit, threaten 

to commit or support terrorism)); 68 FR 

55189 ((Sept. 22, 2003 (continuing 

national emergency with respect to 

persons who commit, threaten to 

commit or support terrorism)). 

The President also has found 

pursuant to law, including the 

Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), 

that the security of the United States is 

and continues to be endangered 

following the attacks (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 

56215 (Sept. 3, 2002) (security 

endangered by disturbances in 

international relations of U.S. and such 

disturbances continue to endanger such 

relations). 

Moreover, the ongoing hostilities in 

Afghanistan and Iraq make it prudent 

for U.S. ports and waterways to be on 

a higher state of alert because the al 

Qaeda organization and other similar 

organizations have declared an ongoing 

intention to conduct armed attacks on 

U.S. interests worldwide.

The Coast Guard, through this rule, 

intends to assist the Department of 

Defense protect vital national security 

assets, in the waters of Puget Sound. 

This rule adds Budd Inlet as a 

permanent security zone in 33 CFR 

165.1321. The security zones 

permanently established in 33 CFR 

165.1321 exclude persons and vessels 

from these zones during military cargo 

loading and unloading operations and 

set forth the procedures for obtaining 

permission to enter, move within or exit 

these security zones. Likewise, entry 

into the zone described in this rule will 

be prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port or his designee. The 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

No comments were received by the 

Coast Guard as a result of the request for 

comments in our NPRM. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this rule 

would restrict access to the regulated 

area, the effect of this rule would not be 

significant. This expectation is based on 

the fact that the regulated area 

established by the rule would 

encompass a limited area in Budd Inlet, 

Olympia, WA. In addition, temporary 

final rules established for past cargo 

loading and unloading operations have 

only lasted from a few days to over a 

week in duration. Hence, the Coast 

Guard expects that enforcement periods 

under of this rule will be of similar 

duration. Further, Coast Guard forces 

will actively monitor and enforce the 

Budd Inlet security zone and are 

authorized by the Captain of the Port to 

grant authorization to vessels to enter 

this waterway. In addition, in certain 

circumstances VTS may grant 

authorization to enter, move within or 

depart this waterway. In other words, 

those vessels or persons who may be 

impacted by this rule may request 

permission to enter, move within or 

depart this security zone. Finally, the 

Coast Guard will cause a notice of 

suspension of enforcement to be 

published when cargo loading or 

unloading operations have concluded. 

For the above reasons, the Coast Guard 

does not anticipate any significant 

economic impact. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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 rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule would affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to operate near or 

anchor in the vicinity of Budd Inlet. 

This rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons: (i) The security zone 

is limited in size; (ii) designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may authorize access to the 

security zone; (iii) security zone for any 

given operation will effect the given 

geographical location for a limited time; 

(iv) the Coast Guard will make 

notifications via maritime advisories so 

mariners can adjust their plans 

accordingly and (v) the Coast Guard will 

cause a notice of suspension of 

enforcement to be published when cargo 

loading or unloading operations have 

concluded. 

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 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 one of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71711

points of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This 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 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 or more in any one year. 

Though this 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 rule would not effect 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 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 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 

The Coast Guard recognizes the rights 

of Native American Tribes under the 

Stevens Treaties. Moreover, the Coast 

Guard is committed to working with 

Tribal Governments to implement local 

policies to mitigate tribal concerns. We 

have determined that these security 

zones and fishing rights protection need 

not be incompatible. We have also 

determined that this Rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does 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. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this rule or options for compliance are 

encouraged to contact the point of 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this 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. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard’s preliminary review 

indicates this rule is categorically 

excluded from further environmental 

documentation under figure 2–1, 

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1D. The 

environmental analysis and Categorical 

Exclusion Determination will be 

prepared and be available in the docket 

for inspection and copying where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. All 

standard environmental measures 

remain in effect.

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 amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 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. In § 165.1321, add paragraph(c)(3) to 

read as follows:

§ 165.1321 Security Zone; Protection of 

Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone 

Puget Sound, WA.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(3) Budd Inlet Security Zone: The 

Security Zone in Budd Inlet, West Bay, 

Olympia WA includes all waters 

enclosed by a line connecting the 

following points: 47°03′12′′ N, 

122°25′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the northwestern end of the fence line 

enclosing Berth 1 at Port of Olympia; 

then northerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is the approximate 

300 feet north along the shoreline; then 

westerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 122°54′26′′ W; 

then southerly to 47°03′06′′ N, 

122°54′26′′ W; then southeasterly to 

47°03′03′′ N, 122°54′20′′ W, which is 

approximately the end of the T-shaped 

pier; then north to 47°03′01′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the southwestern corner of berth 1; then 

northerly along the shoreline to the 

point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983].

* * * * *

Dated: December 1, 2004. 

J.A. Stagliano, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.

[FR Doc. 04–27213 Filed 12–8–04; 8:54 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P