Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 76, April 22, 2009, Pages 18285-18448 Page: 18,294
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
18294 Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 76/Wednesday, April 22, 2009/Rules and Regulations
recreational activities and sightseeing.
This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for several
reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely
around the area, (ii) vessels engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing
have ample space outside of the affected
portion of the San Francisco Bay to
engage in these activities, (iii) this rule
will encompass only a small portion of
the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (iv) the maritime public will
be advised in advance of this safety
zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),
we offer to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking process.
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). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
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 will not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
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 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.
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.
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
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule
involves establishing a safety zone. An
environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination will
be available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, and
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
a 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, 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 temporary 165.T11-183 to
read as follows:
165.T11-183 Safety Zone; Waters
surrounding Berth 7 at the Port of Oakland,
San Francisco Bay, California.
(a) Location. This temporary safety
zone is established for the waters of the
San Francisco Bay. It includes all waters
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 76, April 22, 2009, Pages 18285-18448, periodical, April 22, 2009; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132938/m1/16/: accessed August 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.