Safety Zone; Department of Defense Exercise, Hood Canal, WA
Temporary Final Rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around vessels involved in a Department of Defense exercise in Hood Canal, WA that will take place on November 21, 2011. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public during the exercise. The zone will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
- Next Action Undetermined
Table of Contents Back to Top
- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
- Regulatory Information
- Background and Purpose
- Discussion of 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
- List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
DATES: Back to Top
This rule is effective from 6 a.m. until 11:59 p.m. on November 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Back to Top
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1017 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1017 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Back to Top
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Ian S. Hanna, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6045, email SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Back to Top
Regulatory Information Back to Top
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be contrary to the public interest, since the event requiring the establishment of this safety zone would be over before a comment period would end. These Department of Defense (DOD) vessels have an important and urgent need to perform this training in order to be ready to protect U.S. persons, assets, and waters; it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the exercise to allow for a comment period. Further, publishing an NPRM is unnecessary as the safety zone is neither burdensome, nor controversial. The safety zone created is short in duration, and vessels can transit around it, or through it with permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Good cause exists because the event would be over before the final rule could be published. These DOD vessels have an important and urgent need to perform this training in order to be ready to protect U.S. persons, assets, and waters; it would be contrary to the public interest to delay this important exercise to allow for a delayed effective date.
Background and Purpose Back to Top
The DOD will be conducting a training exercise in the northern part of Hood Canal, WA. During the exercise, tactical vessels will be maneuvering through the Hood Canal from the entrance of Dabob Bay to Foulweather Bluff. This exercise will include fast moving surface vessels, smoke machines, and pyrotechnics. This safety zone is being created to ensure the safety of the maritime public and vessels participating in the exercise by preventing collisions between exercising vessels and the maritime public, and by keeping the maritime public a safe distance away from potentially startling or disorienting smoke, bright flashes, and loud noises.
Discussion of Rule Back to Top
The temporary safety zone established by this rule will prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining within 1000 yards of any vessel involved in the DOD exercise while such vessel is transiting Hood Canal, WA between Foul Weather Bluff and the entrance to Dabob Bay. Members of the maritime public will be able to identify participating vessels by their gray color and orange Coast Guard stripe on the hull. The COTP may be also assisted in the enforcement of the zones by other federal, state, or local agencies.
Regulatory Analyses Back to Top
We developed this 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. 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).
The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the safety zones will be in place for a limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit around the safety zones. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zones from the COTP, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.
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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it is in effect. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone will be in place for a limited period of time and maritime traffic will still be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit though the zones from the COTP, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could 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. 3501-3520).
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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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 standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this 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 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 the establishment of a safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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 Back to Top
1.The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
2.Add § 165.T13-200 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-200 Safety Zone; Department of Defense Exercise, Hood Canal, Washington.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters encompassed within 1000 yards of any vessel that is involved in the Department of Defense exercise while such vessel is transiting Hood Canal, WA between Foul Weather Bluff and the entrance to Dabob Bay. Vessels involved will be various sizes, including 25, 33, and 64 feet in length and can be identified as being gray in color with an orange United States Coast Guard stripe on the vessels' hull.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no person may enter or remain in the safety zone created in this rule unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative. See 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, for additional information and requirements. Vessel operators wishing to enter the zone during the enforcement period must request permission for entry by contacting the on-scene patrol commander on VHF channel 13 or 16, or the Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center at (206) 217-6001.
(c) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective on November 21, 2011 from 6 a.m. to 11:59 p.m., unless canceled sooner by the Captain of the Port.
Dated: October 27, 2011.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-29408 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P