Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23189 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0212] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Pensacola Bay; 

Pensacola, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

a portion of Pensacola Bay including all 

waters represented by positions 

30°20′40.73′′ N 087°17′19.73′′ W, 

30°20′11.12′′ N 087°17′20.31′′ W, 

30°20′41.51′′ N 087°15′01.15′′ W, and 

30°20′11.76′′ N 087°15′01.18′′ W creating 

a box, referred to as the ‘‘Show Box’’. 

This action is necessary for the 

protection of persons and vessels on 

navigable waters during the Blue 

Angels’ air show. Entry into, transiting 

or anchoring in this zone is prohibited 

to all vessels, mariners, and persons 

unless specifically authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective and 

enforceable with actual notice from May 

3, 2011, through May 4, 2011. Exact 

enforcement times will be published in 

the Local Notice to Mariners and 

broadcasted via a Safety Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0212 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0212 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 

and U.S. Coast Guard Sector Mobile 

(spw), Building 102, Brookley Complex 

South Broad Street Mobile, AL 36615, 

between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail LT Lisa G. Hartley, 

Coast Guard Sector Mobile, Waterways 

Division; telephone 251–441–6512 or 

e-mail Lisa.G.Hartley@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

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 there 

is insufficient time to publish a NPRM. 

The Coast Guard received an 

application for a Marine Event Permit 

on March 23, 2011, from Naval Air 

Station Pensacola, in Pensacola, FL of 

their intentions to hold an aerobatic 

display over Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, 

FL. Publishing a NPRM is impracticable 

because it would delay the required 

safety zone’s effective date and 

immediate action is needed to protect 

persons and vessels from safety hazards 

associated with the aerobatic display. 

The safety zone will be enforced for 

short durations during a two-day period. 

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. The Coast Guard received an 

application for a Marine Event Permit 

on March 23, 2011, from Naval Air 

Station Pensacola, in Pensacola, FL of 

their intentions to hold an aerobatic 

display over Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, 

FL. Additionally, this rule is temporary 

and will only be enforced for short 

durations during a two-day period while 

the aerobatic displays are taking place. 

Providing a 30 day notice period would 

delay the effective date and is 

impracticable because immediate action 

is needed to protect persons and vessels 

from safety hazards associated with the 

aerobatic displays. 

Background and Purpose 

Naval Air Station Pensacola’s Blue 

Angel Air Show will take place over a 

portion of Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL 

and poses significant safety hazards to 

both vessels and mariners operating in 

or near the air show area referred to as 

the ‘‘Show Box’’. Due to FAA directive 

8900.1, this waterway must be closed to 

transiting watercraft to sterilize the 

‘‘Show box’’ during the performances by 

the U.S. Navy Blue Angels. The COTP 

Mobile is establishing a temporary 

safety zone for a portion of Pensacola 

Bay, Pensacola, FL, to protect persons 

and vessels during the air performances. 

The COTP anticipates minimal impact 

on vessel traffic due to this regulation. 

However, this safety zone is deemed 

necessary for the protection of life and 

property within the COTP Mobile zone. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary safety zone for a portion of 

Pensacola Bay including all waters 

represented by positions 30°20′40.73′′ N 

087°17′19.73′′ W, 30°20′11.12′ N 

087°17′20.31′′ W, 30°20′41.51′′ N 

087°15′01.15′′ W, and 30°20′11.76′′ N 

087°15′01.18′′ W creating a box, referred 

to as the ‘‘Show Box’’. This temporary 

rule will protect the safety of life and 

property in this area. Entry into, 

transiting or anchoring in this zone is 

prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and 

persons unless specifically authorized 

by the COTP Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

The COTP may be contacted by 

telephone at 251–441–5976. The COTP 

Mobile or a designated representative 

will inform the public through 

broadcast notice to mariners of changes 

in the effective period and enforcement 

times for the safety zone. This rule is 

effective from May 3, 2011, through 

May 4, 2011. 

Regulatory Analyses 

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. 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

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, 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. 

The safety zone listed in this rule will 

restrict vessel traffic from entering, 

transiting or anchoring in a small 

portion of Pensacola Bay only during 

certain times over a two-day period. The 

effect of this regulation will not be 

significant for several reasons: (1) This 

rule will only affect vessel traffic for a 

short duration; (2) vessels may request 

permission from the COTP to transit 

through the safety zone; and (3) the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

23190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

impacts on routine navigation are 

expected to be minimal. Notifications to 

the marine community will be made 

through local notice to mariners and 

broadcast notice to mariners. These 

notifications will allow the public to 

plan operations around the affected 

area. 

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 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 or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

affected portions of Pensacola Bay 

during the Naval Air Station Pensacola’s 

Blue Angels Air Show. This safety zone 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons: the 

zone is limited in size, is of short 

duration and vessel traffic may request 

permission from the COTP Mobile or a 

designated representative to enter or 

transit through the zone. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM 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). 

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 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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 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. 

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. 

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 

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 safety for the public and 

environment and is not expected to 

result in any significant adverse 

environmental impact as described in 

NEPA. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23191 

determination will be made available as 

directed under the ADDRESSES section. 

List of Subjects 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, 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.T08–0212 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0212 Safety Zone; Pensacola 

Bay; Pensacola, FL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: a portion of Pensacola Bay 

including all waters represented by 

positions 30°20′40.73′′ N 087°17′19.73′′ 

W, 30°20′11.12′′ N 087°17′20.31′′ W, 

30°20′41.51′′ N 087°15′01.15′′ W, and 

30°20′11.76′′ N 087°15′01.18′′ W creating 

a box, referred to as the ‘‘Show Box’’. 

(b) Enforcement dates. This rule will 

be enforced from May 3, 2011, through 

May 4, 2011. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

They may be contacted on VHF–FM 

channels 16 or by telephone at 251– 

441–5976. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the Captain of the 

Port or designated representative. 

Designated representatives include 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(d) Informational broadcasts: The 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notices to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the safety 

zone as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

D.J. Rose, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9990 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[Docket No. USCG–2002–12702] 

RIN 1625–AA48 

Traffic Separation Schemes: In the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and Its 

Approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing 

without change its November 19, 2010, 

interim rule codifying traffic separation 

schemes in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and its Approaches; in Puget Sound and 

its Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia. The Coast Guard established 

these traffic separation schemes under 

authority of the Ports and Waterways 

Safety Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2002–12702 and are 

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 20590–0001, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also find this docket on the Internet 

by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

inserting USCG–2002–12702 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then clicking 

‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, 

contact Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast 

Guard Office of Navigation Systems, 

telephone 202–372–1566, or e-mail 

George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions about viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

2004 Act Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004 

ATBA Area to be Avoided 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CTVS Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

PARS Port Access Route Study 

PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VTS vessel traffic service 

II. Regulatory History 

On August 27, 2002, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Traffic 

Separation Schemes: In the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and its Approaches; in 

Puget Sound and its Approaches; and in 

Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and the 

Strait of Georgia’’ in the Federal Register 

(67 FR 54981). We received nine letters 

commenting on the NPRM. The 

commenters did not request a public 

meeting, and none was held. 

On November 19, 2010, the Coast 

Guard published an interim rule (75 FR 

70818) that codified existing Traffic 

Separation Schemes (TSSs) in the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca and its Approaches; in 

Puget Sound and its Approaches; and in 

Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and the 

Strait of Georgia. The Coast Guard did 

not publish a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for this 

rule, citing the Administrative 

Procedure Act ‘‘good cause’’ exception at 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) in the interim rule. 

The interim rule sought comments on 

the enumerated Traffic Separation 

Schemes. The comment period closed 

January 3, 2011, and we received no 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES