Document ID: USCG-2012-0903-0001
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: NPRM:  Safety Zones: Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, Seattle, WA (Federal Register Publication)
Posted Date: 2012-10-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62473-62476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25237]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-0212-0903]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, Seattle, 
WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing to amend the Seafair Blue 
Angels Air Show Performance safety zone on the waters of Lake 
Washington, Seattle, WA. This action is necessary to safeguard 
participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the 
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high 
speed aircraft, and will do so by prohibiting entry into the safety 
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Puget Sound 
or a Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before December 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using 
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries 
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion 
of the

[[Page 62474]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on 
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these 
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger; Waterways Management Division, 
Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6045, 
email SectorPugetSoundWWM@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:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, 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 at 
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, 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 email 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, 
type the docket number USCG-0212-0903 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with 
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 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.

2. 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, 
type the docket number USCG-0212-0903 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one, using one of the 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.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is amending this rule because the current 
regulation associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show performance 
(33 CFR 165.1319) is not large enough to safeguard participants and 
spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seafair Blue 
Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high speed 
aircraft.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend this safety zone to ensure the 
safety of the maritime public during the Seattle Blue Angels Air Show. 
The size of the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 has been determined to 
be inadequate to accommodate the anticipated flight pattern of the Blue 
Angels, and the current regulation is not large enough to safeguard 
participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the 
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high 
speed aircraft. This proposed rule would extend the northern boundary 
line of the existing regulation northward by 500 yards, and updates 
coordinates to provide a zone of adequate size.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As described in the June 24, 2004 final rule (69 FR 35249), the 
Coast Guard established a safety zone for the annual Blue Angels Air 
Show Performance. The purpose of this rule was to protect the public 
from dangers including excessive noise and falling objects from any 
potential accidents caused by these low-flying military aircraft. The 
regulation contained in 33 CFR 165.1319 encompasses ``all waters of 
Lake Washington, Washington State, enclosed by the following points: 
Near the termination of Roanoke Way 47[deg]35'44'' N, 122[deg]14'47'' 
W; thence to 47[deg]35'48'' N, 122[deg]15'45'' W; thence to 
47[deg]36'02.1'' N, 122[deg]15'50.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'56.6'' N, 
122[deg]16'29.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'42'' N, 122[deg]16'24'' W; 
thence to the east side of the entrance to the west highrise of the 
Interstate 90 bridge; thence westerly along the south side of the 
bridge to the shoreline on the western terminus of the bridge; thence 
southerly along the shoreline to Andrews Bay at 47[deg]33'06'' N, 
122[deg]15'32'' W; thence northeast along the shoreline of Bailey 
Peninsula to its northeast point at 47[deg]33'44'' N, 122[deg]15'04'' 
W; thence easterly along the east-west line drawn tangent to Bailey 
Peninsula; thence northerly along the shore of Mercer Island to the 
point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983]''
    However, the participating aircraft have a flight pattern that will 
extend past the northern boundary of the regulation in 33 CFR 156.1319. 
As such, an extension is necessary in order to protect the spectating 
public.
    This rule amends the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance 
Safety Zone, extending the northern boundary starting at point 
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'49.44'' W; thence west to point 
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'58.56'' W; thence south along the 
shoreline to point 47[deg]35'25.44'' N, 122[deg]17'9.48'' W; thence 
east along the I-90 bridge to point 47[deg]35'23.16'' N, 
122[deg]15'17.1'' W; thence north east along the shoreline to point

[[Page 62475]]

47[deg]35'45.3'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence north back to the 
point of origin.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. 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, 
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 Executive Order 12866 or 
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases 
this finding on the fact that the safety zone will be in place for a 
limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit 
around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to 
transit through the zone from the (COTP), Puget Sound or a Designated 
Representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The 
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 
will 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 and operators of vessels 
intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it 
is in effect. The rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone would be 
in place for limited periods of time and maritime traffic would still 
be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also 
request permission to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget 
Sound or a Designated Representative.
    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.

3. 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. 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 person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that 
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    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.

11. 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 of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    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. This proposed rule 
involves the amendment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically 
excluded from further review under paragraph

[[Page 62476]]

34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a 
Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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 
recordkeeping 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:

    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. Amend Sec.  165.1319 by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  165.1319  Safety Zone Regulations; Seafair Blue Angels Air Show 
Performance, Seattle, WA.

* * * * *
    (b) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake 
Washington encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 
122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence west to point 47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 
122[deg]16'58.56'' W; thence south along the shoreline to Andrews Bay 
at point 47[deg]33'04.62'' N, 122[deg]15'32.46'' W; thence northeast 
along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast point at 
47[deg]33'44.98'' N, 122[deg]15'03.48'' W; thence easterly to point 
47[deg]33'43.98'' N, 122[deg]13'51.36'' W on Mercer Island; thence 
northerly along the shore of Mercer Island to point 47[deg]35'45.12'' 
N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence north back to the point of origin.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-25237 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P