
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23710-23712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0250]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zones: Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA and Lake Union, 
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing two redundant sections from its 
regulations: Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA, and Lake Union, Seattle, 
WA. This action is necessary to eliminate duplicate safety zones from 
the regulations. These safety zones are also codified under these 
regulations: Safety Zones; annual firework displays within the Captain 
of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility.

DATES: This rule is effective May 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0250 and are available online 
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0250 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.

[[Page 23711]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or e-mail Ensign Anthony P. LaBoy, USCG Sector Puget Sound 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6323, e-
mail 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:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 is unnecessary as this rule's sole 
purpose is to remove redundant sections from Title 33 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The safety zones that are being removed from the 
Code of Federal Regulations are already codified under 33 CFR 165.1332.

Basis and Purpose

    After reviewing 33 CFR part 165, the Coast Guard has determined 
that Sec. Sec.  165.1304 and 165.1306 are no longer necessary because 
the safety zones in these sections are already codified under 33 CFR 
165.1332. The Coast Guard is removing these redundant sections to 
eliminate possible confusion and to use the more recently established 
rule governing these safety zones.

Background

    On June 10, 2010, 33 CFR 165.1332 Safety Zones; annual firework 
displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of 
Responsibility was published in the Federal Register. This section 
simplified the fireworks safety zones. This new section also 
encompasses the fireworks safety zones contained in 33 CFR 165.1304 and 
165.1306. Therefore, the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.1304 and 165.1306 
are unnecessary.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is removing 33 CFR 165.1304 and 165.1306 from the 
Code of Federal Regulations. 33 CFR 165.1332 establishes and lists a 
number of safety zones, including those contained in the sections being 
removed at 33 CFR 165.1304 and 165.1332.

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.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 Coast Guard bases this finding on the 
fact that this rule does not include creating any new zones only the 
removal of two sections that were more recently codified under 33 CFR 
165.1332.

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 not affect any small entities since 
this rule does not involve creating any new safety zones. Information 
concerning fireworks safety zones in Puget Sound affecting small 
entities can be found in docket number: USCG-2010-0063 at http://www.regulations.gov.

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.

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 (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 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 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

[[Page 23712]]

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 that 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 removing 33 CFR 165.1304 and 
165.1306 as these safety zones are already codified under 33 CFR 
165.1332. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an 
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are not required for this 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 amends 
33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C 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


0
2. Remove Sec.  165.1304.

0
3. Remove Sec.  165.1306.

    Dated: April 7, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-10248 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


