Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA, 25548-25550 [2011-10930]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25548
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Captain of the Port Charleston in the
enforcement of the regulated area.
(c) Regulations.
(1) All persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining
within the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated
representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may
contact the Captain of the Port
Charleston by telephone at 843–740–
7050, or a designated representative via
VHF radio on channel 16, to seek
authorization. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the regulated area is granted by
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated area by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast notice to
mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.
(d) Effective Date. This rule is
effective from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on
May 13, 2011.
through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the
Port or their designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective June 6,
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–2009–0324 and are
available online by going to https://
www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG–
2009–0324 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and
then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is
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: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
e-mail Lieutenant Simone Mausz, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco;
telephone 415–399–7443, e-mail D11PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: April 26, 2011.
Michael F. White Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Charleston.
Regulatory Information
On November 6, 2009, we published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Coast
Guard Use of Force Training Exercises,
San Pablo Bay, CA in the Federal
Register (74 FR 214). We received four
comments on the proposed rule from
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC),
Audubon California, Beth Huning, and
San Francisco Joint Venture. No public
meetings were requested or held as part
of this rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–10929 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0324]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force
Training Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will
establish a safety zone in San Pablo Bay
for Coast Guard Use of Force Training
exercises. This safety zone will be
established to ensure the safety of the
public and participating crews from
potential hazards associated with fastmoving Coast Guard small boats and/or
helicopters taking part in the exercise.
Unauthorized persons or vessels will be
prohibited from entering into, transiting
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Basis and Purpose
The U.S. Coast Guard will establish a
safety zone in the navigable waters of
the San Pablo Bay, California that will
apply to the navigable waters
encompassing an area beginning at
position 38°01′44″ N, 122°27′06″ W;
38°04′36″ N, 122°22′06″ W; 38°00′35″ N,
122°26′07″ W; 38°03′00″ N, 122°20′20″
W (NAD 83) and back to the starting
point. U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Safety
and Security Team (MSST) San
Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard Air Station
San Francisco, and various Coast Guard
small boat stations will be conducting
Use of Force training runs in the waters
of San Pablo Bay. The exercises are
designed to train and test Coast Guard
personnel in the decision-making
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
processes necessary to safely and
effectively employ Use of Force from a
small boat or helicopter during
Homeland Security operations. The
training will generally involve the use of
several Coast Guard small boats and/or
a helicopter to intercept fast-moving,
evasive target vessels on the water. The
small boat and helicopter crews will fire
weapons at the target vessels using
blank ammunition and catch bags to
ensure that cartridges and other debris
do not fall to the water. This safety zone
is issued to establish a restricted area in
San Pablo Bay around the training site.
Background
The CG’s primary missions include
homeland security, search and rescue,
and drug and environmental
enforcement, and it is in the public
interest for CG personnel to be trained
and ready to serve the public at all
times. Among the homeland security
missions is port security training to
develop the tactical qualifications and
expertise necessary to fulfill this
mission requirement. The small boats
that conduct port security operations
throughout San Francisco Bay are
unable to conduct such training offshore
due to conditions that often exceed the
assets’ operational parameters, frequent
visibility restrictions, and unsuitability
for the offshore environment. The San
Pablo Bay safety zone provides an ideal
location for the Coast Guard to conduct
Use of Force training since it is at least
1.5 miles away from shore as well as a
safe distance from shipping lanes,
wildlife refuges, water trails and access
points.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The CG conducted Use of Force
training at this very same location in
San Pablo Bay on average twice a month
in 2009. The training went on as
planned, without incidents or
interference with public access, except
for one occasion where the CG
rescheduled one of its training sessions
to avoid potential interference with a
San Francisco Flyway Festival birdwatching group.
On July 29, 2009, the CG sent an
email to various potentially interested
parties including BCDC informing those
parties of our intention to prepare a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination
under NEPA for the establishment of a
safety zone for Use of Force training in
San Pablo Bay. In January 2010, in a
letter to the CG, the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission raised concerns about the
possible ‘‘effect on both motorized and
non-motorized recreational boat traffic,
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and on wildlife habitat that San
Francisco Bay supports, especially the
habitat of both migratory and nonmigratory waterfowl as well as that of
the wide variety of fish species’’ and
requested the CG prepare a Consistency
Determination or Negative
Determination. In December and
January, the CG received comments
from the San Francisco Bay Joint
Venture and Audubon California that
addressed possible disturbances to
waterfowl and referenced a study by the
USGS confirming foraging areas in San
Pablo Bay are used by diving ducks. In
the Consistency Determination, the
USGS was contacted and determined
that the proposed area is too deep to
affect any shorebirds. Additionally, a
response from FWS reveals that the
proposed safety zone is not expected to
have any impacts on any of the
endangered species in the San Pablo
Bay that are under the jurisdiction of the
FWS.
In December 2010, the CG completed
and sent the Consistency Determination
to BCDC that determined the proposed
safety zone and AUF training in San
Pablo Bay is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of BCDC’s San Francisco Bay
Plan. BCDC concurred with this
determination in December 2010 and
determined it was ‘‘complete’’ and
acceptable.
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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
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.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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.
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25549
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
25550
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of
the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general
regulations in § 165.23, entry into,
transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
representative to obtain permission to
do so. Vessel operators given permission
to enter or operate in the safety zone
must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative. Persons and
vessels may request permission to enter
the safety zone on VHF–16 or the
24-hour Command Center via telephone
at (415) 399–3547.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Francisco.
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. The rule
involves establishing a safety zone. An
environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are
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
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
■
■
[FR Doc. 2011–10930 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
2. Add § 165.1184 to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
§ 165–1184 Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use
of Force Training Exercises, San Pablo Bay,
CA
(a) Location. This safety zone will
apply to the navigable waters in the San
Pablo Bay, and will encompass an area
beginning at position 38°01′44″ N,
122°27′06″ W; 38°04′36″ N, 122°22′06″
W; 38°00′35″ N, 122°26′07″ W;
38°03′00″ N, 122°20′20″ W (NAD 83)
and back to the starting point.
(b) Enforcement. The Coast Guard will
notify the public via a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners prior to the activation of
this safety zone. The safety zone will be
activated on average two times per
month, but could be activated up to six
times per month. It will be in effect for
approximately three hours from 9 a.m.
to 11:59 p.m. If the exercises conclude
prior to the scheduled termination time,
the Coast Guard will cease enforcement
of this safety zone and will announce
that fact via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. Persons and vessels may also
contact the Coast Guard to determine
the status of the safety zone on VHF–16
or the 24-hour Command Center via
telephone at (415) 399–3547.
(c) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 482 and 485
[CMS–3227–F]
RIN 0938–AQ05
Medicare and Medicaid Programs:
Changes Affecting Hospital and
Critical Access Hospital Conditions of
Participation: Telemedicine
Credentialing and Privileging
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule will revise the
conditions of participation (CoPs) for
both hospitals and critical access
hospitals (CAHs). The final rule will
implement a new credentialing and
privileging process for physicians and
practitioners providing telemedicine
services. Currently, a hospital or CAH
receiving telemedicine services must go
through a burdensome credentialing and
privileging process for each physician
and practitioner who will be providing
telemedicine services to its patients.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This final rule will remove this undue
hardship and financial burden.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
are effective on July 5, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR
Scott Cooper, USPHS, (410) 786–9465.
Jeannie Miller, (410) 786–3164.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This final rule reflects the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services’
commitment to the general principles of
the President’s Executive Order released
January 18, 2011, entitled ‘‘Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ The
rule revises the conditions of
participation (CoPs) for both hospitals
and critical access hospitals (CAHs) to:
(1) Make current Federal requirements
more flexible for rural and/or small
hospitals and for CAHs; and (2)
encourage innovative approaches to
patient-service delivery.
CMS regulations currently require a
hospital to have a credentialing and
privileging process for all physicians
and practitioners providing services to
its patients. The regulations require a
hospital’s governing body to appoint all
practitioners to its hospital medical staff
and to grant privileges using the
recommendations of its medical staff. In
turn, the hospital medical staff must use
a credentialing and privileging process,
provided for in CMS regulations, to
make its recommendations. CMS
requirements do not take into account
those practitioners providing only
telemedicine services to patients.
Consequently, hospitals apply the
credentialing and privileging
requirements as if all practitioners were
onsite. This traditional and limited
approach fails to embrace new methods
and technologies for service delivery
that may improve patient access to high
quality care.
This final rule will permit hospitals
and CAHs to implement a new
credentialing and privileging process for
physicians and practitioners providing
telemedicine services. The removal of
unnecessary barriers to the use of
telemedicine may enable patients to
receive medically necessary
interventions in a more timely manner.
It may enhance patient follow-up in the
management of chronic disease
conditions. These revisions will provide
more flexibility to small hospitals and
CAHs in rural areas and regions with a
limited supply of primary care and
specialized providers. In certain
instances, telemedicine may be a costeffective alternative to traditional
service delivery approaches and, most
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25548-25550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10930]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0324]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training Exercises, San
Pablo Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone in San Pablo Bay
for Coast Guard Use of Force Training exercises. This safety zone will
be established to ensure the safety of the public and participating
crews from potential hazards associated with fast-moving Coast Guard
small boats and/or helicopters taking part in the exercise.
Unauthorized persons or vessels will be prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective June 6, 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-2009-0324 and are available online by going to
https://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0324 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is 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: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Simone Mausz, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco; telephone 415-399-7443, e-mail D11-PF-MarineEvents@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
On November 6, 2009, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training
Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA in the Federal Register (74 FR 214). We
received four comments on the proposed rule from the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Audubon California,
Beth Huning, and San Francisco Joint Venture. No public meetings were
requested or held as part of this rulemaking.
Basis and Purpose
The U.S. Coast Guard will establish a safety zone in the navigable
waters of the San Pablo Bay, California that will apply to the
navigable waters encompassing an area beginning at position
38[deg]01'44'' N, 122[deg]27'06'' W; 38[deg]04'36'' N, 122[deg]22'06''
W; 38[deg]00'35'' N, 122[deg]26'07'' W; 38[deg]03'00'' N,
122[deg]20'20'' W (NAD 83) and back to the starting point. U.S. Coast
Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team (MSST) San Francisco, U.S.
Coast Guard Air Station San Francisco, and various Coast Guard small
boat stations will be conducting Use of Force training runs in the
waters of San Pablo Bay. The exercises are designed to train and test
Coast Guard personnel in the decision-making processes necessary to
safely and effectively employ Use of Force from a small boat or
helicopter during Homeland Security operations. The training will
generally involve the use of several Coast Guard small boats and/or a
helicopter to intercept fast-moving, evasive target vessels on the
water. The small boat and helicopter crews will fire weapons at the
target vessels using blank ammunition and catch bags to ensure that
cartridges and other debris do not fall to the water. This safety zone
is issued to establish a restricted area in San Pablo Bay around the
training site.
Background
The CG's primary missions include homeland security, search and
rescue, and drug and environmental enforcement, and it is in the public
interest for CG personnel to be trained and ready to serve the public
at all times. Among the homeland security missions is port security
training to develop the tactical qualifications and expertise necessary
to fulfill this mission requirement. The small boats that conduct port
security operations throughout San Francisco Bay are unable to conduct
such training offshore due to conditions that often exceed the assets'
operational parameters, frequent visibility restrictions, and
unsuitability for the offshore environment. The San Pablo Bay safety
zone provides an ideal location for the Coast Guard to conduct Use of
Force training since it is at least 1.5 miles away from shore as well
as a safe distance from shipping lanes, wildlife refuges, water trails
and access points.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The CG conducted Use of Force training at this very same location
in San Pablo Bay on average twice a month in 2009. The training went on
as planned, without incidents or interference with public access,
except for one occasion where the CG rescheduled one of its training
sessions to avoid potential interference with a San Francisco Flyway
Festival bird-watching group.
On July 29, 2009, the CG sent an email to various potentially
interested parties including BCDC informing those parties of our
intention to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination under NEPA for the establishment of a safety
zone for Use of Force training in San Pablo Bay. In January 2010, in a
letter to the CG, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission raised concerns about the possible ``effect on both
motorized and non-motorized recreational boat traffic,
[[Page 25549]]
and on wildlife habitat that San Francisco Bay supports, especially the
habitat of both migratory and non-migratory waterfowl as well as that
of the wide variety of fish species'' and requested the CG prepare a
Consistency Determination or Negative Determination. In December and
January, the CG received comments from the San Francisco Bay Joint
Venture and Audubon California that addressed possible disturbances to
waterfowl and referenced a study by the USGS confirming foraging areas
in San Pablo Bay are used by diving ducks. In the Consistency
Determination, the USGS was contacted and determined that the proposed
area is too deep to affect any shorebirds. Additionally, a response
from FWS reveals that the proposed safety zone is not expected to have
any impacts on any of the endangered species in the San Pablo Bay that
are under the jurisdiction of the FWS.
In December 2010, the CG completed and sent the Consistency
Determination to BCDC that determined the proposed safety zone and AUF
training in San Pablo Bay is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of BCDC's San Francisco Bay
Plan. BCDC concurred with this determination in December 2010 and
determined it was ``complete'' and acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
[[Page 25550]]
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. The rule involves establishing a
safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are 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 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.1184 to read as follows:
Sec. 165-1184 Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training
Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA
(a) Location. This safety zone will apply to the navigable waters
in the San Pablo Bay, and will encompass an area beginning at position
38[deg]01'44'' N, 122[deg]27'06'' W; 38[deg]04'36'' N, 122[deg]22'06''
W; 38[deg]00'35'' N, 122[deg]26'07'' W; 38[deg]03'00'' N,
122[deg]20'20'' W (NAD 83) and back to the starting point.
(b) Enforcement. The Coast Guard will notify the public via a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners prior to the activation of this safety
zone. The safety zone will be activated on average two times per month,
but could be activated up to six times per month. It will be in effect
for approximately three hours from 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. If the
exercises conclude prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast
Guard will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that
fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Persons and vessels may also
contact the Coast Guard to determine the status of the safety zone on
VHF-16 or the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at (415) 399-3547.
(c) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec. 165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and
vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or
the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at (415) 399-3547.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-10930 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
