Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations for the “Virginia State Hydroplane Championship” hydroplane races held annually on the waters of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River at Portsmouth, Virginia. This action is necessary because the event will be held on April 21 and 22, 2007, instead of on April 27 and 28, 2007 as established by permanent regulation. This proposed rule is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Elizabeth River and is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 19, 2007.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398-6203. The Inspections and Investigation Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis M. Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at (757) 398-6204.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-013), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.
Background and Purpose
On April 21 and 22, 2007, Virginia Boat Racing Association will sponsor the “Virginia State Hydroplane Championship” hydroplane races on the waters of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River at Portsmouth, Virginia. The event will consist of approximately 75 hydroplane powerboats conducting high-speed competitive races on the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Portsmouth City Park, Portsmouth, Virginia. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.525 is effective annually for this marine event. Paragraph (c) of Section 100.525 establishes the enforcement date for the hydroplane races. This regulation proposes to temporarily change the regulation so that the event may be held on April 21 and 22, 2007 instead of the fourth Friday and following Saturday in April. The Virginia Boat Racing Association who is the sponsor for this event still intends to hold this event annually, however, this year they have requested a change in the date of the event for 2007. The change was requested to accommodate participation by all hydroplane participants. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators, support and transiting vessels, the Coast Guard proposes to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the hydroplane races.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend the regulations at 33 CFR 100.525 by temporarily revising the date of enforcement in paragraph (c) to reflect the event will be conducted in 2007 on the third Saturday and Sunday in April, April 21 and 22, 2007. This proposed change is needed to accommodate the sponsors hydroplane race schedule relative to the rotation of weekend dates in the annual calendar. The special local regulations will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 21 and 22, 2007, and will restrict navigation in the regulated area during the hydroplane races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the effective period. The regulated area is needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants and transiting vessels.
In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
This proposed 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed action merely establishes the Start Printed Page 9478date on which the existing regulation would be in effect and would not impose any new restrictions on vessel traffic.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would effect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River during the event.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would merely change the date on which the existing regulations would be enforced in the regulated area and would not impose any new restrictions on vessel traffic.
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.
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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 address listed under ADDRESSES. 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 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.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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.
Protection of Children
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.
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.
We have analyzed this proposed 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.
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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine event permit are specifically excluded from further Start Printed Page 9479analysis and documentation under that section.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100End List of Subjects
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:Start Part
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows:
2. In § 100.525, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 21 and 22, 2007, temporarily suspend paragraph (c).
3. In § 100.525, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 21 and 22, 2007, temporarily add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 21 and 22, 2007. A notice of enforcement of this section will be disseminated through the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners announcing the specific event date and times. Notice will also be made via marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz).
Dated: February 15, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-3638 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P