[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 3, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9984-9986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD05-04-024]
RIN 1625-AA08


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Norfolk Harbor, 
Elizabeth River, Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the special local 
regulations established for marine events held annually in the Norfolk 
Harbor, Elizabeth River, between Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia by 
changing the date on which the regulations are in effect for the marine 
event ``Cock Island Race''. This action is intended to restrict vessel 
traffic in portions of the Elizabeth River during the start of the Cock 
Island Race. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life 
on navigable waters during the event.

[[Page 9985]]


DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, 
Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 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 Auxiliary and Recreational 
Boating Safety 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. L. Phillips, Project Manager, 
Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398-6204.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 (CGD05-04-
024), 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 
8\1/2\ 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.

Public Meeting

    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

    The regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 are effective annually for the 
duration of each marine event listed in Table 1 of Section 100.501. 
Table 1 lists the effective date for the Cock Island Race as the third 
Saturday in July. For the past several years the event has been held on 
the third Saturday in June. The sponsor intends to hold this event 
annually on the third Saturday in June.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 
by changing the date on which the regulations are in effect for the 
Cock Island Race from annually on the third Saturday in July to 
annually on the third Saturday in June. This proposed change is needed 
to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of 
participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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 changes the date on which the existing regulations would 
be in effect and would not impose any new restrictions on vessel 
traffic.

Small Entities

    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 affect 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 
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 in effect 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

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).

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 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

[[Page 9986]]

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 proposed 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.

Energy Effects

    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.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, 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 parade permit are specifically 
excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  100.501 by revising Table 1 to read as follows:


Sec.  100.501  Norfolk Harbor, Elizabeth River, Norfolk and Portsmouth, 
VA.

* * * * *

Table 1 of Sec.  100.501

Harborfest
    Sponsor: Norfolk Harborfest, Inc.
    Date: First Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in June
Great American Picnic
    Sponsor: Festevents, Inc.
    Date: July 4
Cock Island Race
    Sponsor: Ports Events, Inc.
    Date: Third Saturday in June
Rendezvous at Zero Mile Marker
    Sponsor: Ports Events, Inc.
    Date: Third Saturday in August
U.S. Navy Fleet Week Celebration
    Sponsor: U.S. Navy
    Date: Second Friday in October
Holidays in the City
    Sponsor: Festevents, Inc.
    Date: Fourth Saturday in November
New Years Eve Fireworks Display
    Sponsor: Festevents, Inc.
    Date: December 31

    Dated: February 9, 2004.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-4647 Filed 3-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P