Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 165
          - [CGD13-04-002]
          - RIN 1625-AA00

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

# SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives.

# DATES:

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2004.

# ADDRESSES:

You may mail comments and related material to Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, Washington 98134. Marine Safety Office Puget Sound 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 Marine Safety Office Puget Sound between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT J. Argudo, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, (206) 217-6232.

# 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 (CGD13-04-002), 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 Marine Safety Office Puget Sound at the address 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 Coast Guard has issued temporary final rules establishing safety zones in the past for the Blue Angels Seafair Air Show Performance (                    *see, e.g.*, 68 FR 44888, July 31, 2003 (CGD13-03-023), 33 CFR 165T.13-014). The Blue Angels air show has become a permanent part of the Seafair events and takes place during the Seafair unlimited hydroplane races. The air show poses several dangers to the public including excessive noise and objects falling from any accidents by low flying aircraft. Permanent regulations already exist which restrict general navigation during the Seafair unlimited hydroplane races (33 CFR 100.1301). The proposed rule complements the existing regulations contained in 33 CFR 100.1301, which are intended to ensure public safety during Seafair.                 

## Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes establishing a permanent safety zone on the waters of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington, for the Seafair Blue Angels Performance. The Coast Guard, in consultation with the U.S. Navy and Federal Aviation Administration has determined it is necessary to close the area in the vicinity of the air show in order to minimize the dangers that low-flying aircraft present to persons and vessels. These dangers include, but are not limited to excessive noise and the risk of falling objects from any accidents associated with low flying aircraft. In the event that an aircraft(s) requires emergency assistance, rescuers must have immediate and unencumbered access to the aircraft. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area of the Blue Angels air show. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this safety zone. 

## 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. 

This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the proposed regulation would encompass an area near the middle of Lake Washington, not frequented by commercial navigation. The safety zone is also of limited time and duration. The regulation is established for the benefit and safety of the recreational boating public, and any negative recreational boating impact is offset by the benefits of allowing the Blue Angels to fly. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact. 

## 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.                           ( print page 6220)    

                    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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of Lake Washington during the time this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact due to its short duration and small area. The only vessels likely to be impacted will be recreational boaters and small passenger vessel operators. The event is held for the benefit and entertainment of those above categories. Because the impacts of this proposal are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601*et seq.*) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.                 

                    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 (Public Law 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 person listed in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section.                 

## 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 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. 

## 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)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. The environmental analysis and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket for inspection and copying where indicated under                     **ADDRESSES.**                     All standard environmental measures remain in effect.                 

# List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

      - Harbors
      - Marine safety
      - Navigation (water)
      - Reporting and record keeping 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; 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 

2. Add § 165.1319 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1319

                            (a)                             *Enforcement period.*                             This section will be enforced annually during the last week in July and the first two weeks of August from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time each day during the event. The event will be one week or less in duration. The specific event dates during this time frame will be published in the                             **Federal Register**                            .                         

                            (b)                             *Location.*                             The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake Washington, Washington State, enclosed by the following points: Near the termination of Roanoke Way 47°35′44″ N, 122°14′47″ W; thence to 47°35′48″ N, 122°15′45″ W; thence to 47°36′02.1″N, 122°15′50.2″ W; thence to 47°35′56.6″ N, 122°16′29.2″ W;                                   ( print page 6221)                                thence to 47°35′42″ N, 122°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°33′06″ N, 122°15′32″ W; thence northeast along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast point at 47°33′44″ N, 122°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]                         

                            (c)                             *Regulations.*                             In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except for support vessels and support personnel, vessels registered with the event organizer, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.                         

Dated: January 16, 2004. 

Danny Ellis, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 04-2748 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P