Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 6219

to read the questions on-line and submit 

your answers and comments 

electronically. We will participate in the 

discussion throughout the 2-week forum 

and may ask you clarifying questions. 

While we have selected topics that we 

are particularly interested in, we still 

welcome all of your comments and 

suggestions. We will not make any 

commitments or draw any conclusions 

while the docket is open for public 

comment.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 5, 

2004. 

Anthony F. Fazio, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 04–2911 Filed 2–6–04; 11:13 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD13–04–002] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone Regulations, Seafair Blue 

Angels Air Show Performance, Lake 

Washington, WA

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 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.

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 lowflying 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. 

6220 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 Safety Zone Regulations, 

Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, 

Seattle, WA. 

(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; 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD01–03–025] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Coast Guard Station Fire 

Island, Fire Island, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a safety zone in the waters 

adjacent to Coast Guard Station Fire 

Island, Fire Island, New York. This 

proposed zone would ensure safety of 

the boating community and Coast Guard 

vessels when prompt response is 

needed for Coast Guard vessels to 

respond to mariners’ or other requests 

for assistance. This zone would exclude 

all vessels from operating within the 

prescribed safety zone without first 

obtaining authorization from the 

Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Waterways 

Management, Coast Guard Group/

Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound, 

120 Woodward Avenue, New Haven, CT 

06512. Coast Guard Group/MSO Long 

Island 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 Group/MSO Long Island 

Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways 

Management Officer, Coast Guard 

Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island 

Sound at (203) 468–4429.

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 (CGD01–03–025), 

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 if your submission 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 Coast Guard 

Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island 

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 

United States Coast Guard Station 

(STA) Fire Island is located in Babylon, 

New York, on the northern shore of Fire 

Island, Long Island, New York. The 

waters north of Station, Fire Island Inlet, 

attract numerous recreational and small 

charter fishing vessels each year from 

May through October. Throughout the 

summer months and fishing season, the 

waters immediately surrounding the 

Station and within a quarter mile radius 

of the Station become heavily congested 

with vessels, mainly consisting of 

recreational boaters. The accumulation 

of vessels immediately in front of the 

station present a continuous hindrance 

to the safety of Coast Guard vessels 

responding to search and rescue or other 

maritime emergencies, and hamper their 

ability to respond expeditiously. The 

proposed zone would be established by 

reference to coordinates, representing an 

area approximately 100 yards seaward 

from STA Fire Island vessels, facilities 

and property. 

The proposed zone has been tailored 

to fit the needs of safety, while 

minimizing the impact on the maritime 

community. All coordinates are North 

American Datum 1983. 

No person or vessel would be 

permitted to enter or remain in a 

prescribed safety zone for any time 

without the permission of the COTP. 

Each person or vessel in the proposed 

safety zone would be required to obey 

any direction or order of the COTP. Any 

violation of the proposed safety zone 

described herein, would be punishable 

by, among others, civil penalties (not to 

exceed $32,500 per violation, where 

each day of a continuing violation is a 

separate violation), criminal penalties 

(imprisonment for not more than 6 years 

and a fine of not more than $250,000), 

in rem liability against the offending 

vessel, or license sanctions. This 

regulation is proposed under the 

authority contained in 33 U.S.C. 1223 

and 1225 and the regulations 

promulgated thereunder. 

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 proposed 

regulation could have some impact on 

the public, but these potential impacts 

would be minimized because the 

proposed safety zone would encompass