18424 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Environment 

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 parade permit 

are specifically excluded from further 

analysis 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. 

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—REGATTAS AND MARINE 

PARADES 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary § 100.35–T05–031 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–031 York River, Yorktown, 

VA. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulated area 

includes the waters of the York River, 

Yorktown, Virginia, bounded on the 

west by a line drawn along longitude 

076°31′30′′ West, bounded on the east 

by a line drawn along longitude 

076°30′50′′ West, bounded on the south 

by the shoreline and bounded on the 

north by a line drawn parallel and 400 

yards north of the southern shoreline. 

All coordinates reference Datum NAD 

1983. 

(b) Definitions: The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

means a commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer of the Coast Guard who has 

been designated by the Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads 

with a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(3) Participant includes all vessels 

participating in the Watermen’s Heritage 

Festival Workboat races under the 

auspices of a Marine Event Permit 

issued to the event sponsor and 

approved by Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector Hampton Roads. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) 

Except for event participants and 

persons or vessels authorized by the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any Official Patrol. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official 

Patrol. 

(iii) When authorized to transit the 

regulated area, all vessels shall proceed 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course that minimizes 

wake near the race course. 

(d) Effective period: This section will 

enforced from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on 

July 15, 2007. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–6943 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[CGD05–07–027] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Pasquotank River, Elizabeth 

City, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish special local regulations for 

the ‘‘Carolina Cup Regatta’’, a power 

boat race to be held on the waters of the 

Pasquotank River, Elizabeth City, North 

Carolina. These special local regulations 

are necessary to provide for the safety of 

life on navigable waters during the 

event. This action is intended to restrict 

vessel traffic in portions on the 

Pasquotank River adjacent to Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina during the power 

boat race. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

Fifth Coast Guard District (dpi), 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, fax 

them to (757)391–8149, or e-mail them 

to Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil. The 

Inspections and Investigations 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: 

CWO Humphrey, Marine Event 

Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector North 

Carolina at (252)247–4525. 

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 [CGD05–07–027], 

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 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18425 

Background and Purpose 

On June 9 and 10, 2007, the Virginia 

Boat Racing Association will sponsor 

the ‘‘Carolina Cup Regatta’’, on the 

waters of the Pasquotank River. The 

event will consist of approximately 60 

inboard hydroplanes racing in heats 

counter clockwise around an oval race 

course. A fleet of spectator vessels is 

anticipated to gather nearby to view the 

competition. Due to the need for vessel 

control during the event, vessel traffic 

will be temporarily restricted to provide 

for the safety of participants, spectators 

and transiting vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard purposes to establish 

temporary special local regulations on 

specified waters on the Pasquotank 

River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North 

Carolina. The regulated area includes a 

section of the Pasquotank River 

approximately one mile long and 

bounded in width by each shoreline. 

This rule would be enforced from 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m. on June 9 and 10, 2007, and 

would restrict general navigation in the 

regulated area during the power boat 

race. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, 

when practical would allow the passage 

of vessels when races are not taking 

place. Except for participants and 

vessels authorized by the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander, no person or vessel 

would be allowed to enter or remain in 

the regulated area during the 

enforcement period. 

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. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. Although this proposed 

regulation would prevent traffic from 

transiting a portion of the Pasquotank 

River adjacent to Elizabeth City, North 

Carolina during the event, the effects of 

this regulation would not be significant 

due to the limited duration that the 

regulated area would be in effect. 

Extensive advance notifications would 

be made to the maritime community via 

Local Notice to Mariners, marine 

information broadcast, and area 

newspapers, so mariners can adjust 

their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic 

would be able to transit the regulated 

area between heats, when the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander deems it is 

safe to do so. 

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 will affect 

the following entities, some of which 

may be small entities: the owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

this section of the Pasquotank River 

during the event. 

This purposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. This rule will be 

enforced for only a short period, from 7 

a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 9 and 10, 2007. 

The regulated area will apply to a 

segment of the Pasquotank River 

adjacent to the Elizabeth City 

waterfront. Marine traffic may be 

allowed to pass through the regulated 

area with the permission of the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. In the case 

where the Patrol Commander authorizes 

passage through the regulated area 

during the event, vessels will be 

required to proceed at the minimum 

speed necessary to maintain a safe 

course that minimizes wake near the 

race course. Before the enforcement 

period, we would issue maritime 

advisories so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. 

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 Coast 

Guard at 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.). 

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 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
18426 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 70 / Thursday, April 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

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, we believe that 

this rule should be 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. 

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. 

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. 

2. Add temporary § 100.35–T05–027 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–027 Pasquotank River, 

Elizabeth City, NC. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulated area 

is established for the waters of the 

Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth 

City, NC, from shoreline to shoreline, 

bounded on the west by the Elizabeth 

City Draw Bridge and bounded on the 

east by a line originating at a point along 

the shoreline at latitude 36°17′54′′ N., 

longitude 076°12′00′′ W., thence 

southwesterly to latitude 36°17′35′′ N., 

longitude 076°12′18′′ W. at Cottage 

Point. All coordinates reference Datum 

NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the Coast 

Guard who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector North 

Carolina. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with 

a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(3) Participant includes all vessels 

participating in the ‘‘Carolina Cup 

Regatta’’ under the auspices of the 

Marine Event Permit issued to the event 

sponsor and approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. 

(c) Special Local Regulations. (1) 

Except for event participants and 

persons or vessels authorized by the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any Official Patrol 

and then proceed only as directed. 

(ii) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Official Patrol. 

(iii) When authorized to transit the 

regulated area, all vessels shall proceed 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course that minimizes 

wake near the race course. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

on June 9 and 10, 2007. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–6939 Filed 4–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0787–200621(b); 

FRL–8297–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Approval of Revisions to the Knox 

County Portion of the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), on August 18, 

1999 and July 16, 2001. The revisions 

pertain to the Knox County portion of 

the Tennessee SIP and include changes 

to the Knox County Air Quality 

Regulations Section 51.0—Standards for 

Cement Kilns. These standards set 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions 

control, compliance demonstration, 

certification, record keeping, and 

reporting requirements for Portland 

cement kilns in the County. The 

revisions were initially reviewed by 

TDEC, which found them to be as 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS