Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56537 

recognize gain on the section 361 

exchange with respect to DP2, DP2’s 

share of inside gain is not reduced 

under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this 

section. DP2’s $10x outside gain equals 

the product of the section 367(a) 

percentage (100%) and the amount by 

which the fair market value ($60x) of 

the FA stock received by DP2 in 

exchange for its DC stock is greater than 

the section 358 basis of such stock 

($50x). As adjusted, DP2’s basis in its 

FA stock is $33x.’’. 

7. On page 49294, column 2, 

§ 1.367(a)–7(g) Example 2. (ii)(D), line 3 

from the bottom of the paragraph, the 

language ‘‘FP stock received by DP1 

($180x) exceeds the’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘FP stock received by DP1($180x) is 

greater than the’’. 

8. On page 49294, column 3, 

§ 1.367(a)-7(g) Example 3. (ii)(D), line 2 

from the bottom of the paragraph, the 

language ‘‘by DP1 ($200x) exceeds the 

section 358 basis’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘by DP1 ($200x) is greater than the 

section 358 basis’’. 

§ 1.1248(f)–2 [Corrected] 

9. On page 49301, column 1, 

§ 1.1248(f)–2(d) Example 2. (ii)(E), lines 

11 through 28, the language ‘‘percentage 

(100%) and the excess of the fair market 

value of the FA stock received by DP1 

($200x) over the section 358 basis of 

such stock ($180x). As adjusted, DP1’s 

basis in the FA stock is $30x. Similarly, 

DP2’s section 358 basis ($100x) in the 

FA stock received in the section 361 

distribution is reduced by $82x, the 

amount by which DP2’s 30% share of 

inside gain ($102x) exceeds DP1’s $20x 

outside gain. DP2’s share of inside gain 

is not reduced under § 1.367(a)– 

7(c)(2)(ii) because DC did not recognize 

gain with respect to DP2. DP2’s $20x 

outside gain equals the product of the 

section 367(a) percentage (100%) and 

the excess of the fair market value of the 

FA stock received by DP2 ($120x) over 

the section 358 basis of such stock 

($100x). As adjusted, DP2’s basis in the’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘percentage (100%) 

and the amount by which the fair 

market value of the FA stock received 

by DP1 ($200x) is greater than the 

section 358 basis of such stock ($180x). 

As adjusted, DP1’s basis in the FA stock 

is $30x. Similarly, DP2’s section 358 

basis ($100x) in the FA stock received 

in the section 361 distribution is 

reduced by $82x, the amount by which 

DP2’s 30% share of inside gain ($102x) 

exceeds DP1’s $20x outside gain. DP2’s 

share of inside gain is not reduced 

under § 1.367(a)–7(c)(2)(ii) because DC 

did not recognize gain with respect to 

DP2. DP2’s $20x outside gain equals the 

product of the section 367(a) percentage 

(100%) and the amount by which the 

fair market value of the FA stock 

received by DP2 ($120x) is greater than 

the section 358 basis of such stock 

($100x). As adjusted, DP2’s basis in 

the’’. 

10. On page 49301, column 2, 

§ 1.1248(f)–2(d) Example 2. (ii)(H), first 

line of the column, the language ‘‘DP1, 

DP2 and FA in the section 361’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘DP1, DP2 and FP in 

the section 361’’. 

11. On page 49302, column 3, 

§ 1.1248(f)–2(d) Example 4. (ii)(C), line 

6 from the bottom of the paragraph, the 

language ‘‘of CFC1 stock exceeds DP1’s 

section 358’’ is corrected to read ‘‘of 

CFC1 stock is greater than DP1’s section 

358’’. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. E8–22820 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0744] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the enforcement 

period for special local regulations 

during the ‘‘Tug-of-War’’, a marine 

event held annually on the waters of 

Spa Creek between Eastport and 

Annapolis, Maryland. 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 of Spa Creek during the event. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0744 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Ronald Houck, Marine 

Information Specialist, Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore, telephone 410–576– 

2674. If you have questions on viewing 

or submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0744), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

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. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
56538 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0744) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays; or the Fifth Coast Guard 

District, Prevention Division, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA, 23704 

between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act, system of records notice regarding 

our public dockets in the January 17, 

2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 

FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility 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 

Annually, the City of Annapolis 

sponsors the ‘‘Tug-of-War’’, across the 

waters of Spa Creek between Eastport 

and Annapolis, Maryland. The event 

consists of a tug of war between teams 

on the Eastport side of Spa Creek 

pulling against teams on the Annapolis 

side of Spa Creek. The opposing teams 

will pull a floating rope approximately 

1,700 feet in length, spanning Spa 

Creek. A fleet of spectator vessels is 

anticipated. The regulation at 33 CFR 

100.501 is effective annually for the 

Tug-of-War marine event. The table to 

§ 100.501, event No. 29 establishes the 

enforcement date for the Tug-of-War. 

This regulation proposes to temporarily 

change the enforcement date from 

‘‘October—last Saturday or November 

first Saturday’’ to the second Saturday 

in November, holding the marine event 

on November 8, 2008. The City of 

Annapolis who is the sponsor for this 

event intends to hold this event 

annually; however, they have changed 

the date of the event for 2008 so that it 

is outside the scope of the existing 

enforcement period. Due to the need for 

vessel control while the rope is spanned 

across Spa Creek, vessel traffic would be 

temporarily restricted to provide for the 

safety of participants, spectators and 

transiting vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily suspend the regulations at 

33 CFR 100.501 by changing the date of 

enforcement in the table to § 100.501 to 

reflect the event will be conducted in 

2008 on the second Saturday in 

November, November 8, 2008. This 

proposed change is needed to 

accommodate the sponsor’s schedule. 

The special local regulations will be 

enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on 

November 8, 2008, and will restrict 

general navigation in the regulated area 

during the marine event. 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. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. 

Although this proposed rule prevents 

traffic from transiting a portion of Spa 

Creek during the event, the effect of this 

regulation will not be significant due to 

the limited duration that the regulated 

area will be in effect and the extensive 

advance notifications that will be made 

to the maritime community via marine 

information broadcasts, local radio 

stations and area newspapers so 

mariners can adjust their plans 

accordingly. Additionally, the proposed 

regulated area has been narrowly 

tailored to impose the least impact on 

general navigation yet provide the level 

of safety deemed necessary. Vessel 

traffic will be able to transit the 

regulated area 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 rule will effect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in a portion of Spa Creek 

during the event. 

This proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. This rule will be 

in effect for only a 4-hour period. Vessel 

traffic will be able to transit the 

regulated area when the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do 

so. Before the enforcement period, we 

will 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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56539 

compliance, please contact Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the 

beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

proposed 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 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. 

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 Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 5100.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, 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 

under the Instruction that this action is 

not likely to have a significant effect on 

the human environment. An 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

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. In § 100.501, from October 24, 2008 

to November 15, 2008, suspend line No. 

29 in the Table to § 100.501. 

3. In § 100.501, from 10:30 a.m. to 

2:30 p.m., on November 8, 2008, add 

line No. 58 in Table to § 100.501 to read 

as follows: 

§ 100.501 Special Local Regulations; 

Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

* * * * * 

Table to § 100.501 

All coordinates listed in the Table to 

§ 100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
56540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

COAST GUARD SECTOR BALTIMORE—COTP ZONE

Number Date Event Sponsor Location 

* * * * * * * 

58 ........... November 8, 

2008.

Tug of War ......... City of Annapolis The waters of Spa Creek from shoreline to shoreline, extending 400 

feet from either side of a rope spanning Spa Creek from a position at 

latitude 38°58′36.9′′ N, longitude 076°29′03.8′′ W on the Annapolis 

shoreline to a position at latitude 38°58′26.4′′ N, longitude 

076°28′53.7′′ W on the Eastport shoreline. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 18, 2008. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E8–22442 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 07–114; DA 08–2129] 

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission sought comment on 

proposals in certain ex parte filings 

submitted by the Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials, 

International (APCO), the National 

Emergency Number Association 

(NENA), AT&T, Sprint Nextel 

Corporation, and Verizon Wireless 

regarding location accuracy 

requirements for wireless licensees 

subject to the Commission’s rules that 

specify standards for wireless Enhanced 

911 (E911) Phase II location accuracy 

and reliability. The proposed rule stated 

that ‘‘Comments are due October 6, 2008 

by 12 p.m. Reply Comments are due 

October 14, 2008 by 12 p.m.’’ Only 

Reply Comments are due by 12 p.m. 

Comments are due on October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Beers, Chief, Policy Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, at (202) 418–0952. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of September 

25, 2008, in FR Doc. E8–22645, on page 

55473, in the first column, correct the 

DATES caption to read: 

DATES: Comments are due October 6, 

2008. Reply Comments are due October 

14, 2008 by 12 p.m. 

Thomas J. Beers, 

Division Chief, Policy, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E8–22932 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS