Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD, 56537-56540 [E8-22442]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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’’. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS § 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 Sep 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 (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 Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 56537 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. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1 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). hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 Sep 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:34 Sep 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 56539 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. E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1 56540 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules COAST GUARD SECTOR BALTIMORE—COTP ZONE Number Date Event * 58 ........... November 8, 2008. * * * * * * Tug of War ......... * 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 Federal Communications Commission. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: 17:34 Sep 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 Location * City of Annapolis ACTION: 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] VerDate Aug<31>2005 Sponsor * * * 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM 29SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56537-56540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22442]


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

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 8\1/2\ 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.

[[Page 56538]]

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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  100.501, from October 24, 2008 to November 15, 2008, 
suspend line No. 29 in the Table to Sec.  100.501.
    3. In Sec.  100.501, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., on November 8, 
2008, add line No. 58 in Table to Sec.  100.501 to read as follows:


Sec.  100.501  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Fifth 
Coast Guard District.

* * * * *
Table to Sec.  100.501
    All coordinates listed in the Table to Sec.  100.501 reference 
Datum NAD 1983.

[[Page 56540]]



                                     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[deg]58'36.9'' N,
                                                                                        longitude
                                                                                        076[deg]29'03.8'' W on
                                                                                        the Annapolis shoreline
                                                                                        to a position at
                                                                                        latitude
                                                                                        38[deg]58'26.4'' N,
                                                                                        longitude
                                                                                        076[deg]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