Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
See the "Public Participation and Request for Comments" portion of the
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The Coast Guard is amending this rule because the current regulation associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show performance (33 CFR 165.1319) is not large enough to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high speed aircraft.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this safety zone to ensure the safety of the maritime public during the Seattle Blue Angels Air Show. The size of the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 has been determined to be inadequate to accommodate the anticipated flight pattern of the Blue Angels, and the current regulation is not large enough to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high speed aircraft. This proposed rule would extend the northern boundary line of the existing regulation northward by 500 yards, and updates coordinates to provide a zone of adequate size.
As described in the June 24, 2004 final rule (69 FR 35249), the Coast Guard established a safety zone for the annual Blue Angels Air Show Performance. The purpose of this rule was to protect the public from dangers including excessive noise and falling objects from any potential accidents caused by these low-flying military aircraft. The regulation contained in 33 CFR 165.1319 encompasses “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; 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]”
However, the participating aircraft have a flight pattern that will extend past the northern boundary of the regulation in 33 CFR 156.1319. As such, an extension is necessary in order to protect the spectating public.
This rule amends the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance Safety Zone, extending the northern boundary starting at point 47°36′17.28″ N, 122°16′49.44″ W; thence west to point 47°36′17.28″ N, 122°16′58.56″ W; thence south along the shoreline to point 47°35′25.44″ N, 122°17′9.48″ W; thence east along the I-90 bridge to point 47°35′23.16″ N, 122°15′17.1″ W; thence north east along the shoreline to point
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the safety zone will be in place for a limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zone from the (COTP), Puget Sound or a Designated Representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it is in effect. The rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone would be in place for limited periods of time and maritime traffic would still be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget Sound or a Designated Representative.
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
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. 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
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 (adjusted for inflation) 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.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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.
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.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 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 that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the amendment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
2. Amend § 165.1319 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: