[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34645-34647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12167]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Diego 02-008]
RIN 2115-AA97


Safety Zone; Colorado River, Laughlin, NV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone near 
Laughlin, NV on the navigable waters of the Colorado River for the 
Laughlin 4th of July fireworks show. The safety zone would encompass 
that portion of the Colorado River between Laughlin Bridge and the 
Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino. This temporary safety zone is necessary 
to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants of the 
event, participating vessels and other vessels and users of the 
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, 
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless 
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated 
representative.

[[Page 34646]]


DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety 
Office San Diego, 2716 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-1064. 
Marine Safety Office San Diego Port Operations 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 [COTP San 
Diego 02-008] and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine 
Safety Office San Diego, 2716 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-1064 
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Austin Murai at (619) 
683-6495.

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 [COTP San 
Diego 02-008], 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 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would 
like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material 
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in 
view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office San Diego Port 
Operations 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

    This proposed temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the 
safety of the crew, spectators, and participants of the 4th of July 
fireworks show. This proposed safety zone is also necessary to protect 
other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels would be 
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within 
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his 
designated representative.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed safety zone encompasses that portion of the Colorado 
River between Laughlin Bridge and the Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino. 
We are proposing to enforce this safety zone from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 
on July 4, 2002. The on scene Captain of the Port designated 
representative is expected to be a Coast Guard patrol commander. This 
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the 
participants, spectators, and sponsor vessels of the Laughlin 4th of 
July fireworks show.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    Because of its limited duration, of one half (1/2) hour, we expect 
the economic impact of this proposed rule would be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
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. The proposed safety zone would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it will be in effect for only half (1/2) an hour on July 4, 
2002.
    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 Petty Officer Austin Murai, 
Marine Safety Office San Diego at (619) 683-6495.

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,

[[Page 34647]]

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

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 does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this proposed rule, a safety zone, is 
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    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:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. From 9 p.m. on July 4, 2002 to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2002, add a 
new Sec. 165.T11-040 to read as follows:


Sec. 165.T11-040  Safety Zone; Colorado River, Laughlin, NV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: that portion of 
the Colorado River between Laughlin Bridge and the Golden Nugget Hotel 
and Casino.
    (b) Enforcement periods. This section is effective from 9 p.m. on 
July 4th, 2002 to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2002.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 
Sec. 165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through or anchoring 
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast 
Guard Captain of the Port, San Diego, or his designated representative.

    Dated: April 22, 2002.
S.P. Metruck,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. 02-12167 Filed 5-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U