Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Safety Zone; Colorado River, Laughlin, NV

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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.

Start Printed 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.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petty Officer Austin Murai at (619) 683-6495.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

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 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 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, Start Printed Page 34647eliminate 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.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Start Part

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

Start Authority

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.

End Authority

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

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 § 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.

Start Signature

Dated: April 22, 2002.

S.P. Metruck,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.

End Signature End Part End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-12167 Filed 5-14-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U