Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the waters of the Columbia River in the vicinity of Vancouver, Washington that will be enforced every July 4. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon, is taking this action to safeguard watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with the fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective from June 27, 2003.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD13-03-001) and are available for inspection or copying at USCG MSO/Group Portland 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade Tad Drozdowski, Operations Department, at (503) 240-9370.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On February 14, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone Regulation; Fort Vancouver Fireworks Display, Columbia River, Washington in the Federal Register (68 FR 7471). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone to allow a safe fireworks display. This event may result in a number of vessels congregating near the fireworks launching barge. The safety zone is needed to protect watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with the fireworks display.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
No comments were received from the public regarding this proposed rule.
This 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 Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the proposed regulation will encompass less than one mile of the Columbia River for a period of only one and a half hours at night when vessel traffic is low.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 Start Printed Page 31610dominant 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the Columbia River from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. every July 4. This safety zone will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only one and a half hours in the evening when vessel traffic is low. Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives on scene, if safe to do so. Because the impacts of this proposal are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Request for comments and assistance was published in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no 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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 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 create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
We have analyzed this 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.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Section 165.1314 is added to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington bounded by a line commencing at the northern base of the Interstate 5 highway bridge at latitude 45°37″16.5′ N, longitude 122°40″22.5′' W; thence south along the Interstate 5 highway bridge to Hayden Island, Oregon at latitude 45°36″51.5′ N, longitude 122°40″39′ W; thence east along Hayden Island to latitude 45°36″36′ N, longitude 122°39″48′ W (not to include Hayden Bay); thence north across the river thru the preferred channel buoy, RG Fl(2+1)R 6s, to the Washington shoreline at latitude 45°37″1.5′ N, longitude 122°39″29′ W; thence west along the Start Printed Page 31611Washington shoreline to the point of origin.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this zone unless authorized by the Captain or the Port or his designated representatives.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced every July 4, from 9:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) to 11 p.m. (P.D.T.).
Dated: May 13, 2003.
Paul D. Jewell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 03-13236 Filed 5-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P