Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ June
/ Friday, June 06, 2003
[Federal Register: June 6, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 109)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33894-33896]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn03-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13-03-013]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Columbia River, Astoria, OR
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone for an
annual fireworks display on the waters of the Columbia River in the
vicinity of Astoria, Oregon. 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.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard by July
7, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast
Guard MSO/Group Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, Oregon 97217.
U.S. Coast Guard Group/MSO Portland 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 and will be available for
inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard MSO/Group Portland, 6767 N.
Basin Ave, Portland, OR 97217 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Tad
Drozdowski, at (503) 240-9370.
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 (CGD13-03-
013), 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 U.S. Coast Guard Group/MSO Portland
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
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone regulation to allow a
safe annual fireworks display. The fireworks will occur annually on the
second Saturday in August. This event will result in a number of
vessels congregating near the fireworks launching area. The safety zone
is needed to provide for the safety of the spectators and their
watercraft from the inherent safety hazards associated with the
fireworks display. Without providing an adequate safety zone, the
public could be exposed to falling burning debris within blast range
should a catastrophic accident occur on the launching barge. This
safety zone will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the
Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by
other federal and local agencies. The Cost Guard plans to publish a
notice of implementation at least 30 days prior to the event.
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
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule 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 rule would encompass
less than one mile of the Columbia River for a period of only one hour,
annually.
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
[[Page 33895]]
would 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 during the one
hour fireworks display. 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 hour,
annually, 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 rule 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 rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 LTJG Tad Drozdowski at (503)
240-2584.
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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 because the safety zone would not last
longer than one week in duration. A draft ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' and a draft ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on
this section will be considered before we make the final decision on
whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further
environmental review.
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 amends
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 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.
2. Section 165.13-1316 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1316 Safety Zone; Columbia River Astoria, Oregon
(a) Location. All waters of the Columbia River at Astoria, Oregon
enclosed by the following points: North from the Oregon shoreline at
123[deg]49'36'' West to 46[deg]11' 51'' North, thence east to
123[deg]48'53'' West, thence south to the Oregon shoreline and finally
westerly along the Oregon Shoreline to the point of origin.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations Sec.
165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this
zone unless authorized
[[Page 33896]]
by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.
(c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on the second
Saturday of August from 9:30 p.m. (PDT) to 10:30 p.m. (PDT).
Dated: May 16, 2003.
Paul D. Jewell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 03-14305 Filed 6-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ June
/ Friday, June 06, 2003
Debt Consolidation - Arizona Pools - Internet Marketing - Loans
|
|