Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Portland Zone

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY <SUBAGY>Coast Guard </SUBAGY> <CFR>33 CFR Part 165 </CFR> <DEPDOC>[CGD13-03-008] </DEPDOC> <RIN>RIN 1625-AA00 </RIN> <SUBJECT>Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Portland Zone </SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Coast Guard, DHS. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Notice of proposed rulemaking. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Coast Guard proposes establishing permanent safety zones on the waters located in their Area of Responsibility during fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon, is taking this action to safeguard watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with these displays. Entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. </SUM> <DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 27, 2003. </DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave., Portland, Oregon 97217. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group 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 Marine Safety Office/Group Portland between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> Lieutenant Junior Grade Tad Drozdowski, Operations Department, at (503) 240-9370. </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">Request for Comments </HD> 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 (CGD13-03-008), 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 <FR>1/2</FR> 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Public Meeting</HD> 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 Marine Safety Office/Group Portland at the address under <E T="02">ADDRESSES</E> 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 <E T="04">Federal Register</E> . <HD SOURCE="HD1">Background and Purpose </HD> The Coast Guard proposes establishing permanent safety zones to allow for safe fireworks displays. These events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks launching barges. Safety zones are needed to protect watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with fireworks displays. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Discussion of Proposed Rule </HD> This rule, for safety concerns, would control vessel movements in regulated areas surrounding fireworks launching barges. Entry into these zones would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland or his designated representative. Coast Guard personnel would enforce these safety zones. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Regulatory Evaluation </HD> This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 this rule under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Small Entities </HD> Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” include 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the designated areas at the corresponding times as drafted in this proposed rule. These safety zones will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for particular dates, all in the evening when vessel traffic is low. Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zones 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. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see <E T="02">ADDRESSES</E> ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Assistance for Small Entities </HD> Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 will 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 <E T="02">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT</E> section. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Collection of Information </HD> This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). <HD SOURCE="HD1">Federalism </HD> 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 Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this final rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Unfunded Mandates Reform Act </HD> The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Taking of Private Property </HD> 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Civil Justice Reform </HD> 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Protection of Children </HD> 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Indian Tribal Governments </HD> This proposed 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Energy Effects </HD> 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. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Environment </HD> We have considered the env ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 15k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━