10440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have made a preliminary 

determination 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. The rule deals 

with reducing the size of an existing 

anchorage area. Therefore, we believe 

that this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(f), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. Under 

figure 2–1, paragraph 34(f) of the 

Instruction, and ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is not required for 

this rule. Comments on this section will 

be considered before we make the final 

decision on whether this rule should be 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–

1(g); Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise part 110.168 to read as 

follows: 

110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and 

adjacent waters (Datum: NAD 83). 

(a) Anchorage Grounds. (a)(3)(iii) 

Anchorage G, Hampton Flats (Naval 

Explosives Anchorage). The waters 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°58′50.9′′ N ............ 76°19′33.7′′ W 

36°58′50.3′′ N ............ 76°19′39.4′′ W 

36°58′19.3′′ N ............ 76°20′18.2′′ W 

36°58′16.5′′ N ............ 76°20′18.6′′ W 

36°58′07.3′′ N ............ 76°20′31.3′′ W 

36°57′42.0′′ N ............ 76°21′06.3′′ W 

36°57′35.2′′ N ............ 76°21′25.6′′ W 

36°57′31.8′′ N ............ 76°22′00.6′′ W 

36°58′07.6′′ N ............ 76°22′01.7′′ W 

36°58′47.2′′ N ............ 76°21′04.7′′ W 

36°59′17.0′′ N ............ 76°20′20.7′′ W 

36°59′25.0′′ N ............ 76°20′05.4′′ W 

Dated: February 14, 2007. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–4111 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[CGD05–06–064] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Grounds, Hampton Roads, 

VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

updating the coordinates of the 

boundaries of the anchorages listed 

below from the former North American 

Datum 1927 (NAD 27) standard to the 

current North American Datum 1983 

(NAD 83) standard. These changes will 

not affect the locations or size of the 

anchorages on the NOAA charts as 

published by NOAA. The proposed 

change simply updates the anchorage 

positions in 33 CFR part 110 to match 

the current datum in use on the 

applicable charts, which are NAD 83. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 

Crawford Street, Room 100, Portsmouth, 

VA 23704–5004. The telephone number 

is (757) 398–6360. You may e-mail your 

comments to Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. 

Commander (dpw), Fifth Coast Guard 

District 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 (dpw) between 9 a.m. and 3 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Albert Grimes, Fifth Coast Guard 

District Prevention and Waterways, 

(757) 398–6360, e-mail: 

Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. 

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 (CGD05–06–064), 

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 if 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 the address 

listed 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 

On May 25, 2005, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule (70 FR 29953) that 

provided changes and improvements to 

many of the anchorages in the Hampton 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10441 

Roads area. Coordinates for anchorages 

changed or improved as part of this final 

rule were also updated from their 

former NAD 27 position to a new NAD 

83 position. Anchorages discussed in 

this NPRM were listed as ‘‘No Change,’’

while in another section of the final rule 

the reader was led to believe that the 

positions of these ‘‘No Change’’

anchorages had also been changed from 

NAD 27 to NAD 83. However, they are 

in fact still listed in 33 CFR part 110.168 

as NAD 27 positions. This proposed rule 

will ensure that all of the Hampton 

Roads Anchorages listed in 33 CFR part 

110.168 are NAD 83 positions. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The anchorages that will be updated 

to NAD 83 datum are on the following 

table: 

Current Anchorage [33 CFR 110.168(a)] 

A—Cape Henry Naval Anchorage (1) ................................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

B—Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals Channel Naval Anchorage (CBTSC [(2)(i)] ............................................................. Change to NAD 83. 

C—CBTSC Naval Anchorage Naval [(2)(ii)] .......................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

D—CBTSC Naval Anchorage [(2)(iii)] ................................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

E—Commercial Explosive Anchorage [(2)(iv)] ...................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

E–1—Explosives Handling Berth [(2)(v)(A)] .......................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

F—Hampton Bar [(3)(i)] ......................................................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

F–1—[(3)(i)(A)] ....................................................................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

G–1—Explosives Handling Berth [(3)(ii)(A)] .......................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

G–2—Explosives Handling Berth [(3)(ii)(B)] .......................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

H—Newport News Bar [(3)(iii)] .............................................................................................................................................. Change to NAD 83. 

I—Newport News [(4)(i)] ........................................................................................................................................................ Change to NAD 83. 

I–1—Newport News [(4)(i)(A)] ............................................................................................................................................... Change to NAD 83. 

This proposed rule is necessary to 

ensure all anchorages positions listed 

under 33 CFR 110.168 reflect that they 

are based on NAD 83 datum. 

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. 

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. The effect of this 

proposed action merely modifies the 

datum of the geographic positions that 

define the boundaries of the existing 

anchorages. 

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 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed changes only 

make the boundary points of the 

anchorages referenced herein consistent 

with the current applicable NOAA 

navigation charts. 

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 the address 

listed under ADDRESSES. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this rule or any policy or action of the 

Coast Guard. 

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, 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
10442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guides the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have made a preliminary 

determination 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, we 

believe that this rule should be 

categorically excluded, under figure 2–

1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction, 

from further environmental 

documentation. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph 34(i) of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is 

not required for this rule. Comments on 

this section will be considered before 

we make a final decision on whether 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded from further environmental 

review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority for part 110 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–

1(g); Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Amend § 110.168 to revise 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), 

(a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), (a)(3)(v), (a)(3)(viii), 

(a)(4) (i), and (a)(4)(ii), to read as 

follows: 

§ 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and 

adjacent waters (Datum: NAD 83). 

(a) Anchorage Grounds. (1) Anchorage 

A [Naval Anchorage]. The waters 

bounded by the shoreline and a line 

connecting the following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°55′36.2′′ N 76°02′46.3′′ W 

36°57′03.3′′ N 76°03′01.4′′ W 

36°56′45.5′′ N 76°01′28.8′′ W 

36°55′55.7′′ N 76°01′35.7′′ W 

(2) Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals 

Channel Anchorages. (i) Anchorage B 

[Naval Anchorage]. The waters bounded 

by a line connecting the following 

points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°57′58.5′′ N 76°06′05.8′′ W 

36°57′11.5′′ N 76°03′00.9′′ W 

36°55′49.3′′ N 76°03′12.8′′ W 

36°56′32.3′′ N 76°06′05.8′′ W 

36°57′04.5′′ N 76°06′05.8′′ W 

36°57′09.0′′ N 76°06′23.3′′ W 

(ii) Anchorage C [Naval Anchorage]. 

The waters bounded by a line 

connecting the following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°58′55.3′′ N 76°09′40.3′′ W 

36°58′19.3′′ N 76°07′16.8′′ W 

36°57′27.5′′ N 76°07′36.3′′ W 

36°58′04.5′′ N 76°09′58.8′′ W 

(iii) Anchorage D [Naval Anchorage]. 

The waters bounded by the shoreline 

and a line connecting the following 

points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°55′49.5′′ N 76°10′31.6′′ W 

36°58′04.5′′ N 76°10′00.9′′ W 

36°57′31.7′′ N 76°07′53.6′′ W 

36°55′24.6′′ N 76°08′27.6′′ W 

(iv) Anchorage E [Commercial 

Explosives Anchorage]. The waters 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°59′59.2′′ N 76°13′45.8′′ W 

36°59′08.7′′ N 76°10′32.6′′ W 

36°58′13.5′′ N 76°10′50.6′′ W 

36°59′02.5′′ N 76°14′04.9′′ W 

(v) Explosives Handling Berth E–1 

[Explosives Anchorage Berth]. The 

waters bounded by the arc of a circle 

with a radius of 500 yards and the 

center located at: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°59′05.5′′ N 76°11′21.8′′ W 

(3) Hampton Roads Anchorages. (i) 

Anchorage F, Hampton Bar. The waters 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°59′52.1′′ N 76°19′10.8′′ W 

36°59′25.7′′ N 76°18′47.3′′ W 

36°58′49.6′′ N 76°19′32.6′′ W 

36°59′25.5′′ N 76°20′05.8′′ W 

(ii) Anchorage Berth F–1. The waters 

bounded by the arc of a circle with a 

radius of 500 yards and the center 

located at: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°59′29.6′′ N 76°19′13.9′′ W 

* * * * * 

(iv) Explosives Handling Berth G–1. 

The waters bounded by the arc of a 

circle with a radius of 500 yards and the 

center located at: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°57′50.5′′ N 76°21′35.8′′ W 

(v) Explosives Handling Berth G–2. 

The waters bounded by the arc of a 

circle with a radius of 500 yards and the 

center located at: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°58′14.5′′ N 76°21′00.3′′ W 

* * * * * 

(viii) Anchorage H, Newport News 

Bar. The waters bounded by a line 

connecting the following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°57′38.8′′ N 76°24′18.5′′ W 

36°57′52.3′′ N 76°22′29.7′′ W 

36°58′07.4′′ N 76°22′01.8′′ W 

36°57′31.6′′ N 76°22′00.6′′ W 

36°57′18.7′′ N 76°24′10.1′′ W 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10443 

(4) James River Anchorages. (i) 

Anchorage I, Newport News. The waters 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°57′07.2′′ N 76°24′43.1′′ W 

36°56′23.1′′ N 76°24′26.8′′ W 

36°57′54.2′′ N 76°26′40.3′′ W 

36°56′03.5′′ N 76°24′35.8′′ W 

36°58′23.5′′ N 76°27′09.8′′ W 

36°58′49.0′′ N 76°27′09.8′′ W 

36°58′35.9′′ N 76°26′37.2′′ W 

36°57′52.2′′ N 76°26′01.6′′ W 

36°57′31.1′′ N 76°25′33.3′′ W 

(ii) Anchorage Berth I–1. The waters 

bounded by the arc of a circle with a 

radius of 400 yards and the center 

located at: 

Latitude Longitude 

36°57′09.0′′ N 76°25′20.4′′ W 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 14, 2007. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–4113 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP San Diego 07–025] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Fireworks, Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of the Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in 

support of a fireworks display near the 

AVI Resort and Casino. The 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 will 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. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Marine Events, 

Prevention Department, Coast Guard 

Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, 

San Diego, CA 92101–1028. Marine 

Events, Prevention Department, 

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 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego between 

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, CA, at 

telephone (619) 278–7277. 

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 07–

025], 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 Coast Guard 

Sector San Diego 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 proposes 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of the Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in 

support of a fireworks show in the 

navigation channel of the Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The 

fireworks show is being sponsored by 

AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone 

will be set at a 980-foot radius around 

the anchored firing barge. This 

temporary safety zone is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the show’s 

crew, spectators, participants of the 

event, participating vessels, and other 

vessels and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The event involves one anchored 

barge, which will be used as a platform 

for launching of fireworks. The safety 

zone is required because the barge’s 

planned firing location is in the 

navigation channel. This safety zone 

would be enforced from 8 p.m. through 

9:45 p.m. on May 27, 2007. 

The limits of this temporary safety 

zone include all areas within 980 feet of 

the firing location adjacent to the AVI 

Resort and Casino centered in the 

navigational channel between Laughlin 

Bridge and the northwest point of the 

AVI Resort and Casino Cove in position: 

35°00′45′′ N., 114°38′16′′ W. 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. 

U.S. Coast Guard personnel would 

enforce this safety zone. Other Federal, 

State, or local agencies may assist the 

Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard 

Auxiliary. Vessels or persons violating 

this rule would be subject to both 

criminal and civil penalties. 

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. Although the safety 

zone will restrict boating traffic within 

the navigable waters of the Lower 

Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, the effect 

of this regulation will not be significant 

as the safety zone will encompass only 

a small portion of the waterway and will 

be very short in duration. The entities 

most likely to be affected are pleasure 

craft engaged in recreational activities 

and sightseeing. As such, the Coast 

Guard expects the economic impact of 

this rule to be minimal. 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS