10 The actual procedure was to add in yields expressed as a percentage of ( anticipated) yield using methyl bromide. How this yield was estimated is puzzling as many of the studies did not include a methyl bromide control. Because there was no indication of pest pressure in many instances, many of the entries indicated yields of approximately 100%, obviating the differences between methyl bromide and the alternatives. Page 57 If the issue had been to average all papers, describing some " average" worldwide situation, the procedure followed in this approach would be appropriate. However, The U. S. submitted requests for continued methyl bromide use only instances of sufficiently high pest pressure ( not average) for pests which cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide.

In the case of crops other than strawberries, the basis for MBTOC's suggestion of no differences in yields between methyl bromide treatments and treatments with the alternatives is more difficult to assess. MBTOC representatives at MOP 16 indicated that their " expert judgment" was the basis for the finding that alternatives were technically and economically feasible. It is impossible to determine from this statement whether the conditions used by the experts to make their findings are similar to the particular conditions of the U. S. nomination. Given what we already know about the applicability of the meta analysis for strawberries to the U. S. circumstances, it seems likely that MBTOC is not using experience accrued in situations similar to those prevailing in the portions of the U. S. for which methyl bromide is requested, but rather relying on more generalized experience to make these judgments for which no data or references have been provided.

The U. S. disagrees with the MBTOC assessment of yield loss in the specific circumstances of the U. S. nomination.

Turning now to the component of economic loss that is a consequence of market timing we find that MBTOC has completely ignored losses arising from market windows.

Experts are familiar with high prices for fresh produce early in the season, prices which decline as the produce becomes abundant ( and more familiar) later in the season. The U. S. has provided marketing data documenting the existence of these market windows and their effects on the revenue and profits earned by farmers. Anecdotally, farmers tell us that virtually al of their net revenue ( approximately 90%) above cost is earned during the short period of high prices. For some crops, 75% of the economic loss is due to missing a market window rather than through smaller crops, lower fruit quality, or higher costs.

Many of the alternatives will cause farmers to miss the market window. In conditions of cold soil temperatures, such as in Michigan and coastal California, where the growing season is short, alternatives cannot be used until the soil temperatures reach at least 40 F. This temperature is reached 3 4 weeks into the growing season, delaying planting and consequently harvesting for that time. Because the Michigan growing season is already short due to the cold temperatures, even apart from missing the market window, delaying planting will result in a smaller harvestable amount. In other situations the " plant back" interval is longer, by 2 4 weeks, relative to the methyl bromide plant back times. Requiring a longer interval before a crop can be planted will delay the harvesting, again causing a farmer to miss a market window. Some alternatives also require a different bed preparation, which will also delay the planting time. The strawberry crop in California is one example of this situation.

It is difficult to determine the basis MBTOC used in determining that alternatives for methyl bromide are both technically and economically feasible in tomato production. USG technical Page 58 experts asked MBTOC to explain the basis for their decision11 and were told that in some cases a meta analysis served as the basis, and in other cases the basis was experience. When asked for references, USG experts were directed to " the Porter paper in press". USG experts have examined a " Porter paper in press" 12 and have a number of concerns over its applicability to the specific circumstances of the U. S. CUE. Although it has a publication date of one year later than the San Diego presentation, we find that our concerns over its applicability have not been resolved. The studies used in the meta analysis are not listed and no indication is given of the criteria used to include or exclude a study from the analysis.

There is no indication that MBTOC considered the specific circumstances of the U. S. nomination ( which are that methyl bromide is requested only for situations where regulatory concerns preclude use of an alternative or where there are ` key' pests present at moderate to severe levels, or where terrain conditions ( temperature, topography) result in no alternative being technically and economically feasible). MBTOC has not cited no research findings supporting their contention that alternatives are both technically and economically feasible; the U. S. has presented extensive results in the circumstances of the nomination to support our position.

We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to MeBr exist for use in Southeastern U. S. tomato production. Two factors have proven most important in our conclusion. These are yield loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below.

1. Yield Loss  Expected yield losses of somewhat over 6% 13 are anticipated throughout southeastern U. S. tomato production.

2. Missed Market Windows  We agree with Southeastern US's assertion that growers will likely receive significantly lower prices for their produce if they switch to 1,3 D + chloropicrin. This is due to changes in the harvest schedule caused by the above described soil temperature complications and extended plant back intervals when using these alternatives.

Our analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers receive for their tomatoes vary widely over the course of the growing season. Driving these fluctuations are the forces of supply and demand. Early in the growing season, when relatively few tomatoes are harvested, the supply is at is lowest and the market price is at its highest. As harvested quantities increase, the 11 MBTOC suggests that alternatives were both technically and economically feasible for the pre plant sectors of field grown peppers, strawberries, and tomatoes. The same assertions were made for portions of other countries' nominations as well. 12 Porter, I., S. Mattner, R. Mann, R. Gounder, J. Banks, and P. Fraser. 1994. Strawberry Fruit Production and results from trials in Different Geographic Regions. A Presentation to the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Conference, Lisbon, September 1994. 13 The submitted data showed that using the above best alternative the growers are expected to suffer 6.2% yield losses ( Chellemi, Botts and Noling. 2001). A combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + pebulate appeared to be the best alternative in controlling key pests in tomato fields. Since pebulate is no longer available then the growers will need to substitute another herbicides such as halosulfuron, rimsulfuron or trifloxysulfuron to control nutsedge weeds. These herbicides, however, have significant limitations. In addition, losses will be higher in areas of Karst geology, where 1,3 D may not be used. Page 59 price declines. In order to maximize their revenues, tomato growers manage their production systems with the goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of tomatoes when the prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of tomato operations.

To describe these conditions in Southeastern U. S. tomato production, we used weekly tomato sales data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture for the previous three years to gauge the impact of early season price fluctuations on gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, we assume that if tomato growers adjust the timing of their production system, as required when using 1,3 D + Chloropicrin, that they will, over the course of the growing season, accumulate gross revenues reduced by approximately 15%. We reduced the season average price by 15% in our analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently available information, we believe this reduction in gross revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of planting delays resulting when MeBr alternatives are used in Southeastern US.

MBTOC has suggested that rates can be reduced to a maximum level of 200kg/ ha MBTOC has also reduced the amount recommended for tomatoes stating: " A further adjustment was applied to reduce the dosage to the guideline level of 200kg/ ha under the strips." When this issue was discussed with MBTOC members during the 16th MOP, U. S. experts agreed to clarify whether the reported rates were in fact the rates used under the strips ( as the U. S. believed) or whether they were the average for an acre as MBTOC believed14. The U. S. has verified that the application rates provided in the quantitative assessment ( the Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index, or BUNI) are in fact the rates under the strips. The number of acres reported is the " treated acres", so that a strip application results in two thirds of an acre being fumigated while one third is the untreated is reported as two thirds of an acre.

They have further suggested that rates can be reduced still further if higher density tarps, including VIF, are used. One of the papers cited in support of this proposal is Fennimore et el, 2003. Fennimore was contacted to determine whether, in his opinion, his work could be appropriately used to support lower application rates. His reply, reproduced below, indicates that he is very uncomfortable with this interpretation of his results15.

14 If the rates were an average per acre, as MBTOC believed, given that in strip treatments approximately one third of the acre is left untreated, the rates applied would, in some cases, exceed the MBTOC recommended dosage of 200kg/ ha. 15 From: Steven Fennimore [ mailto: safennimore@ ucdavis. edu] Sent: Fri Jan 07 16: 24: 43 2005 To: Dan Legard Cc: jmduniway@ ucdavis. edu; haajwa@ ucdavis. edu Subject: MBTOC VIF stance Hi Dan I am a bit disturbed to learn from you that the some in MBTOC may have come to the conclusion that VIF will allow reduced rates of methyl bromide. While I stand behind my research that indicates clearly that the weed control efficacy of drip applied chloropicrin and Inline are improved under VIF compared to standard film, these fumigants are used to Page 60 Technical and Economic Assessment of MBTOC/ TEAP Report. We have not been provided by MBTOC with information on their technical assessment of the performance of alternatives, ortheir economic assessment on the impact of converting to alternatives. To support the MBTOC's recommended change in the U. S. request citations of the research references and economic assessments that led to the MBTOC conclusions are needed so we can understand the justification. The technical references should describe the species tested, pest numbers, concentrations, times, and commodity volumes. Economic references should describe the costs of converting from methyl bromide to alternatives, the impact of higher yield losses, longer plant back intervals, the economic feasibility if key market windows are missed, and the economic impact of a 20% transition to alternatives including estimates of management costs for more intensive programs and how the impact of less reliable alternatives is calculated. The sources of estimates of the extent of pest pressure should describe the rationale for using other estimates, a complete description of the questions, species being surveyed and quantitative levels used.

U. S. 2006 nomination In summary, the USG does not agree with MBTOC's contention that the U. S. request can be reduced and reiterates it request for an additional 622.053 metric tons of methyl bromide for a total of 2,844.985 metric tons of methyl bromide.

Citations Chellemi, D., Botts, D. A. and Noling, J. W. 2001. Field scale demonstration/ validation studies of methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida, USDA ARS specific co operative agreement SCA # 58 6617 6 013, Executive Summary ( 1996 2001) submitted to the USEPA

control many other pests besides weeds. For example, results do not necessarily suggest that VIF improves phytopthora cactorum control. Our research results presented at MBAO are preliminary and we are currently preparing peer reviewed publications. When those are written we will have a more clear understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of VIF than we have now. I do believe that VIF offers real potential benefits, however I caution anyone to make policy decisions about VIF based on my preliminary results presented at MBAO Steve Fennimore Extension Specialist University of California, Davis 1636 East Alisal St Salinas, CA 93905 831 755 2896 Page 61 Burnette, G. 2003. Personal communication, November 25, 2003.

Culpepper, Stanley. 2004. Faculty, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Comments on methyl bromide Critical use nomination for preplant soil use for tomato grown in open fields.

Florida. 2000. Florida soil temperatures. Web address: www. imok. ufl/ edu/ weather/ archive/ 200/ clim00 Hausbeck, M. and Cortright, B. 2003. Soil temperature data submitted to BEAD ( OPP, US EPA) in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption application.

Jacob, W. C. 1977. Range of mean outside temperature and rainfall in South Eastern United States. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Published by the US Department of Commerce.

Lamour, H. H. and Hausbeck, M. 2003. Effect of crop rotation on the survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Disease 87: 841 845.

Locasio, S. J., Gilreath, J. P., Dickson, D. W., Kucharek, T. A., Jones, J. P. and Noling, J. W. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. HortScience 32( 7) 1208 1211.

Morales, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M. and Bewick. T. A. 1997. Effects of purple nutsedge ( Cyprus rotundus) on tomato and bell pepper vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Science Technology 11: 672 676.

Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge ( Cyprus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technology 16( 3): 512 519.

Norton, J., Nelson, R. D., Nelson, M. D., Olson, B. O., Mey, B. V. and Lepez, G. 2000. Field evaluation of alternatives to methyl bromide for pre plant soil fumigant in California tomatoes. USDA IR 4 methyl bromide alternatives program for minor crop. Report submitted to the US EPA during 2003 in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption.

Stall, W. M. and Morales Payan, J. P. 2003. The critical period of nutsedge interference in tomato, Florida. Web address: http:// www. imok. ufl. edu/ liv/ groups/ ipm/ weed_ con/ nutsedge. htm U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Re registration Eligibility Decision ( RED) 1,3 dichloroprppene. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Feasibility of using gas permeable tarps to reduce methyl bromide emissions associated with soil fumigation in the United States.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54605-54607]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21639]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0611]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lucas Oil Thunder on the River; Thompson Bay, Lake
Havasu City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the navigable waters of Thompson Bay in Lake Havasu, AZ in support of
the Lucas Oil Thunder on the River high speed boat race. This safety
zone is established to help ensure the safety of participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Unauthorized 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 their designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 10, 2014
through October 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0611]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable to provide a full
comment period due to lack of time before the high speed boat race is
planned for this season. Completing the NPRM process and providing
notice and a comment period is impracticable because it would
unnecessarily delay this rule and the immediate safety measures it
provides to the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and
other vessels transiting the event area. Additionally, the high speed
boat race is advertised to the local community by and through the I-10
Race Promotions. Delaying the safety zone's effective date to complete
the NPRM process would interfere with the advertised and planned boat
race and would unnecessarily interfere with contractual obligations
related to this event. The Coast Guard will provide advance
notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via
marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.
    I-10 Race Promotions is sponsoring the Lucas Oil Thunder on the
River, which will involve 150 drag boats, 10 to 50 feet in length from
across the United States and Canada. The safety zone will cover the
majority of Thompson Bay. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor
vessels, other vessels, and users of the waterway, specifically in
minimizing vessel wakes by transiting vessels in the vicinity of the
racing area. Unnecessary wakes can disrupt the racing boats and could
cause injury or damage to the racing vessels.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 10, 2014 through October 12, 2014. The
effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in
the vicinity of the boat race site until the conclusion of the races.
The limits of the safety zone will include all the navigable waters of
Thompson Bay encompassed by drawing a line from point to point along
the following coordinates:

Northern Zone Line:
    34[deg]27'57.96'' N, 114[deg]20'48.49'' W
    34[deg]27'57.71'' N, 114[deg]20'49.75'' W
North West Zone Line:
    34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W
    34[deg]26'51.99'' N, 114[deg]21'03.83'' W
South Zone Line:
    34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W
    34[deg]26'51.99'' N, 114[deg]21'03.83'' W

    The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew,
spectators, participants, 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, during the
proposed times. The three day event will include official racing on
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Before the effective period, the Coast
Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and the event
sponsor through Lake Havasu City has extensively advertised the marine
event with the public.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location, and
the limited duration of the safety zone. Additionally, to the maximum
extent practicable, the event sponsor will assist with the movement of
boaters desiring to transit the racing area during non-racing times
throughout the three days. There is also an alternate route boaters can
take to bypass the racing area to get from southern Lake Havasu to
northern Lake Havasu.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 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 or anchor in the impacted portion of Lake Havasu
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 10, 2014 through October 12, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the majority of Thompson Bay,
boating traffic would still be allowed to pass through the zone at
regular intervals, and with Captain of the Port approval during boat
races. The event sponsor will to their maximum extent assist boaters
wishing to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout
the three days.

3. 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 rule. 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 person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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). 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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security

Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-650 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-650  Safety Zone; Lucas Oil Thunder on the River;
Thompson Bay, Lake Havasu City, AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include all the
navigable waters of Thompson Bay encompassed by drawing a line from
point to point along the following coordinates: From 34[deg]27'57.96''
N, 114[deg]20'48.49'' W to 34[deg]27'57.71'' N, 114[deg]20'49.75'' W;
thence from 34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W to
34[deg]26'51.99'' N, 114[deg]21'03.83'' W; thence from
34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W to 34[deg]26'51.99'' N,
114[deg]21'03.83'' W; thence back to the point of origin.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on October
10, 2014 through October 12, 2014 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of
this part, entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San
Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.

    Dated: August 18, 2014.
J.S. Spaner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-21639 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P