Safety Zone; Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI, 13450-13452 [E7-5179]
Download as PDF
13450
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Bulletin No. 2/41, Revision C, dated June 23,
2006.
(i) For airplanes previously affected by AD
88–08–02: Inspect within 12 calendar months
after the last inspection required by AD 88–
08–02 or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12
calendar months.
(ii) For airplanes not previously affected by
AD 88–08–02: Inspect within the next 100
hours time-in-service (TIS) or 12 calendar
months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months.
(2) Inspection using eddy current method:
Perform the Accomplishment Instructions of
Viking Air Ltd. SB No. 2/55, dated June 23,
2006.
(i) For airplanes previously affected by AD
88–08–02: Inspect within 12 calendar months
after the last inspection required by AD 88–
08–02 or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months.
(ii) For airplanes not previously affected by
AD 88–08–02: Inspect within 100 hours TIS
or 12 calendar months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months.
(3) If cracks are found during any
inspection required by either paragraph (g)(1)
or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight:
(i) Replace the complete strut assembly
with a strut assembly of the same part
number that has had the lower clevis fitting
inspected using either the fluorescent
penetrant method specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD or the eddy current method
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and
is found free of cracks; or
(ii) Replace the complete strut assembly
with strut assembly C2W1115–1 or
C2W1115–2, as appropriate. Installing wing
strut assembly C2W1115–1 or C2W1115–2 as
replacement parts terminates the recurring
inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD.
FAA AD Differences
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/
or service information as follows: No
differences.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(h) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: George J.
Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, 10 Fifth Street,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone:
(516) 228–7325; fax (516) 794–5531, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
(2) AMOCs approved for AD 88–08–02 are
not approved for this AD.
(3) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:32 Mar 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(4) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention
Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention
Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake
Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–
7154.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Related Information
(i) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD
CR–1985–08R4, dated September 28, 2006;
and Viking Air Limited Service Bulletin S/B
No. 2/41, Revision ‘‘C’’, dated June 23, 2006;
and Service Bulletin No. 2/55, dated June 23,
2006; for related information.
Request for Comments
Coast Guard
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 [CGD09–07–003],
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.
33 CFR Part 165
Public Meeting
[CGD09–07–003]
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the Sector
Lake Michigan Prevention Department
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.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March
15, 2007.
David R. Showers,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–5215 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Kenosha Harbor,
Kenosha, WI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary safety zone in
Kenosha Harbor at the east end of the
south pier. This zone is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of Lake
Michigan and Kenosha Harbor during a
fireworks display on August 11, 2007.
This zone is necessary to protect the
public from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan
(spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial
Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector
Lake Michigan 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background and Purpose
This temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of vessels
and spectators from hazards associated
with a fireworks display. Based on
accidents that have occurred in other
Captain of the Port zones, and the
explosive hazards of fireworks, the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has
determined fireworks launches in close
proximity to watercraft pose significant
risk to public safety and property. The
likely combination of large numbers of
recreation vessels, congested waterways,
darkness punctuated by bright flashes of
light, alcohol use, and debris falling into
the water could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities. Establishing a
safety zone to control vessel movement
around the location of the launch
platform will help ensure the safety of
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
persons and property at these events
and help minimize the associated risks.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
A temporary safety zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of spectators and
vessels during the setup, loading and
launching of a fireworks display in
conjunction with the Kenosha Days of
Discovery fireworks display. The
fireworks display will occur between 8
p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on
August 11, 2007.
The safety zone for the fireworks will
encompass all waters of Lake Michigan
and Kenosha Harbor within a 300 yard
radius of position 42°35′14″ N,
087°48′29″ W (NAD 83).
All persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or the designated onscene representative. Entry into,
transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. The Captain of the
Port or his designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.
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 is
unnecessary.
The Coast Guard will only use this
safety zone for two hours on the date
specified. This safety zone has been
designed to allow vessels to transit
unrestricted to portions of the harbor
not affected by the zone. The Coast
Guard expects insignificant adverse
impact to mariners from the activation
of this zone.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:32 Mar 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 proposed rule would affect the
following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners of vessels
intending to transits or anchor in a
portion of Kenosha Harbor between 8
p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on
August 11, 2007. The safety zone would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. This rule
would be in effect for only 2 hours.
Vessel traffic can safely pass around the
safety zone.
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 CWO Brad
Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast
Guard Sector Lake Michigan,
Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–7154. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13451
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
the 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
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
13452
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Technical Standards
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
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 proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD 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. Therefore, we believe that
this rule should be categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This
proposed rule establishes a regulated
navigation area and as such is covered
by this paragraph.
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ is available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. 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.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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 proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:32 Mar 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
2. Add § 165.T09–003 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T09–003 Safety Zone, Kenosha
Harbor, Kenosha, WI.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: all waters of
Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor
within a 300-yard radius of position
42°35′14″ N, 087°48′29″ W (NAD 83).
(b) Effective period. This regulation is
effective from 8 p.m. (local) on August
11, 2007 to 10 p.m. (local), on August
11, 2007.
(c) Regulations.
(1) In accordance with the general
regulations in section 165.23 of this
part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan, or his designated
on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
The on-scene representative of the
Captain of the Port will be aboard either
a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or his on-scene representative
to obtain permission to do so. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his
on-scene representative.
Dated: March 8, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7–5179 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0170; FRL–8290–9]
Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking
on 8-Hour Ozone Redesignations for
Various Areas in Michigan, Ohio and
West Virginia
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
ozone standard. This supplemental
proposed rulemaking sets forth EPA’s
views on the potential effect of the
Court’s ruling on a number of proposed
redesignation actions. This rulemaking
applies to eighteen 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in Michigan, Ohio
and West Virginia, for which EPA has
proposed approval of the States’
redesignation requests. For the reasons
set forth in the notice, EPA proposes to
find that the Court’s ruling does not
alter any requirements relevant to these
proposed redesignations that would
prevent EPA from finalizing these
redesignations. The EPA believes that
the Court’s decision, as it currently
stands or as it may be modified based
upon any petition for rehearing that may
be filed, imposes no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of
these areas to attainment, because in
either circumstance, redesignation is
appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding
policies regarding redesignation
requests.
Comments must be received on
or before April 6, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2007–0170 by one of the following
methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13450-13452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5179]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09-07-003]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
in Kenosha Harbor at the east end of the south pier. This zone is
intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Michigan and Kenosha
Harbor during a fireworks display on August 11, 2007. This zone is
necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial
Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake Michigan 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 the
Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention
Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414)
747-7154.
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 [CGD09-07-
003], 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 the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention
Department 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
This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks
display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the
Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan has determined fireworks launches in close proximity
to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The
likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested
waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use,
and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel
movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure
the safety of
[[Page 13451]]
persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated
risks.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a
fireworks display in conjunction with the Kenosha Days of Discovery
fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 8 p.m.
(local) and 10 p.m. (local) on August 11, 2007.
The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake
Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within a 300 yard radius of position
42[deg]35'14'' N, 087[deg]48'29'' W (NAD 83).
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the
Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.
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 is unnecessary.
The Coast Guard will only use this safety zone for two hours on the
date specified. This safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the
zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners
from the activation of this zone.
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.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners of vessels intending to
transits or anchor in a portion of Kenosha Harbor between 8 p.m.
(local) and 10 p.m. (local) on August 11, 2007. The safety zone would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for
only 2 hours. Vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone.
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 CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention
Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414)
747-7154. 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 an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect the 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
[[Page 13452]]
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 proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD 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. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This proposed
rule establishes a regulated navigation area and as such is covered by
this paragraph.
A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add Sec. 165.T09-003 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T09-003 Safety Zone, Kenosha Harbor, Kenosha, WI.
(a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
waters of Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor within a 300-yard radius of
position 42[deg]35'14'' N, 087[deg]48'29'' W (NAD 83).
(b) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 8 p.m.
(local) on August 11, 2007 to 10 p.m. (local), on August 11, 2007.
(c) Regulations.
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated
on-scene representative.
(3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or his on-scene representative.
Dated: March 8, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7-5179 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P