Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL, 19675-19678 [E7-7416]
Download as PDF
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cotton classification requested by
producers in 2006. Therefore, the 2007
producer’s user fee for classification
service is based on the 2006 base fee for
HVI classification.
The fee was calculated by applying
the formula specified in the Uniform
Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as
amended by Public Law 102–237. The
2006 base fee for HVI classification
exclusive of adjustments, as provided by
the Act, was $2.45 per bale. An increase
of 2.82 percent, or 7 cents per bale, due
to the implicit price deflator of the gross
domestic product added to the $2.45
would result in a 2007 base fee of $2.52
per bale. The formula in the Act
provides for the use of the percentage
change in the implicit price deflator of
the gross national product (as indexed
for the most recent 12-month period for
which statistics are available). However,
gross national product has been
replaced by gross domestic product by
the Department of Commerce as a more
appropriate measure for the short-term
monitoring and analysis of the U.S.
economy.
The number of bales to be classed by
the United States Department of
Agriculture from the 2007 crop is
estimated at 19,900,000 bales. The 2007
base fee was decreased 15 percent based
on the estimated number of bales to be
classed (1 percent for every 100,000
bales or portion thereof above the base
of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum
decreased adjustment of 15 percent).
This percentage factor amounts to a 38
cents per bale reduction and was
subtracted from the 2007 base fee of
$2.52 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.14
per bale.
However, with a fee of $2.14 per bale,
the projected operating reserve would
be 37.2 percent. The Act specifies that
the Secretary shall not establish a fee
which, when combined with other
sources of revenue, will result in a
projected operating reserve of more than
25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.14
must be reduced by 29 cents per bale,
to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending
accumulated operating reserve for the
fiscal year of not more than 25 percent
of the projected cost of operating the
program. This would establish the 2007
season fee at $1.85 per bale.
Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b)
would reflect the continuation of the
HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale.
As provided for in the Uniform Cotton
Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended,
a 5 cent per bale discount would
continue to be applied to voluntary
centralized billing and collecting agents
as specified in § 28.909 (c).
Growers or their designated agents
receiving classification data would
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
continue to incur no additional fees if
classification data is requested only
once. The fee for each additional
retrieval of classification data in
§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per
bale. The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an
owner receiving classification data from
the National database would remain at
5 cents per bale, and the minimum
charge of $5.00 for services provided per
monthly billing period would remain
the same. The provisions of § 28.910 (c)
concerning the fee for new classification
memoranda issued from the National
database for the business convenience of
an owner without reclassification of the
cotton will remain the same at 15 cents
per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per
sheet.
The fee for review classification in
§ 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85
per bale.
The fee for returning samples after
classification in § 28.911 would remain
at 40 cents per sample.
A 15-day comment period is provided
for public comments. This period is
appropriate because it is anticipated
that the proposed changes, if adopted,
would be made effective July 1, 2007, as
provided by the Cotton Statistics and
Estimates Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples,
Grades, Market news, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Standards,
Staples, Testing, Warehouses.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to
be amended to read as follows:
PART 28—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 28, subpart D, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476.
2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 28.909
Costs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The cost of High Volume
Instrument (HVI) cotton classification
service to producers is $1.85 per bale.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of
paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 28.911
Review classification.
(a) * * * The fee for review
classification is $1.85 per bale.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19675
Dated: April 13, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–7401 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09–07–012]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval
Training Center Harbor, North Chicago,
IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary safety zone
around Great Lakes Naval Training
Center Harbor. This zone is intended to
control the movement of vessels on
portions of Lake Michigan and Great
Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor
during the Spill of National Significance
(SONS) exercise on June 19 and 20,
2007. This zone is necessary to protect
the public from the hazards associated
with ships and boats deploying oil
containment equipment.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 4, 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
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
19676
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [CGD09–07–012],
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 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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Information
The comment period for this rule is
only 15 days because the request for the
safety zone was not received in time to
allow for a longer period. Delaying this
rule would be contrary to the public
interest of ensuring the safety of vessels
during this event and immediate action
is necessary to prevent possible loss of
life or property.
Background and Purpose
This temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of vessels
and people from hazards associated
with numerous vessels deploying oil
containment booms and conducting
diving operations. Based on experiences
in other Captain of the Port zones, the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has
determined numerous vessels engaged
in the deployment of oil containment
booms in close proximity to watercraft
pose significant risk to public safety and
property. The likely combination of
large numbers of recreation vessels and
congested waterways could result in
serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing
a safety zone to control vessel
movement around the location of the
SONS exercise will help ensure the
safety of 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 vessels during the
deployment and recovery of oil
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
containment booms in conjunction with
the SONS exercise. The safety zone will
be enforced between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
local time, each day, on June 19 and 20,
2007.
The safety zone for the SONS exercise
will encompass all waters of Lake
Michigan and Great Lakes Naval
Training Center Harbor from the
shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900
yards north, and 2,900 yards south of
Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number
20285) and bounded by a line with of
point origin at 42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W;
then west to 42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W;
then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then
east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north
to the point of origin (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 enforce
this safety zone for 10 hours a day on
the two days specified. This safety zone
has been designed to allow vessels to
transit unrestricted to portions of the
harbor not affected by the zone. The
Captain of the Port will allow vessels to
enter and depart Great Lakes Naval
Training Center Harbor. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 transit or anchor in a
portion of Great Lakes Naval Training
Center Harbor between 8 a.m. and 6
p.m., local time, on June 19, 2007 and
June 20, 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 20 hours.
Vessel traffic can safely pass around the
safety zone and enter and depart Great
Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor
upon request.
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
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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
The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty
rights of Native American Tribes.
Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed
to working with Tribal Governments to
implement local policies and to mitigate
tribal concerns. We have determined
that these special local regulations and
fishing rights protection need not be
incompatible. We have also determined
that this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have
questions concerning the provisions of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
this proposed rule or options for
compliance are encourage to contact the
point of contact listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 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 because
this proposed rule establishes a safety
zone.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19677
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 § 165.T09–012 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T09–012 Safety Zone; Great Lakes
Naval Training Center Harbor, North
Chicago, IL.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: All waters of
Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval
Training Center Harbor, from surface to
bottom, from the shoreline to 2,200
yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900
yards south of Great Lakes Light 2
(Lightlist number 20285) and bounded
by a line with of point origin at
42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W; then west to
42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W; then south to
42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′
N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of
origin (NAD 83).
(b) Effective period. This regulation is
effective from 8 a.m. (local) on June 19,
2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007.
This regulation will be enforced from 8
a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 19,
2007 and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m.
(local) on June 20, 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
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
19678
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Apr 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
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
PO 00000
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his
on-scene representative.
Dated: April 3, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7–7416 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19675-19678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09-07-012]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, North
Chicago, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
around Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. This zone is intended
to control the movement of vessels on portions of Lake Michigan and
Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor during the Spill of National
Significance (SONS) exercise on June 19 and 20, 2007. This zone is
necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with ships
and boats deploying oil containment equipment.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 4, 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
[[Page 19676]]
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09-07-
012], 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.
Regulatory Information
The comment period for this rule is only 15 days because the
request for the safety zone was not received in time to allow for a
longer period. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public
interest of ensuring the safety of vessels during this event and
immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or
property.
Background and Purpose
This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and people from hazards associated with numerous vessels
deploying oil containment booms and conducting diving operations. Based
on experiences in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan has determined numerous vessels engaged in the
deployment of oil containment booms in close proximity to watercraft
pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely
combination of large numbers of recreation vessels and congested
waterways could result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing
a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the
SONS exercise will help ensure the safety of 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
vessels during the deployment and recovery of oil containment booms in
conjunction with the SONS exercise. The safety zone will be enforced
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. local time, each day, on June 19 and 20,
2007.
The safety zone for the SONS exercise will encompass all waters of
Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor from the
shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 yards south
of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 20285) and bounded by a line
with of point origin at 42[deg]20'12'' N, 087[deg]48' W; then west to
42[deg]20'12'' N, 087[deg]50' W; then south to 42[deg]17' N,
087[deg]50' W; then east to 42[deg]17' N, 087[deg]48' W; then north to
the point of origin (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 enforce this safety zone for 10 hours a
day on the two days specified. This safety zone has been designed to
allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not
affected by the zone. The Captain of the Port will allow vessels to
enter and depart Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. 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
transit or anchor in a portion of Great Lakes Naval Training Center
Harbor between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., local time, on June 19, 2007 and June
20, 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 20 hours. Vessel traffic can
safely pass around the safety zone and enter and depart Great Lakes
Naval Training Center Harbor upon request.
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
[[Page 19677]]
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and
fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also
determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the
provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are
encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 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 because this
proposed rule establishes a safety zone.
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.T09-012 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T09-012 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center
Harbor, North Chicago, IL.
(a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor,
from surface to bottom, from the shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900
yards north, and 2,900 yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist
number 20285) and bounded by a line with of point origin at
42[deg]20'12'' N, 087[deg]48' W; then west to 42[deg]20'12'' N,
087[deg]50' W; then south to 42[deg]17' N, 087[deg]50' W; then east to
42[deg]17' N, 087[deg]48' W; then north to the point of origin (NAD
83).
(b) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 8 a.m.
(local) on June 19, 2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007. This
regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on
June 19, 2007 and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20,
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
[[Page 19678]]
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 must 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: April 3, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7-7416 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P