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 However, gross national product has been replaced by gross domestic product by the Department of Commerce as a more appropriate measure for the short-term monitoring and analysis of the U.S. economy.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