Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago, IL, 25720-25723 [E7-8605]

Download as PDF 25720 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access, or access to student recruiting information. Implementing regulations are codified at 32 Code of Federal Regulations, part 216. This letter provides you an opportunity to clarify your institution’s policy regarding military recruiting on the campus of [University]. In that regard, I request, within the next 30 days, a written policy statement of the institution with respect to access to campus and students by military recruiting personnel. Your response should highlight any difference between access for military recruiters and access for recruiting by other potential employers. Based on this information and any additional facts you can provide, Department of Defense officials will make a determination as to your institution’s eligibility to receive funds by grant or contract. That decision may affect eligibility for funding from appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. Should it be determined that [University] as an institution of higher education (or any subelement of the institution) is in violation of the aforementioned statutes and regulations, such funding would be stopped, and the institution of higher education (including any subelements of the institution) would remain ineligible to receive such funds until and unless the Department of Defense determines that the institution has ceased the offending policies and practices. I regret that this action may have to be taken. Successful recruiting requires that Department of Defense recruiters have equal access to students on the campuses of colleges and universities [and studentrecruiting information], and at the same time, have effective relationships with the officials and student bodies of those institutions. I hope it will be possible to identify and correct any policies or practices that inhibit military recruiting at your school. [My representative, (name), is] [I am] available to answer any of your questions by telephone at [telephone number]. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Appendix B of Part 216—ROTC Sample Letter of Inquiry (Tailor letter to situation presented) rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS Dr. Jane Smith President ABC University Anywhere, USA 12345–9876 The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead on] the result achieved by the policy and compares the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other recruiters than for the military. * * * Not only does the text of the statute support this view, but this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent revision.’’ VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:53 May 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 Dear Dr. Smith: I understand that ABC University has [refused a request from a Military Department to establish a Senior ROTC unit at your institution][refused to continue existing ROTC programs at your institution][prevented students from participation at a Senior ROTC program at another institution] by a policy or practice of the University. Current Federal law 18 denies the use of certain Federal funds through grants or contracts, to include payment on such contracts or grants previously obligated, (excluding any Federal funding to an institution of higher education, or to an individual, to be available solely for student financial assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance) from appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies to institutions of higher education (including any subelements of such institutions) that have a policy or practice of prohibiting or preventing the Secretary of Defense from maintaining, establishing, or efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit. Implementing regulations are codified at 32 Code of Federal Regulations, part 216. This letter provides you an opportunity to clarify your institution’s policy regarding ROTC access on the campus of ABC University. In that regard, I request, within the next 30 days, a written statement of the institution with respect to [define the problem area(s)]. Based on this information, Department of Defense officials will make a determination as to your institution’s eligibility to receive the above-referenced funds by grant or contract. That decision may affect eligibility for funding from appropriations of the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. Should it be determined that [University] as an institution of higher education (or any subelement of the institution) is in violation of the aforementioned statutes and regulations, such funding would be stopped, and the institution of higher education (including any subelements of the institution) would remain ineligible to receive such funds until and unless the Department of Defense determines that the institution has ceased the offending policies and practices. I regret that this action may have to be taken. Successful officer procurement requires that the Department of Defense maintain a strong ROTC program. I hope it will be possible to [define the correction to the aforementioned problem area(s)]. [My representative, (name), is] [I am] available to answer any of your questions by telephone at [telephone number]. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, 18 10 PO 00000 U.S.C. 983. Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Dated: May 1, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E7–8662 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09–07–007] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago, IL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Safety Zone in Chicago Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Chicago Harbor during fireworks displays that pose a hazard to public safety. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 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 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have further questions on this rule, contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747– 7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Request for Comments We encourage you to submit comments and related materials. If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09–07– 007], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail (see ADDRESSES). If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period, which may result in a modification to the rule. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a public meeting (see 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. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS Background and Purpose This safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Discussion of Rule The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during fireworks displays in Chicago Harbor. The proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of near Navy Pier and the Chicago Harbor breakwater. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander will be on-scene while the safety zone is enacted and inform the public that the safety zone is being enforced. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended. The proposed safety zone replaces 33 CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, paragraph (a)(13) and (14). The safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:53 May 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 end of Navy Pier and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′37″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′55″ W; then north to 41°53′37″ N, 087°35′55″ W; then back to the point of origin. 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. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The Coast Guard’s use of this safety zone will be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed 10, one-hour events per year. This safety zone will only be enforced during the time the safety zone is actually in use. Furthermore, 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. We suspect that there may be small entities affected by this rule but are unable to provide more definitive information as to the number of small entities that may be affected. The risk, outlined above, is severe and requires that immediate action be taken. The Coast Guard will evaluate whether a substantial number of small entities are affected as more information becomes available. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 25721 comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, 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 offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). Collection of Information This proposed rule calls 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1 25722 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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 this proposed safety zone 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. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:53 May 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore we believe this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 34 (g) from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule establishes a safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a preliminary ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 § 165.933 to read as follows: § 165.933 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago IL. (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of Navy Pier and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′37″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′55″ W; then north to 41°53′37″ N, 087°35′55″ W; then back to the point of origin. (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port. (2) Public vessel means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof. (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. (4) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. (d) Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement. The safety zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7 (a). Such means of notification may also include, E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended. (e) Exemption. Public vessels as defined in paragraph (b) of this section are exempt from the requirements in this section. (f) Wavier. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety. Dated: March 12, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7–8605 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Parts 101–42, 101–45, and 102– 40 [FPMR Case 2003–101–1; Docket 2007–001; Sequence 2] [FMR Case 2003–102–4] RIN 3090–AH21 Federal Management Regulation; FPMR Case 2003–101–1; FMR Case 2003–102–4, Disposition of Personal Property with Special Handling Requirements Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The General Services Administration is proposing to amend the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) by revising coverage on the hazardous and certain categories of personal property and moving it into the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) addressing all types of property requiring special handling. A cross-reference is added to the FPMR to direct readers to the coverage in the FMR. The FMR coverage is written in plain language to provide agencies with updated regulatory material that is easy to read and understand. DATES: Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before June rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:53 May 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 6, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FPMR case 2003–101–1 by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting ‘‘General Services Administration’’ as the agency of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt, type in the FMR case number (for example, FPMR case 2003–101–1) and click on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please include any personal and/or business information inside the document. You may also search for any document by clicking on the ‘‘Advanced search/ document search’’ tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field ‘‘General Services Administration’’, and typing the FMR case number in the keyword field. Select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. • Fax: 202–501–4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FPMR case 2003–101–1 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, at (202) 501–4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Robert Holcombe, Director, Asset Management (MTA), at (202) 501–3828. Please cite FPMR Case 2003–101–1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background This proposed rule updates, streamlines, and clarifies FPMR part 101–42 and moves the part into the FMR as part 102–40. This proposed rule also removes §§ 101–45.001, 101– 45.002, and 101–45.004. The subject matter of these sections is addressed in section 102–40.190 (disposal of items requiring demilitarization); section 102– 40.50 (handling of property reported to GSA so as to preserve civilian utility as far as possible); section 102–40.220 (disposal of gold as a precious metal); and section 102–40.135 (disposal of ATVs). In addition, this proposed rule removes section 101–45.003 regarding vehicle reconditioning. That section PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 25723 provides guidance that the Federal fleet community considers standard business practices, and is more prescriptive of specific tasks than is intended by this Governmentwide policy regulation. The proposed rule is written in a plain language question and answer format. This style uses an active voice, shorter sentences, and pronouns. A question and its answer combine to establish a rule. The employee and the agency must follow the language contained in both the question and its answer. Proposed FMR part 102–40 includes the following specific changes from FPMR part 101–42: 1. Proposed section 102–40.30 includes the following terms and definitions not found in section 101– 42.001: Ammunition Commerce Control List Item (CCLI) Demilitarization Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Medical devices Precious metal 2. Proposed section 102–40.95 revises FPMR section 101–42.401, Sales responsibilities for hazardous material, by allowing agencies to sell property with special handling requirements. 3. Proposed section 102–40.150 has special requirements for handling asbestos products. 4. Proposed section 102–40.140 introduces the topic of disposal of ammunition which does not appear in part 101–42. The disposition of ammunition and ammunition components are combined in this part 102–40. A new policy contained in part 102–40 allows the sale of ammunition and ammunition components to activities licensed to perform manufacturing/ demanufacturing/ remanufacturing, or licensed to recover basic material content of the ammunition or ammunition components. Expended ammunition cartridge cases may be transferred or donated when the recipient certifies that the cartridge case will be reloaded and used only for law enforcement purposes. 5. Proposed section 102–40.195 has special requirements for handling Commerce Control List items. 6. Proposed part 102–40 incorporates topics that appeared in 41 CFR part 101–45; specifically, the provisions appearing at section 101–45.001, ‘‘Demilitarization and decontamination’’; section 101–45.002, ‘‘Gold’’; and section 101–45.004, ‘‘All terrain vehicles.’’ The subject matter of these sections is addressed in section 102–40.190 (disposal of items requiring demilitarization); section 102–40.50 E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM 07MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25720-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8605]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-07-007]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Safety Zone in 
Chicago Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions 
of Chicago Harbor during fireworks displays that pose a hazard to 
public safety. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the 
hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 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 between 8 a.m. 
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have further questions on this 
rule, 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 submit comments and related materials. If you 
submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the 
docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09-07-007], indicate the specific 
section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the 
reason for each

[[Page 25721]]

comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail (see 
ADDRESSES). If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period, which may result in a 
modification to the rule.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a public meeting (see 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 safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and people from 
the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include 
the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water 
that may cause death or serious bodily harm.

Discussion of Rule

    The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of 
vessels and people during fireworks displays in Chicago Harbor. The 
proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within 
Chicago Harbor between the east end of near Navy Pier and the Chicago 
Harbor breakwater.
    The Coast Guard Patrol Commander will be on-scene while the safety 
zone is enacted and inform the public that the safety zone is being 
enforced. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of 
the safety zone established by this section to be made by all 
appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including 
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are 
not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to 
Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to 
Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone 
established by this section is suspended.
    The proposed safety zone replaces 33 CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; 
Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, 
paragraph (a)(13) and (14). The safety zone will encompass the waters 
of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of Navy 
Pier and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41[deg]53'37'' N, 
087[deg]35'26'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'24'' N, 087[deg]35'26'' W; 
then east to 41[deg]53'24'' N, 087[deg]35'55'' W; then north to 
41[deg]53'37'' N, 087[deg]35'55'' W; then back to the point of origin.

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. It has not been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not 
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this safety zone will 
be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed 10, one-hour events 
per year. This safety zone will only be enforced during the time the 
safety zone is actually in use. Furthermore, 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.
    We suspect that there may be small entities affected by this rule 
but are unable to provide more definitive information as to the number 
of small entities that may be affected. The risk, outlined above, is 
severe and requires that immediate action be taken. The Coast Guard 
will evaluate whether a substantial number of small entities are 
affected as more information becomes available.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a 
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the 
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your 
comment, explain why you think it qualifies, 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 offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small 
businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who 
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to 
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman 
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness 
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of 
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule calls 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we 
do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with

[[Page 25722]]

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 does not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
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 this proposed safety zone 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this 
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore we believe this rule should be 
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34 (g) from further 
environmental documentation. This proposed rule establishes a safety 
zone and as such is covered by this paragraph.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a 
preliminary ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
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.  165.933 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.933  Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of 
Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of Navy Pier 
and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41[deg]53'37'' N, 
087[deg]35'26'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'24'' N, 087[deg]35'26'' W; 
then east to 41[deg]53'24'' N, 087[deg]35'55'' W; then north to 
41[deg]53'37'' N, 087[deg]35'55'' W; then back to the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: 
(1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, 
warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake 
Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give 
legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and 
take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
    (2) Public vessel means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by 
the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 
apply.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of 
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. 
Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing 
light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as 
directed.
    (4) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port 
or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety 
zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. 
Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall 
obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a 
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels 
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    (d) Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement. The safety 
zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of 
the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of 
enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made 
by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public 
including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in 
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7 (a). Such means of notification may also 
include,

[[Page 25723]]

but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to 
Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to 
Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone 
established by this section is suspended.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels as defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Wavier. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 
or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of 
this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other 
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary 
or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety.

    Dated: March 12, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
 [FR Doc. E7-8605 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.