Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, 13508-13511 [2011-5731]

Download as PDF 13508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations (d) The actions of the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge taken under this section are final and not subject to further review. PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950–ll) Subpart J—[Amended]. 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a), (b), (d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a), (b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)– (e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). ■ 2. Add § 404.937 to read as follows: PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—[Amended]. 3. The authority citation for subpart N continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). ■ 4. Add § 416.1437 to read as follows: WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES § 404.937 Protecting the safety of the public and our employees in our hearing process. § 416.1437 Protecting the safety of the public and our employees in our hearing process. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this part or part 422 of this chapter, we are establishing the procedures set out in this section to ensure the safety of the public and our employees in our hearing process. (b)(1) At the request of any hearing office employee, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will determine, after consultation with the presiding administrative law judge, whether a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will find that a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing when he or she determines that the individual has made a threat and there is a reasonable likelihood that the claimant or other individual could act on the threat. In making a finding under this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will consider all relevant evidence, including any information we have in the claimant’s record and any information we have regarding the claimant’s or other individual’s past conduct. (2) If the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge determines that the claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will either: (i) Require the presence of a security guard at the hearing; or (ii) Require that the hearing be conducted by video teleconference or by telephone. (c) If we have banned a claimant from any of our facilities, we will provide the claimant with the opportunity for a hearing that will be conducted by telephone. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this part or part 422 of this chapter, we are establishing the procedures set out in this section to ensure the safety of the public and our employees in our hearing process. (b)(1) At the request of any hearing office employee, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will determine, after consultation with the presiding administrative law judge, whether a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will find that a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing when he or she determines that the individual has made a threat and there is a reasonable likelihood that the claimant or other individual could act on the threat. In making a finding under this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will consider all relevant evidence, including any information we have in the claimant’s record and any information we have regarding the claimant’s or other individual’s past conduct. (2) If the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge determines that the claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will either: (i) Require the presence of a security guard at the hearing; or (ii) Require that the hearing be conducted by video teleconference or by telephone. (c) If we have banned a claimant from any of our facilities, we will provide the claimant with the opportunity for a hearing that will be conducted by telephone. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Mar 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (d) The actions of the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge taken under this section are final and not subject to further review. [FR Doc. 2011–5750 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191–02–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 3 [Docket No. USCG–2009–0929] RIN 1625–ZA29 Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Coast Guard, DHS. Final Rule. AGENCY: ACTION: This rule makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to Title 33 of the CFR to reflect the realignment of boundaries shared among Sector Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie. This action is taken to rebalance workload and span of control among Ninth District sector commands. These changes affect internal Coast Guard organization and functioning only and will have no substantive effect on mariners or other members of the public. SUMMARY: This final rule is effective at 12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 0929 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG–2009–0929 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District Resources Planning Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 216–902–6008, e-mail douglas.a.mccann@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM 14MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the rule involves ‘‘agency organization’’ or when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that with respect to this rule the requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) does not apply because these changes merely involve agency organization. Also, the Coast Guard finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary. Comments are unnecessary because they would not change the Coast Guard’s internal delegation of authority or duties among the Ninth District’s sector commands nor would they provide expertise regarding Coast Guard functions. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because these changes affect internal Coast Guard organization and functioning only and will have no substantive effect on the public. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Background and Purpose On July 2, 2007, in order to reflect the establishment of the new system of sector commands, the Coast Guard extensively revised 33 CFR part 3. That revision included various changes to the Coast Guard’s internal organization to include the reassignment of Station Charlevoix and Station Alpena from Group Sault Ste. Marie to Sectors Lake Michigan and Detroit, respectively. That reassignment was done in order to have all units on Lake Michigan assigned to one sector and all units on Lake Huron assigned to another. The Coast Guard has decided, however, to further adjust sector boundaries to provide a more balanced workload and span of control among Ninth District sectors. An effect of this boundary adjustment is that Stations Charlevoix and Alpena will be reassigned to Sector Sault Ste. Marie. In addition to balancing workload and span of control, this realignment will also enhance planning and coordination with our maritime partners. Specifically, these changes will align Ninth District sectors more closely with VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Mar 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, and the Tri-County 911 Center servicing Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Emmet counties. This alignment is expected to improve cooperation, consistency, and efficiency in maritime security, safety, and environmental response. This rule is not intended or expected to require any new actions on the part of the public. Discussion of Rule Generally, this rule expands Sector Sault Ste. Marie’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). Its new AOR will encompass Grand Traverse Bay, other northern portions of Lake Michigan, and additional portions of northern Lake Huron. To accomplish this realignment, this rule amends 33 CFR 3.45–15, 3.45– 20, and 3.45–45, which define the boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie respectively. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This 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. As this rule involves internal agency organization and nonsubstantive changes, it will not impose any costs on the public. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this 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. This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed this rule for potential PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 13509 economic impacts on small entities. We found that that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). 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 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 rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM 14MRR1 13510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this 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. WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Mar 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2– 1, paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction. This rule concerns Coast Guard internal functions and organization in that it redefines certain sector boundaries. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 3 Organization and functions (Government agencies). For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 3 as follows: PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23). ■ 2. Revise § 3.45–15 to read as follows: § 3.45–15 Sector Lake Michigan Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone. Sector Lake Michigan’s office is located in Milwaukee, WI. The boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan’s Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone include all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a point at latitude 44°43′00″ N, longitude 84°30′00″ W, proceeding due west to longitude 85°40′00″ W; thence northwest to the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45°01′00″ N; thence northwest to latitude 45°22′30″ N, longitude 86°19′00″ W; thence northeast to latitude 45°41′00″ N, longitude 86°06′00″ W; thence northwest to latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 87°22′00″ W; thence west to latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 90°00′00″ W; thence south to latitude 41°00′00″ N; thence east to the Ohio-Indiana border at latitude 41°00′00″ N, longitude 84°48′12″ W; thence north along the Ohio-Indiana border to the intersection of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border at latitude 41°41′59″ N, longitude 84°48′22″ W; thence east along the Ohio-Michigan border to latitude 41°42′13″ N, longitude 84°30′00″ W; thence north to the start point. ■ 3. Revise § 3.45–20 to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 § 3.45–20 Sector Detroit Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone. Sector Detroit’s office is located in Detroit, MI. The boundaries of Sector Detroit’s Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone include all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a point at latitude 41°00′00″ N, longitude 84°48′12″ W on the Ohio-Indiana boundary, proceeding east to longitude 82°25′00″ W; thence north to the international boundary in Lake Erie at latitude 41°40′36″ N, longitude 82°25′00″ W; thence north along the international boundary to latitude 44°43′00″ N in Lake Huron; thence due west to latitude 44°43′00″ N, longitude 84°30′00″ W; thence south to the Michigan-Ohio boundary at latitude 41°42′13″ N; thence west along the Michigan-Ohio boundary to the OhioMichigan-Indiana boundary at latitude 41°41′46″ N, longitude 84°48′22″ W; thence south along the Ohio-Indiana boundary to the starting point. ■ 4. Revise § 3.45–45 to read as follows: § 3.45–45 Sector Sault Ste. Marie Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone; Marine Safety Unit Duluth. Sector Sault Ste. Marie’s office is located in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. A subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Duluth, is located in Duluth, MN. (a) Sector Sault Ste. Marie’s Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone comprise all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within an area starting from a point at latitude 44°43′00″ N on the international boundary within Lake Huron; proceeding due west to longitude 85°40′00″ W; thence northwest to the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45°01′00″ N; thence northwest to latitude 45°22′30″ N, longitude 86°19′00″ W; thence northeast to latitude 45°41′00″ N, longitude 86°06′00″ W; thence northwest to latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 87°22′00″ W; thence west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 96°36′30″ W; thence north along the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at latitude 49°00′02″ N, longitude 97°13′46″ W; thence east along the international boundary to the starting point; and in addition, all the area described in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) The boundaries of the MSU Duluth Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones comprise all navigable E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM 14MRR1 13511 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within an area starting at a point latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 88°30′00″ W, proceeding west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at latitude 46°20′00″ N, longitude 96°36′30″ W; thence north along the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at latitude 49°00′02″ N, longitude 97°13′46″ W; thence east along the international boundary to a point at latitude 47°59′23″ N, longitude 87°35′10″ W; thence south to a point near Manitou Island Light at latitude 47°25′09″ N, longitude 87°35′10″ W; thence southwest to a point near the shore of Lake Superior at latitude 46°51′51″ N, longitude 87°45′00″ W; thence southwest to the point of origin. Dated: March 7, 2011. Kathryn A. Sinniger, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2011–5731 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0903; FRL–9278–7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions to the Open Burning Regulations Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions recodify the open burning regulations which are currently in the Virginia SIP. There are no substantive changes to the rule. EPA is approving these revisions to Virginia’s open burning regulations in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: This rule is effective on May 13, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by April 13, 2011. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2010–0903 by one of the following methods: A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: frankford.harold@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0903, Harold A. Frankford, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 0903. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your DATES: name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittals are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108, or by e-mail at frankford.harold@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. On September 27, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of the recodification of its open burning regulations. II. Summary of SIP Revision The recodification moves the Commonwealth’s SIP-approved open burning regulations from 9VAC5, Chapter 140, Part II Article 40 to a new 9VAC5 Chapter 130, Part I. The following table summarizes the current and new Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) citations for these regulations: Current Virginia SIP citation in 9VAC5 chapter 40, part II, article 40 Regulation title Applicability .................................................................................................................................................. Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... Open Burning Prohibitions ........................................................................................................................... Permissible Open Burning ........................................................................................................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Mar 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM 5–40–5600 5–40–5610 5–40–5620 5–40–5630 14MRR1 Revised Virginia SIP citation in 9VAC5 chapter 130, part I 5–130–10 5–130–20 5–130–30 5–130–40

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13508-13511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0929]
RIN 1625-ZA29


Ninth Coast Guard District Sector Realignment; Northern Lake 
Michigan and Lake Huron

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to Title 33 
of the CFR to reflect the realignment of boundaries shared among Sector 
Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie. This action 
is taken to rebalance workload and span of control among Ninth District 
sector commands. These changes affect internal Coast Guard organization 
and functioning only and will have no substantive effect on mariners or 
other members of the public.

DATES: This final rule is effective at 12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0929 and are available online 
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0929 in the 
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available 
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District Resources Planning 
Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 216-902-6008, e-mail 
douglas.a.mccann@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 13509]]

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment when the rule involves ``agency organization'' 
or when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are 
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that with respect to 
this rule the requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) does not apply because these changes merely involve agency 
organization. Also, the Coast Guard finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this 
rule because it is unnecessary. Comments are unnecessary because they 
would not change the Coast Guard's internal delegation of authority or 
duties among the Ninth District's sector commands nor would they 
provide expertise regarding Coast Guard functions.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register because these changes affect 
internal Coast Guard organization and functioning only and will have no 
substantive effect on the public.

Background and Purpose

    On July 2, 2007, in order to reflect the establishment of the new 
system of sector commands, the Coast Guard extensively revised 33 CFR 
part 3. That revision included various changes to the Coast Guard's 
internal organization to include the reassignment of Station Charlevoix 
and Station Alpena from Group Sault Ste. Marie to Sectors Lake Michigan 
and Detroit, respectively. That reassignment was done in order to have 
all units on Lake Michigan assigned to one sector and all units on Lake 
Huron assigned to another. The Coast Guard has decided, however, to 
further adjust sector boundaries to provide a more balanced workload 
and span of control among Ninth District sectors. An effect of this 
boundary adjustment is that Stations Charlevoix and Alpena will be 
reassigned to Sector Sault Ste. Marie.
    In addition to balancing workload and span of control, this 
realignment will also enhance planning and coordination with our 
maritime partners. Specifically, these changes will align Ninth 
District sectors more closely with Customs and Border Protection, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, and the Tri-County 911 Center 
servicing Charlevoix, Cheboygan, and Emmet counties. This alignment is 
expected to improve cooperation, consistency, and efficiency in 
maritime security, safety, and environmental response. This rule is not 
intended or expected to require any new actions on the part of the 
public.

Discussion of Rule

    Generally, this rule expands Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Area of 
Responsibility (AOR). Its new AOR will encompass Grand Traverse Bay, 
other northern portions of Lake Michigan, and additional portions of 
northern Lake Huron. To accomplish this realignment, this rule amends 
33 CFR 3.45-15, 3.45-20, and 3.45-45, which define the boundaries of 
Sector Lake Michigan, Sector Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie 
respectively.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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. As this rule involves internal agency 
organization and non-substantive changes, it will not impose any costs 
on the public.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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. 
This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and 
therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
    Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed this rule for 
potential economic impacts on small entities. We found that that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
involves internal agency organization and non-substantive changes.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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 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 rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 13510]]

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually 
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, 
paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction. This rule concerns Coast Guard 
internal functions and organization in that it redefines certain sector 
boundaries. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical 
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 3

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 3 as follows:

PART 3--COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION 
ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 92; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).



0
2. Revise Sec.  3.45-15 to read as follows:


Sec.  3.45-15  Sector Lake Michigan Marine Inspection Zone and Captain 
of the Port Zone.

    Sector Lake Michigan's office is located in Milwaukee, WI. The 
boundaries of Sector Lake Michigan's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain 
of the Port Zone include all navigable waters of the United States and 
contiguous land areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a 
point at latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00'' W, 
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to 
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence 
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W; 
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00'' 
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 
90[deg]00'00'' W; thence south to latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N; thence 
east to the Ohio-Indiana border at latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude 
84[deg]48'12'' W; thence north along the Ohio-Indiana border to the 
intersection of the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border at latitude 
41[deg]41'59'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'22'' W; thence east along the 
Ohio-Michigan border to latitude 41[deg]42'13'' N, longitude 
84[deg]30'00'' W; thence north to the start point.

0
3. Revise Sec.  3.45-20 to read as follows:


Sec.  3.45-20  Sector Detroit Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the 
Port Zone.

    Sector Detroit's office is located in Detroit, MI. The boundaries 
of Sector Detroit's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone 
include all navigable waters of the United States and contiguous land 
areas within the boundaries of an area starting from a point at 
latitude 41[deg]00'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]48'12'' W on the Ohio-
Indiana boundary, proceeding east to longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence 
north to the international boundary in Lake Erie at latitude 
41[deg]40'36'' N, longitude 82[deg]25'00'' W; thence north along the 
international boundary to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N in Lake Huron; 
thence due west to latitude 44[deg]43'00'' N, longitude 84[deg]30'00'' 
W; thence south to the Michigan-Ohio boundary at latitude 
41[deg]42'13'' N; thence west along the Michigan-Ohio boundary to the 
Ohio-Michigan-Indiana boundary at latitude 41[deg]41'46'' N, longitude 
84[deg]48'22'' W; thence south along the Ohio-Indiana boundary to the 
starting point.

0
4. Revise Sec.  3.45-45 to read as follows:


Sec.  3.45-45  Sector Sault Ste. Marie Marine Inspection Zone and 
Captain of the Port Zone; Marine Safety Unit Duluth.

    Sector Sault Ste. Marie's office is located in Sault Ste. Marie, 
MI. A subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Duluth, is located in 
Duluth, MN.
    (a) Sector Sault Ste. Marie's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of 
the Port Zone comprise all navigable waters of the United States and 
contiguous land areas within an area starting from a point at latitude 
44[deg]43'00'' N on the international boundary within Lake Huron; 
proceeding due west to longitude 85[deg]40'00'' W; thence northwest to 
the eastern shore of Lake Michigan at latitude 45[deg]01'00'' N; thence 
northwest to latitude 45[deg]22'30'' N, longitude 86[deg]19'00'' W; 
thence northeast to latitude 45[deg]41'00'' N, longitude 86[deg]06'00'' 
W; thence northwest to latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 
87[deg]22'00'' W; thence west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at 
latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north 
along the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the 
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at 
latitude 49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east 
along the international boundary to the starting point; and in 
addition, all the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) The boundaries of the MSU Duluth Marine Inspection and Captain 
of the Port Zones comprise all navigable

[[Page 13511]]

waters of the United States and contiguous land areas within an area 
starting at a point latitude 46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 88[deg]30'00'' 
W, proceeding west to the Minnesota-North Dakota boundary at latitude 
46[deg]20'00'' N, longitude 96[deg]36'30'' W; thence north along the 
Minnesota-North Dakota boundary to the intersection of the Minnesota-
North Dakota boundary and the international boundary at latitude 
49[deg]00'02'' N, longitude 97[deg]13'46'' W; thence east along the 
international boundary to a point at latitude 47[deg]59'23'' N, 
longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence south to a point near Manitou Island 
Light at latitude 47[deg]25'09'' N, longitude 87[deg]35'10'' W; thence 
southwest to a point near the shore of Lake Superior at latitude 
46[deg]51'51'' N, longitude 87[deg]45'00'' W; thence southwest to the 
point of origin.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States 
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-5731 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P