Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, Chicago, IL, 13232-13236 [2012-5330]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13232
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
category; all serial numbers; on which the
left-hand sidewall of the nose landing gear
(NLG) bay has one of the following part
numbers installed: HC537L0002–000, –002,
and –004, HC537H8021–000, –002, and –004,
and HC537H8018–000.
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) Reason
This AD was prompted by a report of a
crack found on the left-hand sidewall well on
the NLG. We are issuing this AD to correct
and detect failure of the sidewall, which
could result in consequent in-flight rapid
decompression of the cabin and injury to the
passengers.
(f) Compliance
You are responsible for having the actions
required by this AD performed within the
compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
(g) Inspection
Before the accumulation of 12,000 total
flight cycles or within 4,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform a high frequency eddy
current inspection of the stiffeners on the
left-hand sidewall on the NLG gear bay
adjacent to the boss at the NLG retraction
jack attachment pin hole, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE
SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53–229,
Revision 1, dated November 22, 2010. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 12,000 flight cycles, except as
provided in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(h) Repair
If, during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is found
in the sidewall stiffeners, before further flight
repair the sidewall stiffeners, using a method
approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM 116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or
its delegated agent); or do the replacement
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(i) Optional Replacement
Replacement of the sidewall stiffeners,
with sidewall P/N HC537L0002–006, on any
airplane, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE
SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53–229,
Revision 1, dated November 22, 2010,
terminates the repetitive inspections required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
date of this AD using BAE SYSTEMS
(OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53–229, dated July 8, 2010.
(l) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–
3356; telephone (425) 227–1175; fax (425)
227–1149. Information may be emailed to:
9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(m) Related Information
Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2011–0097, dated May 25, 2011;
and BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS)
LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53–
229, Revision 1, dated November 22, 2010;
for related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
27, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0052]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
(k) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for
inspections and replacements, as specified in
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective
HHS.
Jkt 226001
[FR Doc. 2012–5314 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am]
33 CFR Part 165
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
21 CFR Part 172
14:53 Mar 05, 2012
Dated: February 29, 2012.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2012–5380 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am]
(j) Parts Installation
As of the effective date of this AD: No
person may install a sidewall stiffener with
P/N HC537L0002–000, –002, or –004,
HC537H8021–000, –002, or –004, or
HC537H8018–000, on any airplane.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
that Abbott Laboratories has filed a
petition proposing that the food additive
regulations be amended to provide for
the expanded safe use of vitamin D3 as
a nutrient supplement in food.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–
3835, 240–402–1071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))),
notice is given that a food additive
petition (FAP 2A4788) has been filed by
Abbott Laboratories, 3300 Stelzer Rd.,
Columbus, OH 43219. The petition
proposes to amend § 172.380 (21 CFR
172.380) to provide for the safe use of
vitamin D3 as a nutrient supplement in
meal replacement beverages and meal
replacement bars that are not intended
for special dietary use in reducing or
maintaining body weight and for use in
foods that are sole sources of nutrition
for enteral tube feeding.
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit,
Chicago, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
[Docket No. FDA–2012–F–0138]
ACTION:
Abbott Laboratories; Filing of Food
Additive Petition
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Food and Drug Administration,
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish four separate security zones on
both the waters and waterfront area of
Chicago Harbor and the Chicago River.
These proposed temporary security
zones are intended to restrict vessels,
regardless of the mode of propulsion,
and people from certain land and water
E:\FR\FM\06MRP1.SGM
06MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
areas in Chicago Harbor and the Chicago
River during the G8/NATO Summit and
associated events, which will be held in
Chicago from May 16, 2012, through
May 24, 2012. These security zones are
necessary to protect visiting government
officials and dignitaries from the
potential dangers, including terrorists
threats, associated with a large scale,
international political event.
DATES: Comments and related materials
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2012–0052 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: 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–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions on this proposed
temporary rule, call or email CWO Jon
Grob, Prevention Department, Coast
Guard Sector Lake Michigan,
Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–7188, email
at Jon.K.Grob@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2012–0052),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online (via https://
www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an email address,
or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2012–0052’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the
balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments 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 and may
change the rule based on your
comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2012–
0052’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13233
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting 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
Leaders from around the world will
gather in Chicago this spring for two
diplomatic summits hosted by President
Obama. Specifically, the G8 and NATO
will hold summits and certain
associated events in Chicago from May
16, 2012, through May 24, 2012. G8
(Group of Eight) was founded in 1975.
The G8 is a group of eight countries that
has served in recent years as a forum for
the leaders of the world’s largest
markets to discuss critical issues of the
day ranging from the global economy to
pressing security challenges.
Meanwhile, NATO was founded in 1949
and includes the United States and
twenty seven other countries. Today,
NATO is the hub of an international
global security network.
Considering the international,
economical, and political objectives of
G8 and NATO along with the high
concentration of dignitaries and
political figures, the G8/NATO Summit
is expected to draw significant domestic
and international media interest and
also attract a large number of protesters.
Consequently, the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan (COTP), has
determined that the implementation of
four separate security zones is necessary
to mitigate the threat of violence and
ensure the safety and security of those
who attend, participate, and visit the
G8/NATO Summit and any associated
events.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
To alleviate the safety and security
concerns presented by the international,
economical, and political implications
of G8 and NATO; the high concentration
of dignitaries and political figures; the
expected interest of domestic and
international media; and the anticipated
presence of protesters; the Captain of
the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has
E:\FR\FM\06MRP1.SGM
06MRP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13234
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
determined that it is necessary to
establish four separately enforceable
security zones. These zones will allow
for the closure of four specific areas on
and around the waterfront along both
Chicago Harbor and the Chicago River.
The four proposed temporary security
zones will encompass:
(1) Security Zone A—This zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of
a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the
Burnham park hoist ramp with its
center point located in the approximate
position 41°51′37″ N, 087°36′44″ W.
[DATUM: NAD 83].
(2) Security Zone B—This zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of
a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the
outermost tip of the Chicago lock with
its center point located in the
approximate position 41°53′19″ N,
087°36′17″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(3) Security Zone C—This zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters of
the Chicago River between the Western
Gate of the Chicago Controlling Works
Lock which is located in approximate
position 41°53′18″ N, 087°36′28″ W.
[DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture of
the north and south branches of the
Chicago River which is located in
approximate position 41°53′11″ N,
087°38′15″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83]
(4) Security Zone D—This zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters of
the Chicago River between Mile Marker
322.0, which is in the vicinity of the
Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip,
and Mile Marker 326.4, which is in the
vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf.
[DATUM: NAD 83]
These proposed security zones would
be effective and enforced between 8 a.m.
on May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24,
2012.
In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no
person or vessel, regardless of the mode
of propulsion, may enter or remain in
any one of the security zones
established in this proposed rule
without first obtaining permission from
the Captain of the Port Sector Lake
Michigan. The Captain of the Port
Sector Lake Michigan, at his or her
discretion, may permit persons and
vessels to enter the security zones
addressed in this proposed rule.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Regulatory Planning and Review
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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). We conclude that this proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will
not interfere with other agencies, will
not adversely alter the budget of any
grant or loan recipients, and will not
raise any novel legal or policy issues.
Each security zone has been designed to
allow as much free transit of vessels as
possible while also preserving the
security of the G8/NATO Summit. Thus,
vessels may still transit portions of the
affected waterways not implicated by
the proposed security zones. Also,
under certain conditions, vessels may
still transit through a security zone
when permitted by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan. Moreover,
the COTP retains the discretion to
suspend enforcement of any or all of
these proposed security zones when he
deems necessary. On the whole, the
Coast Guard expects insignificant
adverse impact to mariners from the
activation of these security zones.
Small Entities
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
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 this proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
the Waterways Management
Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety
Unit Chicago, Willowbrook, IL at (630)
986–2155. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that
question or object to this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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
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 and
operators of vessels, regardless of the
mode of propulsion, intending to transit
or anchor in the security zones
established in this proposed rule. These
security zones would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the same reasons discussed above in the
PO 00000
Regulatory Planning and Review
section.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed 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.
Sfmt 4702
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 temporary 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 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed temporary rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this proposed
temporary rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\06MRP1.SGM
06MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Taking of Private Property
This proposed temporary rule will not
affect the taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications
under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed temporary 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
temporary rule under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed temporary 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
This proposed temporary 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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD 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.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 temporary rule does
not use technical standards. Therefore,
we did not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed
temporary 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 this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
temporary rule involves the establishing
of security zones and therefore, is
categorically excluded under paragraph
34(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis check list
supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed temporary rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine security, 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. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 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.T09–0052 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T09–0052 Security Zones; G8/North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Summit, Chicago, Illinois.
(a) Locations. The following areas are
designated security zones:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13235
(1) Security Zone A—Security Zone A
encompasses all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of
a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the
Burnham park hoist ramp with its
center point located in the approximate
position 41°51′37″ N, 087°36′44″ W.
[DATUM: NAD 83].
(2) Security Zone B—Security Zone B
encompasses all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of
a circle with a 2000-yard radius of the
outermost tip of the Chicago lock with
its center point located in the
approximate position 41°53′19″ N,
087°36′17″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(3) Security Zone C—Security Zone C
encompasses all U.S. navigable waters
of the Chicago River between the
Western Gate of the Chicago Controlling
Works Lock which is located in
approximate position 41°53′18″ N,
087°36′28″ W. [DATUM: NAD 83] and
the juncture of the north and south
branches of the Chicago River which is
located in approximate position
41°53′11″ N, 087°38′15″ W. [DATUM:
NAD 83]
(4) Security Zone D—This zone will
encompass all U.S. navigable waters of
the Chicago River between Mile Marker
322.0, which is in the vicinity of the
Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip,
and Mile Marker 326.4, which is in the
vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf.
[DATUM: NAD 83]
(b) Enforcement period. The security
zones described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be effective and enforced
between 8 a.m. on May 16, 2012, and 8
a.m. on May 24, 2012.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
§ 165.33, entry into any area of these
security zones is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his
or her on-scene designated
representative.
(2) The ‘‘designated representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to act
on his or her behalf.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within any of the security
zones shall contact the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
on-scene designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. The Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his
or her on-scene designated
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators given permission
to enter or operate in any of the security
zones shall comply with all directions
given by the Captain of the Port, Sector
E:\FR\FM\06MRP1.SGM
06MRP1
13236
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
designated representative.
Dated: February 3, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012–5330 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900–AO27
Exempting In-Home Video Telehealth
From Copayments
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend its
regulation that governs VA services that
are not subject to copayment
requirements for inpatient hospital care
or outpatient medical care. Specifically,
the regulation would be amended to
exempt in-home video telehealth care
from having any required copayment.
This would remove a barrier that may
have previously discouraged veterans
from choosing to use in-home video
telehealth as a viable medical care
option. In turn, VA hopes to make the
home a preferred place of care,
whenever medically appropriate and
possible.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before April 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations
Management (02REG), Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave.
NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC
20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026.
Comments should indicate that they are
submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–
AO27]— Exempting In-home Video
Telehealth from Copayments.’’ Copies of
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Office of
Regulation Policy and Management,
Room 1063B, between the hours of
8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202) 461–4902 for an appointment (this
is not a toll-free number). In addition,
during the comment period, comments
may be viewed online through the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Mar 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Business Policy, Chief Business Office,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20420; (202) 461–1599. (This is not a
toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Many of
our nation’s veterans must travel great
distances in order to obtain health care
at a VA hospital or medical center. To
improve veterans’ access to VA health
care, VA established community-based
outpatient clinics (CBOCs) located in
local communities. VA has continued
its efforts to improve veterans’ access to
VA medical care by establishing
‘‘telehealth’’ services. Telehealth allows
VA to provide certain medical care
without requiring the veteran to be
physically present with the examining
or treating medical professional.
Telehealth helps ensure that veterans
are able to get their care in a timely and
convenient manner, by reducing
burdens on the patient as well as
appropriately reducing the utilization of
VA resources without sacrificing the
quality of care provided. The benefits of
using this technology include increased
access to specialist consultations,
improved access to primary and
ambulatory care, reduced waiting times,
and decreased veteran travel.
VA provides various telehealth
services, including clinical video
telehealth and in-home video telehealth
care. Clinical video telehealth, as the
name implies, occurs between two
clinical settings, such as two VA
Medical Centers (VAMCs), a VAMC and
a CBOC, or two CBOCs. Clinical video
telehealth may also connect patient and
provider between VAMCs and VA
Centers of Specialized Care, such as
those established for Spinal Cord Injury
(SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and
Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Clinical video
telehealth uses real-time interactive
video conferencing, sometimes with
supportive peripheral devices, such as a
camera to closely examine skin. This
allows a specialist located in another
facility to assess and treat a veteran by
providing care remotely.
Like clinical video telehealth, inhome video telehealth care is used to
connect a veteran to a VA health care
professional using real-time
videoconferencing, and other equipment
as necessary, as a means to replicate
aspects of face-to-face assessment and
care delivery that do not require the
health care professional to make an
examination requiring physical contact.
However, in-home video telehealth care
is provided in a veteran’s home,
eliminating the need for the veteran to
travel to a clinical setting. Using
telehealth capabilities, a VA clinician
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
can assess elements of a patient’s care,
such as wound management, psychiatric
or psychotherapeutic care, exercise
plans, and medication management. The
clinician may also monitor patient selfcare by reviewing vital signs and
evaluating the patient’s appearance on
video.
Prior to this proposed rulemaking,
veterans have been required to pay a
copayment for in-home video telehealth
care. We believe that VA has authority
by statute to discontinue charging
copayments for these services.
Section 1710(g)(1) of 38 U.S.C. states:
The Secretary may not furnish medical
services (except if such care constitutes
hospice care) under subsection (a) of this
section (including home health services
under section 1717 of this title) to a veteran
who is eligible for hospital care under this
chapter by reason of subsection (a)(3) of this
section unless the veteran agrees to pay to the
United States in the case of each outpatient
visit the applicable amount or amounts
established by the Secretary by regulation.
VA has interpreted section 1710(g)(1) to
mean that VA has the discretion to
establish the applicable copayment
amount in regulation, even if such
amount is zero. One such implementing
regulation is 38 CFR 17.108.
Generally, VA calculates the amount
of a copayment based on the complexity
of care provided and the resources
needed to provide that care. In addition,
VA may exempt certain care from the
copayment requirement in an effort to
make health care more accessible to
veterans, or to encourage veterans to
become more actively involved in their
medical care, and thereby improve
health care outcomes (which, in turn,
lowers overall health care costs). VA
proposes to make in-home video
telehealth care exempt from copayments
because it is not used to provide
complex care and its use significantly
reduces impact on VA resources
compared to an in-person, outpatient
visit. It also reduces any potential
negative impact on the veteran’s health
that might be incurred if the veteran
were required to travel to a VA hospital
or medical center to obtain the care that
would be provided via in-home video
telehealth. VA also wants to encourage
veterans to use the in-home video
telehealth care option when their
provider finds it appropriate because we
believe that it would help ensure that
veterans comply with outpatient
treatment plans by regularly following
up with physicians and medical
professionals, taking medication in
appropriate doses on a regular basis,
and generally being more engaged with
their VA health care providers.
E:\FR\FM\06MRP1.SGM
06MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13232-13236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5330]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2012-0052]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Summit, Chicago, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish four separate security
zones on both the waters and waterfront area of Chicago Harbor and the
Chicago River. These proposed temporary security zones are intended to
restrict vessels, regardless of the mode of propulsion, and people from
certain land and water
[[Page 13233]]
areas in Chicago Harbor and the Chicago River during the G8/NATO Summit
and associated events, which will be held in Chicago from May 16, 2012,
through May 24, 2012. These security zones are necessary to protect
visiting government officials and dignitaries from the potential
dangers, including terrorists threats, associated with a large scale,
international political event.
DATES: Comments and related materials must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0052 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
temporary rule, call or email CWO Jon Grob, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7188,
email at Jon.K.Grob@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0052), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0052'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand 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 comments 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 and may change
the rule based on your comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0052'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting 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
Leaders from around the world will gather in Chicago this spring
for two diplomatic summits hosted by President Obama. Specifically, the
G8 and NATO will hold summits and certain associated events in Chicago
from May 16, 2012, through May 24, 2012. G8 (Group of Eight) was
founded in 1975. The G8 is a group of eight countries that has served
in recent years as a forum for the leaders of the world's largest
markets to discuss critical issues of the day ranging from the global
economy to pressing security challenges. Meanwhile, NATO was founded in
1949 and includes the United States and twenty seven other countries.
Today, NATO is the hub of an international global security network.
Considering the international, economical, and political objectives
of G8 and NATO along with the high concentration of dignitaries and
political figures, the G8/NATO Summit is expected to draw significant
domestic and international media interest and also attract a large
number of protesters. Consequently, the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan (COTP), has determined that the implementation of four
separate security zones is necessary to mitigate the threat of violence
and ensure the safety and security of those who attend, participate,
and visit the G8/NATO Summit and any associated events.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
To alleviate the safety and security concerns presented by the
international, economical, and political implications of G8 and NATO;
the high concentration of dignitaries and political figures; the
expected interest of domestic and international media; and the
anticipated presence of protesters; the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, has
[[Page 13234]]
determined that it is necessary to establish four separately
enforceable security zones. These zones will allow for the closure of
four specific areas on and around the waterfront along both Chicago
Harbor and the Chicago River.
The four proposed temporary security zones will encompass:
(1) Security Zone A--This zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the Burnham park hoist ramp with its center point
located in the approximate position 41[deg]51'37'' N, 087[deg]36'44''
W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(2) Security Zone B--This zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the outermost tip of the Chicago lock with its
center point located in the approximate position 41[deg]53'19'' N,
087[deg]36'17'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(3) Security Zone C--This zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between the Western Gate of the Chicago
Controlling Works Lock which is located in approximate position
41[deg]53'18'' N, 087[deg]36'28'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture
of the north and south branches of the Chicago River which is located
in approximate position 41[deg]53'11'' N, 087[deg]38'15'' W. [DATUM:
NAD 83]
(4) Security Zone D--This zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between Mile Marker 322.0, which is in the
vicinity of the Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip, and Mile
Marker 326.4, which is in the vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf.
[DATUM: NAD 83]
These proposed security zones would be effective and enforced
between 8 a.m. on May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24, 2012.
In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel, regardless
of the mode of propulsion, may enter or remain in any one of the
security zones established in this proposed rule without first
obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan.
The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan, at his or her discretion,
may permit persons and vessels to enter the security zones addressed in
this proposed rule.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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 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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Each security zone
has been designed to allow as much free transit of vessels as possible
while also preserving the security of the G8/NATO Summit. Thus, vessels
may still transit portions of the affected waterways not implicated by
the proposed security zones. Also, under certain conditions, vessels
may still transit through a security zone when permitted by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. Moreover, the COTP retains the
discretion to suspend enforcement of any or all of these proposed
security zones when he deems necessary. On the whole, the Coast Guard
expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of
these security zones.
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 and operators of vessels,
regardless of the mode of propulsion, intending to transit or anchor in
the security zones established in this proposed rule. These security
zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the same reasons discussed above in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 this
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways
Management Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago,
Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986-2155. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or object to this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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
temporary 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed temporary rule
would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this proposed temporary rule elsewhere in this preamble.
[[Page 13235]]
Taking of Private Property
This proposed temporary rule will not affect the taking of private
property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed temporary 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 temporary rule under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. This proposed temporary 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
This proposed temporary 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 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 temporary rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed temporary 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 this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed
temporary rule involves the establishing of security zones and
therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis check list supporting
this preliminary determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed temporary rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine security, 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. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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.T09-0052 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T09-0052 Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Summit, Chicago, Illinois.
(a) Locations. The following areas are designated security zones:
(1) Security Zone A--Security Zone A encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the Burnham park hoist ramp with its center point
located in the approximate position 41[deg]51'37'' N, 087[deg]36'44''
W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(2) Security Zone B--Security Zone B encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the outermost tip of the Chicago lock with its
center point located in the approximate position 41[deg]53'19'' N,
087[deg]36'17'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(3) Security Zone C--Security Zone C encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between the Western Gate of the Chicago
Controlling Works Lock which is located in approximate position
41[deg]53'18'' N, 087[deg]36'28'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture
of the north and south branches of the Chicago River which is located
in approximate position 41[deg]53'11'' N, 087[deg]38'15'' W. [DATUM:
NAD 83]
(4) Security Zone D--This zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between Mile Marker 322.0, which is in the
vicinity of the Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip, and Mile
Marker 326.4, which is in the vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf.
[DATUM: NAD 83]
(b) Enforcement period. The security zones described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be effective and enforced between 8 a.m. on
May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24, 2012.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with Sec. 165.33, entry into
any area of these security zones is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
on-scene designated representative.
(2) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within any of the
security zones shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or
his or her on-scene designated representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.
(4) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in any of
the security zones shall comply with all directions given by the
Captain of the Port, Sector
[[Page 13236]]
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene designated representative.
Dated: February 3, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-5330 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
