Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Safety Zone in Chicago Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Chicago Harbor during fireworks displays that pose a hazard to public safety. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have further questions on this rule, contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7154.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Request for Comments
We encourage you to submit comments and related materials. If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09-07-006], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail (see ADDRESSES). If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period, which may result in a modification to the rule.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a public meeting (see ADDRESSES) explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
This safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm.
Discussion of Rule
The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during fireworks displays in Chicago Harbor. The proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and Chicago Harbor breakwater.
The Coast Guard Patrol Commander will be on-scene while the safety zone is enacted and inform the public that the safety zone is being enforced. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended.
The proposed safety zone replaces 33 CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, (13) and (14). The safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′09″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′09″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then north to 41°53′24″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then back to the point of origin.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's use of this safety zone will be periodic in nature and will likely not exceed forty, one-hour events per year. This safety zone will only be enforced during the time the safety zone is actually in use. Furthermore, this safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
We suspect that there may be small entities affected by this rule but are unable to provide more definitive information as to the number of small entities that may be affected. The risk, outlined above, is severe and requires that immediate action be taken. The Coast Guard will evaluate whether a substantial number of small entities are Start Printed Page 25218affected as more information becomes available.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, how, and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that this proposed safety zone and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Proposed Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore we believe this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule establishes a safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph.
A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a preliminary “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part Start Printed Page 25219
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
2. Add § 165.931 to read as follows:
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor between the east end of the Chicago Lock guidewall and the Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at 41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south to 41°53′09″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then east to 41°53′09″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then north to 41°53′24″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then back to the point of origin.
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor this safety zone, permit entry into this zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within this zones and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(2) Public vessel means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
(2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
(d) Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement. The safety zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended.
(e) Exemption. Public vessels as defined in paragraph (b) of this section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
(f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7-8608 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P