13450 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Bulletin No. 2/41, Revision C, dated June 23, 

2006. 

(i) For airplanes previously affected by AD 

88–08–02: Inspect within 12 calendar months 

after the last inspection required by AD 88–

08–02 or within 30 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 

calendar months. 

(ii) For airplanes not previously affected by 

AD 88–08–02: Inspect within the next 100 

hours time-in-service (TIS) or 12 calendar 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs first, and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months. 

(2) Inspection using eddy current method: 

Perform the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Viking Air Ltd. SB No. 2/55, dated June 23, 

2006. 

(i) For airplanes previously affected by AD 

88–08–02: Inspect within 12 calendar months 

after the last inspection required by AD 88–

08–02 or within 30 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 

calendar months. 

(ii) For airplanes not previously affected by 

AD 88–08–02: Inspect within 100 hours TIS 

or 12 calendar months after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs first, and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 

calendar months. 

(3) If cracks are found during any 

inspection required by either paragraph (g)(1) 

or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight: 

(i) Replace the complete strut assembly 

with a strut assembly of the same part 

number that has had the lower clevis fitting 

inspected using either the fluorescent 

penetrant method specified in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this AD or the eddy current method 

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and 

is found free of cracks; or 

(ii) Replace the complete strut assembly 

with strut assembly C2W1115–1 or 

C2W1115–2, as appropriate. Installing wing 

strut assembly C2W1115–1 or C2W1115–2 as 

replacement parts terminates the recurring 

inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(h) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: George J. 

Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, 10 Fifth Street, 

Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone: 

(516) 228–7325; fax (516) 794–5531, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) AMOCs approved for AD 88–08–02 are 

not approved for this AD. 

(3) 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. 

(4) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD 

CR–1985–08R4, dated September 28, 2006; 

and Viking Air Limited Service Bulletin S/B 

No. 2/41, Revision ‘‘C’’, dated June 23, 2006; 

and Service Bulletin No. 2/55, dated June 23, 

2006; for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

15, 2007. 

David R. Showers, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5215 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–07–003] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Kenosha Harbor, 

Kenosha, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone in 

Kenosha Harbor at the east end of the 

south pier. This zone is intended to 

restrict vessels from portions of Lake 

Michigan and Kenosha Harbor during a 

fireworks display on August 11, 2007. 

This zone is necessary to protect the 

public from the hazards associated with 

fireworks displays. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan 

(spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial 

Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention 

Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–

7154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking [CGD09–07–003], 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to ensure the safety of vessels 

and spectators from hazards associated 

with a fireworks display. Based on 

accidents that have occurred in other 

Captain of the Port zones, and the 

explosive hazards of fireworks, the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has 

determined fireworks launches in close 

proximity to watercraft pose significant 

risk to public safety and property. The 

likely combination of large numbers of 

recreation vessels, congested waterways, 

darkness punctuated by bright flashes of 

light, alcohol use, and debris falling into 

the water could easily result in serious 

injuries or fatalities. Establishing a 

safety zone to control vessel movement 

around the location of the launch 

platform will help ensure the safety of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13451 

persons and property at these events 

and help minimize the associated risks. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A temporary safety zone is necessary 

to ensure the safety of spectators and 

vessels during the setup, loading and 

launching of a fireworks display in 

conjunction with the Kenosha Days of 

Discovery fireworks display. The 

fireworks display will occur between 8 

p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on 

August 11, 2007. 

The safety zone for the fireworks will 

encompass all waters of Lake Michigan 

and Kenosha Harbor within a 300 yard 

radius of position 42°35′14′′ N, 

087°48′29′′ W (NAD 83). 

All persons and vessels shall comply 

with the instructions of the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port or the designated onscene representative. Entry into, 

transiting, or anchoring within the 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. The Captain of the 

Port or his designated on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

The Coast Guard will only use this 

safety zone for two hours on the date 

specified. This safety zone has been 

designed to allow vessels to transit 

unrestricted to portions of the harbor 

not affected by the zone. The Coast 

Guard expects insignificant adverse 

impact to mariners from the activation 

of this zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: The owners of vessels 

intending to transits or anchor in a 

portion of Kenosha Harbor between 8 

p.m. (local) and 10 p.m. (local) on 

August 11, 2007. The safety zone would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons. This rule 

would be in effect for only 2 hours. 

Vessel traffic can safely pass around the 

safety zone. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact CWO Brad 

Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast 

Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 

Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–7154. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect 

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 rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
13452 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This 

proposed rule establishes a regulated 

navigation area and as such is covered 

by this paragraph. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether this rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T09–003 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–003 Safety Zone, Kenosha 

Harbor, Kenosha, WI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: all waters of 

Lake Michigan and Kenosha Harbor 

within a 300-yard radius of position 

42°35′14′′ N, 087°48′29′′ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 8 p.m. (local) on August 

11, 2007 to 10 p.m. (local), on August 

11, 2007. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in section 165.23 of this 

part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan, or his designated 

on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–5179 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0170; FRL–8290–9] 

Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking 

on 8-Hour Ozone Redesignations for 

Various Areas in Michigan, Ohio and 

West Virginia 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 22, 2006, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. This supplemental 

proposed rulemaking sets forth EPA’s 

views on the potential effect of the 

Court’s ruling on a number of proposed 

redesignation actions. This rulemaking 

applies to eighteen 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in Michigan, Ohio 

and West Virginia, for which EPA has 

proposed approval of the States’

redesignation requests. For the reasons 

set forth in the notice, EPA proposes to 

find that the Court’s ruling does not 

alter any requirements relevant to these 

proposed redesignations that would 

prevent EPA from finalizing these 

redesignations. The EPA believes that 

the Court’s decision, as it currently 

stands or as it may be modified based 

upon any petition for rehearing that may 

be filed, imposes no impediment to 

moving forward with redesignation of 

these areas to attainment, because in 

either circumstance, redesignation is 

appropriate under the relevant 

redesignation provisions of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s longstanding 

policies regarding redesignation 

requests. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2007–0170 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS