[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25226-25228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-07-008]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety Zone in 
Milwaukee Harbor near Lakeshore State Park. This zone is intended to 
restrict vessels from portions of Milwaukee Harbor during fireworks 
displays. 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 June 4, 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-
008], 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 
8\1/2\ 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

    There are approximately twenty fireworks displays launched annually 
at Lakeshore State Park in Milwaukee, WI. The fireworks displays are 
sponsored festivals located at Henry W. Maier Festival Park. The 
fireworks displays impact the navigable waters of Milwaukee Harbor and 
pose a hazard to vessels and people. The purpose of this proposed rule 
it to establish a limited access area around the fireworks launch site 
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 Proposed Rule

    The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of 
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of 
fireworks displays at Lakeshore State Park in Milwaukee, WI. in 
conjunction with festivals at Henry W. Maier Festival Park. The 
proposed safety zone encompasses the waters of Lake Michigan within 
Milwaukee Harbor adjacent to the Lakeshore State Park and Henry W. 
Maier Festival Park. The proposed safety zone will be enforced only 
immediately before and during fireworks displays and only

[[Page 25227]]

upon notice by the Captain of the Port. If the event concludes prior to 
the scheduled termination time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement 
of the safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to 
Mariners or Local notice to Mariners.
    The safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within 
Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line 
connecting the following points: beginning at 43[deg]02'00'' N, 
087[deg]53'53'' W; then south to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 087[deg]53'53'' W; 
then east to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 087[deg]53'25'' W; then north to 
43[deg]02'00'' N, 087[deg]53'53'' W; then west to the point of origin.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. 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's use of this safety zone will be periodic in 
nature and will likely not exceed twenty, three-hour events, per year. 
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 Milwaukee Harbor during the dates 
and times the safety zone will be enforced. 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 3 hours each time the safety zone is implemented. 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

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American 
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal 
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal 
concerns. We have determined that this proposed safety zone and fishing 
rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined 
that this Proposed Rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 
Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the 
provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are 
encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not

[[Page 25228]]

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement 
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD 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 safety zone and as such is covered by this 
paragraph.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and 
``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 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 Sec.  165.935 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.935  Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee WI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: the waters of 
Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island 
Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Beginning at 
43[deg]02'00'' N, 087[deg]53'53'' W; then south to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 
087[deg]53'53'' W; then east to 43[deg]01'44'' N, 087[deg]53'25'' W; 
then north to 43[deg]02'00'' N, 087[deg]53'53'' W; then west 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.
    (3) 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) Suspension of Enforcement. If the event concludes earlier than 
scheduled, the Captain of the Port or a designated representative 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, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan.
 [FR Doc. E7-8614 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P