21890 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 200.1427 Inactive underwriters. 

An underwriter who at the time of the 

lender’s annual certification to HUD 

pursuant to § 200.1407(d) has not 

submitted a pre-application or 

application for Firm Commitment for a 

period of 2 years will be designated as 

inactive. Inactive underwriters may be 

terminated from the MAP program 

because of inactivity and, if so, must 

reapply for approval to participate in 

MAP programs. 

§ 200.1429 Appeals. 

(a) An applicant may submit a written 

appeal of any HUD decision regarding 

the applicant under §§ 200.1411 through 

200.1427 of this subpart. Any such 

appeal must be submitted to the 

designated HUD appeal official within 

30 days of the date of receipt of HUD’s 

written notification to the applicant of 

HUD’s decision. HUD’s written 

notification will advise who is the 

designated HUD appeal official and 

provide the address for such official. 

The written appeal may set forth the 

reasons why the HUD decision should 

be reconsidered or changed, or may 

request an informal conference, or both. 

(b) HUD will respond to an 

applicant’s appeal within 60 days from 

the date of HUD’s receipt of the written 

appeal. If HUD’s response to the appeal 

is to confirm HUD’s original decision, 

no further appeal will be accepted from 

the applicant. 

3. Immediately before § 200.1500, add 

an undesignated heading, to read as 

follows: 

Map Lender Quality Assurance 

Enforcement 

4. In § 200.1505, revise paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 200.1505 Warning letter. 

* * * * * 

(c) Relationship to other sanctions. 

The issuance of a warning letter is not 

subject to the procedures in § 200.1535, 

and is not a prerequisite to the 

probation, or suspension, or termination 

of MAP privileges. 

5. In § 200.1510, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 200.1510 Probation. 

(a) In general. HUD may place a 

lender on probation, in accordance with 

the procedures of § 200.1535. 

(b) Effect of probation. (1) Probation is 

intended to be corrective in nature and 

not punitive. As a result, release from 

probation is conditioned upon the 

lender meeting a specific requirement or 

requirements, such as replacement of a 

staff member. A lender’s failure to take 

prompt corrective action after being 

placed on probation may be the basis for 

a recommendation of either suspension 

or termination. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 200.1515, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 200.1515 Suspension of MAP privileges. 

(a) In general. HUD may suspend a 

lender’s eligibility for MAP, in 

accordance with the procedures of 

§ 200.1535. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 200.1520, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 200.1520 Termination of MAP privileges. 

(a) In general. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section, HUD may 

terminate a lender’s MAP privileges in 

accordance with the procedures of 

§ 200.1535. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 200.1525, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 200.1525 Settlement agreements. 

(a) HUD staff, as authorized, may 

negotiate a settlement agreement with a 

MAP lender before or after the issuance 

of a warning letter or referral to HUD. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 200.1535, revise the heading 

and paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), 

paragraph (b) introductory text, and 

(f)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 200.1535 Procedures for imposition of 

sanctions. 

(a) Authority. (1) Sanctions. HUD may 

impose appropriate sanctions on a MAP 

lender after: 

(i) Conducting an impartial review of 

all information and documentation 

submitted to HUD; and 

(ii) Making factual determinations 

that there has been a violation of MAP 

requirements. 

(2) Settlement agreements. HUD is 

authorized to approve settlement 

agreements in accordance with 

§ 200.1525 of any pending matter. 

* * * * * 

(b) Notice of violation. Before HUD 

reviews a matter for consideration of a 

sanction, HUD will issue written notice 

of violation to the MAP lender’s contact 

person as listed on the Multifamily 

MAP Web site. The notice is sent by 

overnight delivery and must be signed 

for by an employee of the MAP lender 

upon receipt. The notice: 

* * * * * 

(f) HUD action. (1) HUD will consider 

the evidence included in the 

administrative record and make a final 

decision concerning the matter. Any 

record of confidential communications 

within HUD at this stage of the 

proceedings is privileged from 

disclosure and will not be regarded as 

a part of the administrative record of 

any matter. 

* * * * * 

10. Revise the heading of § 200.1545 

to read as follows: 

§ 200.1545 Appeals of sanction decisions. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Carol J. Galante, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing— 

Federal Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8705 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1109] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal, Sturgeon 

Bay, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a drawbridge operating 

schedule for the Maple-Oregon and 

Michigan Street Bridges across the 

Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal, at miles 4.17 

and 4.3, in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. 

The establishment of this schedule is 

necessary due to the construction of the 

Maple-Oregon Street Bridge and the 

completed rehabilitation of the 

Michigan Street Bridge. The proposed 

regulation also confirms the winter 

drawbridge schedules for all three 

drawbridges over Sturgeon Bay Ship 

Canal, including the two bridges above 

and the Bayview Bridge at mile 3.0. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or 

before: May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–1109 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21891 

(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 

rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Ninth Coast 

Guard District; telephone (216) 902– 

6085, email Lee.D.Soule@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 http:// 

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–2011–1109), 

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 (http:// 

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 http:// 

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 phone 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 

http://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 Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2011–1109’’ 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 8c 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 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 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 

1109’’ 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 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. 

Basis and Purpose 

The proposed rule establishes 

drawbridge schedules following the 

construction of the new Maple-Oregon 

Street Bridge and the extensive 

rehabilitation of the existing Michigan 

Street Bridge. The proposed rule is 

expected to provide for the safe and 

efficient passage of vessels requiring 

drawbridge openings, as well as the 

efficient movement of vehicular traffic 

in Sturgeon Bay. 

The Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal is 

approximately 8.6 miles long and 

provides a navigable connection 

between Lake Michigan and Green Bay. 

The area experiences a significant 

increase in vehicular and vessel traffic 

during the peak tourist and navigation 

season between approximately 

Memorial Day and Labor Day each year. 

There are a total of three highway 

drawbridges across the waterway. The 

Michigan Street Bridge provides 

unlimited vertical clearance in the open 

position and 14 feet in the closed 

position. Maple-Oregon Bridge, 

provides unlimited vertical clearance in 

the open position and 25 feet in the 

closed position. Bayview Bridge 

provides unlimited vertical clearance in 

the open position and 42 feet in the 

closed position. Both Michigan Street 

and Maple-Oregon Bridges serve the 

downtown Sturgeon Bay area and are 

located approximately 750-feet apart on 

the canal. 

A final rule was published on October 

24, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 

61380) to allow for one opening per 

hour at the Michigan Street Bridge for 

recreational vessels while the MapleOregon Bridge was constructed and the 

Michigan Street Bridge was 

rehabilitated. The final rule also 

included a requirement to open at any 

time if 20 or more vessels gathered 

waiting for bridge openings. A 

temporary final rule was published on 

June 5, 2009 in the Federal Register (74 

FR 26954), effective from June 1, 2009 

to November 15, 2010 that essentially 

shifted the one bridge opening per hour 

at Michigan Street Bridge to the MapleOregon Bridge while the rehabilitation 

of Michigan Street was completed and 

the bridge was kept in the open-tonavigation position. With both Michigan 

Street and Maple-Oregon Bridges 

operational, the one opening per hour 

schedule for Michigan Street is 

considered restrictive for vessels and 

could create an unsafe condition for 

vessel traffic that may be between the 

two closely located drawbridges while 

waiting for bridge openings. The Coast 

Guard issued a notice of temporary 

deviation from regulations that was 

published on May 17, 2011 in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 28309) with 

request for comments to implement a 

test drawbridge schedule for Michigan 

Street and Maple-Oregon Street Bridges 

between May 27, 2011 and September 

16, 2011. The test schedule required the 

Michigan Street Bridge to open for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21892 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

recreational vessels twice an hour, on 

the hour and half-hour, 24-hours a day, 

7 days a week, and required the MapleOregon Bridge to open for recreational 

vessels twice an hour, on the quarter 

hour and three-quarter hour, during the 

same times. The test schedule also 

included a change to the requirement 

that the bridge open if 20 or more 

vessels gathered at the bridge waiting 

for a scheduled opening. Local opinion 

was that an opening if at least 10 vessels 

were gathered would be a safer 

maximum number of vessels. 

The Coast Guard coordinated with all 

local stakeholders before, during, and 

after the test drawbridge schedule and 

did not receive any adverse comments 

to the test schedule. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WDOT) requested 

scheduled drawbridge openings for both 

Michigan Street and Maple-Oregon 

Bridges so vehicular traffic congestion 

would not develop on downtown 

Sturgeon Bay streets due to 

unscheduled bridge openings. This 

proposed rule provides at least two 

bridge openings per hour for both 

Michigan Street and Maple-Oregon 

Street bridges, compared to the one 

bridge opening per hour that was in 

place during the construction and 

rehabilitation of the two highway 

bridges. It also retains the test schedule 

requirement to open the bridge if at least 

10 vessels have accumulated at either 

bridge waiting for an opening. The 

proposed rule also establishes the 

winter operating date for Maple-Oregon 

Bridge (January 1 through March 14) 

and rearranges the order of the three 

drawbridges to be presented 

geographically in the regulatory 

language. The proposed rule was 

developed with all known stakeholders 

to provide for the safe and efficient 

movement of both vessel and vehicular 

traffic, including keeping the bridge 

openings on a scheduled basis to reduce 

potential vehicular traffic congestion in 

Sturgeon Bay. The Coast Guard did not 

receive any adverse comments during 

the test schedule and is therefore 

proposing to implement the test 

schedule as a permanent schedule for 

Sturgeon Bay drawbridges. 

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, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, and does not require 

an assessment of potential costs and 

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 

Executive Order 12866. The Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. This 

determination is expected to improve 

traffic congestion and safety in the 

vicinity of the drawbridge and does not 

exclude bridge openings for vessel 

traffic. 

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. The proposed rule continues to 

provide at least two drawbridge 

openings per hour each day for 

recreational vessels during peak hours 

compared to one opening per hour 

under the current regulation. 

Additionally, all vessels that do not 

require bridge openings may transit the 

drawbridges at any time. All known 

small entities were consulted and 

included in the development of the test 

drawbridge schedule in 2011, and have 

not provided any adverse comments. 

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 Mr. Lee D. 

Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, 

U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 216–902– 

6085, email lee.d.soule@uscg.mil, or fax 

216–902–6088. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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 would not cause 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21893 

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 

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 Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and 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 this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

revise 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.1101 to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.1101 Sturgeon Bay. 

(a) The Bayview (SR 42/57) Bridge, 

mile 3.0 at Sturgeon Bay, shall open on 

signal, except from December 1 through 

March 14, the draw shall open on signal 

if notice is given at least 12 hours in 

advance of intended passage. 

(b) The draw of the Maple-Oregon 

Bridge, mile 4.17 at Sturgeon Bay, shall 

open on signal, except as follows: 

(1) From March 15 through December 

31, need open on signal for recreational 

vessels only on the quarter hour and 

three-quarter hour, 24 hours a day, if 

needed. However, if more than 10 

vessels have accumulated at the bridge, 

or vessels are seeking shelter from 

severe weather, the bridge shall open on 

signal. This drawbridge, along with the 

Michigan Street drawbridge, shall open 

simultaneously for larger commercial 

vessels, as needed. 

(2) From January 1 through March 14, 

the draw shall open on signal if notice 

is given at least 12 hours in advance of 

intended passage. 

(c) The draw of the Michigan Street 

Bridge, mile 4.3 at Sturgeon Bay, shall 

open on signal, except as follows: 

(1) From March 15 through December 

31, need open on signal for recreational 

vessels only on the hour and half-hour, 

24 hours a day, if needed. However if 

more than 10 vessels have accumulated 

at the bridge, or vessels are seeking 

shelter from severe weather, the bridge 

shall open on signal. This drawbridge, 

along with the Maple-Oregon Street 

drawbridge, shall open simultaneously 

for larger commercial vessels, as 

needed. 

(2) From January 1 through March 14, 

the draw shall open on signal if notice 

is given at least 12 hours in advance of 

intended passage. 

Dated: March 11, 2012. 

M.N. Parks, 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, 

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8813 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0200] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th 

Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St 

Mary’s River, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, 

MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a safety zone in the Captain of 

the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. This 

proposed safety zone is intended to 

restrict vessels from certain portions of 

water areas within Sector Sault Sainte 

Marie Captain of the Port zone, as 

defined by 33 CFR 3.45–45. This 

temporary safety zone is necessary to 

protect spectators and vessels from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0200 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS