[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31677-31680]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12850]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67040; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Amending FINRA
Rule 14107 of the Code of Mediation Procedure To Provide the Director
of Mediation With Discretion to Determine Whether Parties to a FINRA
Mediation May Select a Mediator Who Is Not on FINRA's Mediator Roster

May 22, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On February 9, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and

Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule
14107 of the Code of Mediation Procedure (``Mediation Code'') to
provide the Director of Mediation (``Mediation Director'') with
discretion to determine whether parties to a FINRA mediation may select
a mediator who is not on FINRA's mediator roster, subject to certain
conditions. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 28, 2011.\3\ The Commission received five
comment letters on the proposed rule change,\4\ and a response to
comments from FINRA.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 66441 (Feb. 22, 2012), 77 FR
12098 (Feb. 28, 2012) (``Notice''). The comment period closed on
March 20, 2012.
    \4\ See Letter from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, President, Public
Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated February 28, 2012
(``PIABA Letter''); letter from William A. Jacobson, Associate
Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Director, Cornell
Securities Law Clinic, and Patricia Peralta, Cornell Law School '13,
dated March 15, 2012 (``Cornell Letter''); letter from Lisa
Catalano, Director, Christine Lazaro, Supervising Attorney, and Ben
Kralstein, Andrew Mundo, and Daniel Porco, Legal Interns, St. John's
University School of Law Securities Arbitration Clinic, dated March
20, 2012 (``St. John's Letter''); letter from Jill I. Gross,
Director; Edward Pekarek, Assistant Director, and Genavieve Shingle,
Student Intern, Investor Rights Clinic at Pace Law School, dated
March 20, 2012 (``PIRC Letter''); and letter from Thomas K. Potter,
III, Burr & Forman LLP, dated March 23, 2012 (``Potter Letter'').
Comment letters are available at http://www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated April 30, 2012 (``Response Letter''). The text of
the proposed rule change and FINRA's Response Letter are available
on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office
of FINRA, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. The text of
the Response Letter is also available on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As stated in the Notice, FINRA's Mediation Code currently permits
parties to mediation to select a mediator either from a list of FINRA
mediators supplied by the Mediation Director, or from a list or other
source of their own choosing. Although parties usually select a FINRA
mediator, parties may select a mediator who is not on FINRA's roster.
    FINRA has administered its mediation program for over 15 years.
FINRA stated in the Notice that during this time it has developed a
deep roster of seasoned securities mediators. Specifically, FINRA
represented that its staff carefully screens every mediator applicant,
and that the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee (``NAMC'')
\6\ (through its Mediation Subcommittee) reviews and approves each
application. FINRA stated that its staff then conducts a background
check of approved applicants before placing them on the mediator
roster. FINRA also stated that its staff engages in ongoing evaluation
of the mediators on its roster by eliciting evaluations of its
mediators from parties and counsel who have participated in mediation
and conducting periodic quality control reviews of their mediators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The NAMC makes recommendations to FINRA staff regarding
recruitment, qualification, training, and evaluation of arbitrators
and mediators. The NAMC also makes recommendations on rules,
regulations, and procedures that govern the conduct of arbitration,
mediation, and other dispute resolution matters before FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-FINRA mediators are not subject to FINRA's screening process,
background check, and periodic evaluation. Accordingly, FINRA stated
that the selection of a non-FINRA mediator raises concerns for the
forum. FINRA stated, however, that if a mediator expresses an interest
in applying to be a FINRA mediator, and FINRA's program would benefit
by adding the mediator, FINRA staff believes it would be prudent to
permit a non-FINRA mediator chosen by the parties to serve on a case.
But FINRA stated that if a mediator does not apply for FINRA's roster
or FINRA believes the mediator is not appropriate for its forum, the
Mediation Director should have the discretion to deny the parties'
mediator selection.
    For these reasons, in part, FINRA proposed to amend Rule 14107(a)
to state that a mediator may be selected, with the Mediation Director's
approval upon receipt of the parties' joint request, from a list or
other source the parties choose. Under the proposed rule, if the
Mediation Director rejects the mediator selected, the parties would
still be able to select a FINRA approved mediator or a different non-
FINRA mediator subject to the same conditions as the rejected mediator,
or to mediate their dispute elsewhere.
    FINRA Rule 14107(c) provides that a mediator selected or assigned
to mediate a matter must comply with FINRA rules relating to
disclosures required of arbitrators unless, with respect to a mediator
selected from a source other than a list provided by FINRA, the parties
elect to waive such disclosure. The proposed rule change would amend
Rule 14107(c) to state that the paragraph would apply to a non-FINRA
mediator who is approved to serve on a FINRA mediation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA mediators pay an annual $200 fee to remain active on
the roster. Additionally, FINRA deducts $150 from the mediator's
compensation for each meditation in which the mediator participates
(FINRA stated that mediators typically receive $250 to $500 per
hour). The Notice stated that under the proposed rule FINRA would
require the non-FINRA mediator to complete the application process
for inclusion on the mediator roster. The Notice also stated that,
if the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA would
require any non-FINRA mediator who serves on a case to pay the $200
annual fee charged to FINRA mediators who are active on the roster
prior to serving on the case, as well as the $150 mediation case
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would make two technical amendments
to Rule 14107. It would amend Rule 14107(a) to change the bullet points
to numbers to facilitate citation to particular provisions of Rule
14107(a). It would also amend Rule 14107(c) to replace the citation to
Rule 12408 of the Customer Code of Arbitration Procedure to Rule 12405
to reflect that former Rule 12408 was re-numbered as part of a prior
FINRA rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63799 (Jan. 31, 2011), 76 FR
6500 (Feb. 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, FINRA represented that giving the Mediation Director
discretion to determine whether parties may select a mediator who is
not on FINRA's mediator roster would protect the quality and integrity
of the process for users of FINRA's mediation program.

III. Discussion of Comment Letters

    The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule
change in response to the Notice.\9\ Two commenters supported the
proposal,\10\ one supported the proposal with a suggested
modification,\11\ and two opposed the proposal.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra note 4.
    \10\ See PIABA Letter and St. John's Letter.
    \11\ See Cornell Letter.
    \12\ See PIRC Letter and Potter Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PIABA Letter stated that the proposed rule change would assist
forum participants in resolving their disputes. The St. John's Letter
stated that giving the Mediation Director discretion in approving
mediators not on FINRA's roster would help to ensure quality and
efficiency in mediation.
    The Cornell Letter stated that it supported the proposed rule
change because FINRA should be able to control the quality of its
mediation program. The letter also noted that, in the Notice, FINRA
stated that if the Mediation Director rejects the parties' selected
mediator, the parties would still be able to select a FINRA approved
mediator or a different non-FINRA mediator subject to the same
conditions as the rejected mediator, or to mediate their dispute
elsewhere. The letter recommended that FINRA include this language in
the proposed rule text or, alternatively, that the Commission
acknowledge the language in an order approving the proposed rule
change. In

its Response Letter, FINRA stated that it included the language in the
Notice to call attention to the alternatives that would be available to
forum users if the Mediation Director rejects the parties' chosen
mediator. FINRA stated that it was unnecessary to include the suggested
language in the rule text, and declined to amend the proposal. FINRA
also represented that, if the Commission approves the proposed rule
change, FINRA would include the suggested language in a Regulatory
Notice announcing approval of the proposed rule change to ensure that
parties are cognizant of their options under FINRA's program. In
addition, FINRA stated that if the Mediation Director rejects the
parties' chosen mediator, FINRA would notify the parties of the
alternatives available to them.
    The PIRC Letter opposed the proposed rule change on the basis that
it might inhibit investor choice and control over the mediation
process. The letter stated that, under the current rule, an investor
has the ability to select a mediator best suited to represent him or
her in his or her specific claim. The letter further stated that this
level of choice provides an investor a level of control over the
process and increases the perception of its fairness. In particular,
the letter stated that under the current rule, an investor could choose
lower-cost options that suit the investor's financial status, such as a
non-FINRA pro bono mediator, or a mediator who is willing to accept a
reduced fee. The letter expressed concern that the proposed rule would
increase the overall cost of mediation to investors because it would
inhibit their ability to choose affordable non-FINRA mediators. In its
Response Letter, FINRA stated that it has a duty to ensure the quality
of its program and believes that maintaining control of its mediator
roster is necessary to meet this duty. Moreover, the letter reiterated
that parties would still have options for mediating their dispute if
the Mediation Director rejected their selected mediator: The parties
would be able to select a mediator on FINRA's roster, select a
different non-FINRA mediator subject to the same conditions as the
rejected mediator, or choose to mediate their dispute in another forum.
    In its Response Letter, FINRA also stated that it believes its
mediation program is cost-effective for investors of all means. FINRA
stated it believes that its filing fees (of up to $300) are modest and
that the Mediation Director has discretion to waive them. FINRA also
stated that it offers many opportunities for parties using its
mediators to reduce the cost of mediation, including: (1) When FINRA
adds mediators to its roster, it asks them to reduce their rates for
smaller claims; (2) FINRA's Mediation Administrators provide, upon
request, parties with a list of mediators who have agreed to conduct
mediations for $50 per hour in appropriate cases; (3) some mediators on
FINRA's roster have agreed to conduct mediations on a pro bono basis
for parties of limited means; and (4) every October, FINRA hosts
Mediation Settlement Month during which both FINRA and the mediators on
its roster lower their fees in order to encourage participation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA lowers its filing fees by 50 percent and its
mediators (who typically charge between $250 and $500 per hour for
services rendered) reduce their rates to $200 per hour for a four-
hour mediation session for claims up to $25,000, and $400 per hour
for claims up to $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Potter Letter stated, among other things, that FINRA has not
established a need for the proposed rule change. The letter also stated
that the proposed rule change would prevent parties from selecting a
mediator of their choice and would restrict their freedom to contract.
Moreover, the letter stated that the commenter believes the proposed
rule would be difficult to enforce because FINRA would be unable to
monitor a prohibition against private parties entering into private
contracts.
    In its Response Letter, FINRA stated that it does not believe the
proposed rule change was unnecessary and reiterated that FINRA has a
duty to ensure the quality of its mediation program, and that
maintaining control of its mediator roster is a necessary to meet this
duty. With respect to the letter's other objections, FINRA stated that
it believes the commenter misinterpreted the proposal. Specifically,
FINRA stated that mediation is voluntary, and that the proposed rule
change would not prohibit parties from choosing their own mediators, or
from choosing their own forum for mediation. In addition, FINRA
reiterated that if the Mediation Director rejects a mediator selected
by the parties, they would still be free to mediate their dispute
elsewhere. Moreover, FINRA stated that it does not intend to police
mediation between parties that occurs outside of FINRA's mediation
forum.
    For the aforementioned reasons, FINRA declined to amend the
proposed rule change as suggested by commenters.

IV. Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
comments received, and FINRA's Response Letter. Based on its review,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association. In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change to provide the Mediation Director with discretion to determine
whether parties to a FINRA mediation may select a mediator who is not
on FINRA's mediator roster would benefit investors and other
participants in the forum by helping to protect the quality and
integrity of FINRA's mediation program for parties using FINRA's forum.
While the Commission appreciates the commenters' concerns, particularly
regarding whether parties using the forum would understand the options
available to them if the Mediation Director rejects a mediator selected
by the parties, we believe that FINRA has responded adequately to the
commenters' concerns and note that FINRA has stated that it will
include in a Regulatory Notice announcing approval of the proposed rule
change language designed to ensure that parties are cognizant of their
options under FINRA's program, and that if the Mediation Director
rejects the parties' chosen mediator, FINRA will notify the parties of
the alternatives available to them.
    The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change
and believes that the record does not contain any information to
indicate that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on
efficiency, competition, or capital formation. In light of the record,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation and has concluded that the proposed
rule is unlikely to have any significant effect.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-011) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12850 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56466-56467]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23490]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9022-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/07/2015 Through 09/11/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150259, Final, FRA, NC, Southeast High Speed Rail, Richmond,
VA, to Raleigh, NC, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: John
Winkle<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150260, Final, BR, CA, Central Valley Project Municipal and
Industrial Water Shortage Policy, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015,
Contact: Timothy Rust<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150261, Final, DOE, HI, PROGRAMMATIC--Hawaii Clean Energy,
Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015, Contact: Dr. Jane Summerson 800-472-
2756.
EIS No. 20150262, Final, USFWS, VA, Chincoteague and Wallops Island
National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015,
Contact: Thomas Bonetti<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150263, Draft, BLM, USFS, ID, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement Rasmussen Valley Mine, Comment Period Ends: 11/02/2015,
Contact: Bill Volk<PHONE_NUMBER>. The U.S. Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service are joint lead agencies for this project.
EIS No. 20150264, Final, FHWA, TN, Pellissippi Parkway Extension (State
Route 162) from State Route 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/State
Route 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway, Review Period Ends: 10/19/2015,
Contact: Theresa Claxton<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150199, Draft, OSM, Other, Stream Protection Rule, Comment
Period Ends: 10/26/2015, Contact: Robin Ferguson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Revision to FR Notice Published 07/24/2015; Extending Comment Period
from 09/15/2015 to 10/26/2015.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-23490 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35846-35848]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0539]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sheboygan Harbor Fest, Sheboygan, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Michigan and the Sheboygan River, Sheboygan, WI. This safety zone
is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan and the
Sheboygan Harbor during the Sheboygan Harbor Fest Fireworks display.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: This rule will be effective between 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.
on June 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0539]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may
visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email CWO3 Jon Grob, Prevention, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan; telephone
414-747-7188, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are
discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period to run would
be impracticable.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 9:15 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on June 16, 2012, a fireworks
display will be held on Lake Michigan near Sheboygan, WI. The Captain
of the Port Sector Lake Michigan has determined that fireworks launched
proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to
public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and
accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning
debris.

C. Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Sector Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and

vessels during the Sheboygan Harbor Fest Fireworks. This zone will be
effective and enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on June 16,
2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan and the
Sheboygan Harbor, Sheboygan, WI within a 1000 foot radius of position
43[deg]44'55'' N and 87[deg]41'54.8'' W (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lake
Michigan or his or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain
of the Port or his or her designated on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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 that Order. Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this 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. The
safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced
for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to
minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone
has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of
the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Lake Michigan and the Sheboygan
Harbor on the evening of June 16, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only one hour in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the 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). 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this 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.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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
rule.

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 amends
33 CFR parts 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 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.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0539 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0539  Safety Zone; Sheboygan Harbor Fest, Sheboygan, WI.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Michigan and the Sheboygan Harbor, Sheboygan, WI within a 1000 foot
radius of position 43[deg]44'55'' N and 87[deg]41'54.8'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on June 16, 2012 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.
    (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 Sector Lake Michigan or his or her 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 Sector Lake Michigan or his or
her designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene 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 behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or his
or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The
Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 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 Sector
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 6, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-14725 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P