Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Based on a review of safety and security zones around critical infrastructure in the Chicago area, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan has determined that to better protect such infrastructure, while also mitigating burdens on waterway users, it is necessary to amend these security zones in our regulations. Specifically, the Coast Guard proposes to reduce the size of an existing security zone, disestablish another security zone, and create three new security zones.
Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 8, 2011.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2011-0489 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) 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.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call MST1 Brenden Otjen Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986-2155. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see “Privacy Act” paragraph below.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-0489), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment Start Printed Page 48752applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
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 at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-0489) in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search. ” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, D.C. 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 555A Plainfield Rd., Willowbrook, IL 60527, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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).
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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
The Coast Guard recently worked with local governmental agencies to review the safety and security zones around critical infrastructure in the Chicago area. Based on this review, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan had determined that to better protect critical infrastructure while also mitigating burdens on waterway users it is necessary to reduce the size of an existing security zone, disestablish an existing security zone, and establish three new security zones.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.904 and 910. Specifically, this proposed rule would reduce the size of the safety and security zone entitled Lake Michigan at Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor-Safety and Security Zone, which is located at 33 CFR 165.904. The revised zone will be significantly reduced in size due to the disestablishment of Meigs Airfield and the need to secure only Burnham Park harbor during high profile visits that require security zone enforcement. This proposed reduction of the Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor-Safety and Security Zone would result in the zone encompassing all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within Burnham Park Harbor shoreward of a line across the entrance of the harbor connecting coordinates 41°51′09″ N, 87°36′36″ W and 41°51′11″ N, 87°36′22″ W.
In addition to reducing the size of the security zone described in § 165.904(a), this proposed rule would also disestablish a security zone. Specifically, this proposed rule would disestablish the security zone in 33 CFR 165.910(a)(1) entitled Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan; Navy Pier Northside.
Finally, this proposed rule would establish three new security zones in 33 CFR 165.910. The first new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the Jardine Water Treatment Plant, Chicago, Illinois. The Jardine Water Filtration Plant security zone would encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within an arc of a 100-yard radius with its center located on the approximate position 41°53′46″ N, 87°36′23″ W.
The second new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the Wilson Avenue Crib, Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 100-yard radius with its center in approximate position 41°58′00″ N, 87°35′30″ W.
The third new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the new Four Mile Intake Crib in Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 100-yard radius with its center in approximate position 41°52′40″ N, 87°32′45″ W.
In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel would be able to enter or remain in one of the security zones discussed in this proposed rule without permission of the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan. The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan, at his or her discretion, may permit persons and vessels to enter the security zones addressed in this proposed rule. For instance, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan may permit those U.S. Coast Guard certificated passenger vessels that normally load and unload passengers at the north side of Navy Pier to operate in the Jardine Water Filtration Plant security zone.
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, 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 conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it would have minimal impact on the economy, would not interfere with other agencies, would not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and would not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The security zones amended and established by this proposed rule would be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, each security zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, each security zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the security zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through each security zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port, Start Printed Page 48753Sector Lake Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these security zones.
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 and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the security zones addressed in this proposed rule. These security zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the security zones in this proposed rule would be in small areas surrounding the intake cribs or areas near shore to Chicago's water filtration plants; the security zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around these zones whenever possible.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986-2155. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or object to this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 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 this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishing, disestablishing, and changing of security zones and therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis check list supporting this preliminary Start Printed Page 48754determination is 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 proposed rule.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and record keeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 165.904 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Location. All waters of Lake Michigan within Burnham Park Harbor shoreward of a line across the entrance of the harbor connecting coordinates 41°51′09″ N, 87°36′36″ W and 41°51′11″ N, 87°36′22″ W.
3. In § 165.910, revise paragraph (a)(1),(a)(1)(i) and add paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Jardine Water Filtration Plant.
(i) Location. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a 100-yard radius with its center located on the north wall of Jardine Water Filtration Plant, approximate position 41°53′46″ N, 87°36′23″ W; (NAD 83)
(10) Wilson Avenue Intake Crib. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 100-yard radius of the Wilson Avenue Crib with its center in approximate position 41°58′00″ N, 87°35′30″ W. (NAD 83)
(11) Four Mile Intake Crib. All waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 100-yard radius of the Four Mile Crib with its center in approximate position 41°52′40″ N, 87°32′45″ W. (NAD 83)
Dated: July 21 2011.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-20091 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P