Skip to Content

Rule

Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

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 the Lake Michigan at Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor—Safety and Security Zone regulation and the Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan regulation. Specifically, the Coast Guard is amending these two regulations to reduce the size of an existing security zone, disestablish another security zone, and create three new security zones.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and material received from the public, if any, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0489 and are available online at http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call LTJG Furyisa Miller, Waterways Department, Coast Guard MSU Chicago, Chicago, IL at (630) 986-2122 or e-mail her at Furyisa.I.Miller@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.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

On August 9, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in the Federal Register (76 FR 48751). We received no comments on this rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

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 Comments and Changes

No comments were received regarding this rule, and the regulatory text of this final rule is the same as in the proposed rule; we made no changes.

Discussion of Rule

For the reasons discussed above, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan amends 33 CFR 165.904 and 165.910. Specifically, this rule will 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 reduction of the Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor-Safety and Security Zone will result in the zone encompassing all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan from the southeast corner of Northerly Island shoreward of a line across the entrance of the harbor connecting coordinates 41°51′09″ N, 087°36′36″ W and 41°51′11″ N, 087°36′22″ W.

In addition to reducing the size of the security zone described in § 165.904(a), this rule also disestablishes a security zone. Specifically, this rule disestablishes the security zone in 33 CFR 165.910(a)(1) entitled Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan; Navy Pier Northside.

Finally, this rule establishes three new security zones in 33 CFR 165.910. The first new security zone, designated paragraph (a)(1) which was formerly used for the Navy Pier Northside Start Printed Page 63203security zone discussed above, will be located in the vicinity of the Jardine Water Treatment Plant Chicago, Illinois. The Jardine Water Filtration Plant security zone will 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, 087°36′23″ W.

The second new security zone is located in the vicinity of the Wilson Avenue Crib, Chicago, Illinois. It encompasses 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, 087°35′30″ W.

The third new security zone is located in the vicinity of the new Four Mile Intake Crib in Chicago, Illinois. It encompasses all U.S. navigable waters encompasses 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, 087°32′45″ W.

In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or remain in one of the security zones discussed in this 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 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.

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.

Regulatory Planning and Review

This 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. 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 security zones amended and established by this rule will 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, Sector Lake Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these security zones.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 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 and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the security zones addressed in this rule. These security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The security zones in this 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.

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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

This rule calls 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 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 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 rule will 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 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 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.

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 Start Printed Page 63204responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule involves the establishment, disestablishment, and changing of security zones, and thus, paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 in Commandant Instruction M16475.lD applies.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Start Part

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

End Part Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 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; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Amend § 165.904 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Lake Michigan at Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor—Safety and Security Zone.

(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, 087°36′36″W and 41°51′11″ N, 087°36′22″ W.

* * * * *
Start Amendment Part

3. In § 165.910 revise paragraph (a)(1) heading and paragraph (a)(1)(i), and add paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

(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, 087°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, 087°35′30″ W. (NAD83)

(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, 087°32′45″ W. (NAD83)

* * * * *
Start Signature

Dated: September 27, 2011.

M.W. Sibley,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 2011-26125 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P