[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71708-71709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-04-020]
RIN 1625-AA87 (Formerly RIN 2115-AA00)


Security Zone; Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, Lake MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the security zone around the Byron 
Nuclear Power Plant and adding a security zone around the Hammond 
Intake Crib on Lake Michigan. The Coast Guard has determined that the 
removal of the security zone for the Byron Nuclear Power Plant would 
not increase the plant's vulnerability. The Hammond Intake Crib 
Security Zone is necessary to protect the fresh water supply from 
possible sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or possible acts 
of terrorism. The zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a 
portion of Lake Michigan.

DATES: This rule is effective December 10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket CGD09-04-020 and are available for inspection or 
copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Chicago, 215 West 83rd 
Street, Suite D, Burr Ridge, IL, 60527 between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Christopher Brunclik, MSO 
Chicago, at (630) 986-2155.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information

    On August 4, 2004 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled, Security Zone; Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, Lake 
Michigan, in the Federal Register (69 FR 47047). We received no letters 
commenting on this proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and 
none was held.
    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. The reason being that the Hammond 
Intake Crib Security Zone is necessary to protect the public, 
facilities, and the surrounding area from possible sabotage or other 
subversive acts.

Background and Purpose

    On September 11, 2001, the United States was the target of 
coordinated attacks by international terrorists resulting in 
catastrophic loss of life, the destruction of the World Trade Center, 
and significant damage to the Pentagon. Current events indicate that 
significant threats still exist for this type of attack. In fact, 
National security and intelligence officials warn that future 
terrorists attacks are likely. The Coast Guard is responding by, 
amongst many other things, establishing security zones around critical 
infrastructure.
    We are removing the Byron Nuclear Power Plant Security Zone and 
adding a security zone around the Hammond Intake Crib. It has been 
determined that the removal of the security zone for the Byron Nuclear 
Power Plant would not increase its vulnerability. The Hammond Intake 
Crib security zone is necessary to protect the public, facilities, and 
the surrounding area from possible sabotage or other subversive acts. 
All persons other than those approved by the Captain of the Port 
Chicago, or his on-scene representative, are prohibited from entering 
or moving within the zone. The Captain of the Port Chicago may be 
contacted via phone at the above contact number.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received, no issues were identified and no changes 
were added.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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 expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary. Since this security zone is not located near 
commercial vessel shipping lanes, there will be no impact on commercial 
vessel traffic as a result of this security zone.

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 security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This 
rule will not obstruct the regular flow of traffic and will allow 
vessel traffic to pass around the security zone.

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, 
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

[[Page 71709]]

that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal 
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 
or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect 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 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 would not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
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 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 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action.

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 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 concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit 
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' are not required for this rule. Comments on this 
section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether 
to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. 
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.910, revise paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  165.910  Security Zones; Captain of the Port Chicago, Zone, Lake 
Michigan.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Hammond Intake Crib. All navigable waters bounded by the arc of 
a circle with a 100-yard radius with its center in approximate position 
41[deg]42'15'' N, 087[deg]29'49'' W (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: November 16, 2004.
D.S. Fish,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 04-27099 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P