62570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 supporting this 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. This 

rule involves changing the location and 

size of a anchorage area as described in 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 

Commandant Instruction. 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 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 110.72d to read as follows: 

§ 110.72d Ashley River, SC. 

All waters on the southwest portion of 

the Ashley River encompassed within 

the following points: Beginning at 

latitude 32°46′40′′ N, longitude 

79°57′27′′ W; thence continuing northnortheasterly to latitude 32°46′44′′ N, 

longitude 79°57′25′′ W; thence 

continuing southeasterly to latitude 

32°46′40′′ N, longitude 79°57′22′′ W; 

thence continuing southeasterly to 

latitude 32°46′27′′ N, longitude 

79°57′03′′ W; thence continuing westsouthwesterly to latitude 32°46′25′′ N, 

longitude 79°57′09′′ W; thence 

continuing northwesterly to the 

beginning point at latitude 32°46′40′′ N, 

longitude 79°57′27′′ W. All coordinates 

are North American Datum 1983. 

Dated: September 11, 2014. 

J.H. Korn, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Coast Guard Seventh District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24910 Filed 10–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0916] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Cruise Ship HAMBURG, 

Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI and 

Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary security zone 

on Lake Michigan in the vicinity of both 

Milwaukee Harbor in Milwaukee, WI 

and Chicago Harbor in Chicago, IL 

within a 500-yard radius of the Cruise 

Ship HAMBURG. This security zone is 

intended to restrict vessels from a 

portion of Lake Michigan during the 

transit of the Cruise Ship HAMBURG to 

and from Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, 

IL. This security zone is necessary to 

protect the Cruise Ship HAMBURG and 

its occupants during its transit to and 

from Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice from October 20, 2014 

until October 31, 2014 at 12:01 a.m. For 

the purposes of enforcement, actual 

notice will be used from the date the 

rule was signed, October 1, 2014, until 

October 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket USCG– 

2014–0916. 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.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, contact 

or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at 

(414) 414–7148 or Joseph.P.McCollum@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

TFR Temporary Final Rule 

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 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62571 

‘‘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 with 

respect to this rule because doing so 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. 

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 notice and comment 

period to run would be impracticable 

and contrary to the public interest 

because it would inhibit the Coast 

Guard’s ability to safeguard the 

occupants onboard the Cruise Ship 

HAMBURG and the ship itself. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this temporary rule effective less 

than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register for the same reasons 

discussed in the preceding paragraph, 

waiting for a 30 day notice period to run 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis for this rule is the 

Coast Guard’s authority to establish 

regulated navigation areas and limited 

access areas: 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, 

160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

The Cruise Ship HAMBURG is 

expected to arrive into the Port of 

Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI on October 

1, 2014. Following the ship’s arrival to 

Milwaukee, the ship is expected to 

transit to the Port of Chicago, Chicago, 

IL on October 2, 2014. Further, the ship 

is expected to return to Lake Michigan 

and visit the Port of Milwaukee, WI and 

Chicago, IL from October 11–27, 2014. 

Considering the number of passengers 

aboard the Cruise Ship HAMBURG, the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has 

established this security zone to 

safeguard the occupants of the ship, as 

well as the ship itself. 

The Coast Guard anticipates that the 

security zone created by this temporary 

rule will not be in effect on each day 

between October 1, 2014 and October 4, 

2014 and on each day between October 

11, 2014 and October 27, 2014. 

Considering the unpredictability 

surrounding the exact transit times of 

the Cruise Ship, this rule was written 

with a wider range of dates and times 

to give the Coast Guard flexibility to 

accommodate changes in the Cruise 

Ship’s schedule between October 1, 

2014 and October 4, 2014 and between 

October 11, 2014 and October 27, 2014. 

C. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan has determined that this 

temporary security zone is necessary to 

ensure the safety of the Cruise Ship 

HAMBURG and its occupants. This 

security zone will be effective from 5 

p.m. on October 1, 2014 until 12:01 a.m. 

on October 31, 2014 and will be 

enforced intermittently with actual 

notice during this time. This security 

zone will encompass all waters of Lake 

Michigan within a 500-yard radius of 

the Cruise Ship HAMBURG. 

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring 

within this security zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan or a designated onscene representative. The Captain of the 

Port or a 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 these statutes and 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 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 

security zone created by this rule will be 

small and enforced for a short duration. 

Under certain conditions, moreover, 

vessels may still transit through the 

security zone when permitted by the 

Captain of the Port. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

the impact of this temporary rule on 

small entities. 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 the portion of Lake 

Michigan near Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

and Chicago, Illinois affected by the 

enforcement of the 500 yard security 

zone. 

This security zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the reasons cited in the Regulatory 

Planning and Review section. 

Additionally, before the enforcement of 

the zone, we would issue local 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel 

owners and operators can plan 

accordingly. 

3. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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, 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 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 security 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 record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0916 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0916 Security Zone; Cruise Ship 

HAMBURG, Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI 

and Chicago, IL. 

(a) Location. All waters of Lake 

Michigan within a 500-yard radius of 

the Cruise Ship HAMBURG. 

(b) Effective and enforcement period. 

This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on 

October 1, 2014 until 12:01 a.m. on 

October 31, 2014. This rule will be 

enforced intermittently with actual 

notice between October 1, 2014 and 

October 4, 2014 and between October 

11, 2014 and October 27, 2014. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry 

into this zone is prohibited, unless 

authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an 

on-scene representative. Other general 

requirements in § 165.33 also apply. 

(2) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 

is any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan to act on her behalf. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the security zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or an on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. The 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her 

on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the security zone must 

comply with all directions given to 

them by the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan, or an on-scene representative. 

Dated: October 1, 2014. 

A.B. Cocanour, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24917 Filed 10–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0448; FRL–9918–18– 

Region–7] 

Air Quality State Implementation 

Plans; Approval and Promulgation: 

Missouri; 2013 State Implementation 

Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES