[Federal Register: December 10, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 237)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71708-71709]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10de04-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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