[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47047-47049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-04-020]
RIN 2115-AA87


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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove the security zone around 
the Byron Nuclear Power Plant and add a security zone around the 
Hammond Intake Crib on Lake Michigan. It has been 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 new zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from 
a portion of Lake Michigan.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before October 4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast 
Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) Chicago, 215 West 83rd Street, Suite 
D, Burr Ridge, IL 60527. MSO Chicago maintains the public docket for 
this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at MSO Chicago between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD09-04-
020), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, 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.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 
Office Chicago 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

    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 propose to remove the Byron Nuclear Power Plant security zone 
and add a security zone around the Hammond Intake Crib. It has been 
determined the removal of the security zone for the Byron Nuclear Power 
Plant would not increase its vulnerability. The proposed 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.

[[Page 47048]]

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On August 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule 
establishing a permanent security zone on the waters of the Rock River 
within a 100-yard radius of the Byron Nuclear Power Plant (67 FR 
53501). The CFR section number for this security zone was corrected on 
October 23, 2002 (67 FR 65041). This rulemaking proposes to remove this 
security zone for the Byron Nuclear Power plant and to create one for 
the Hammond Intake Crib.
    The need for a security zone at Byron was discussed during security 
planning meetings with the Byron Nuclear Training Facility Chief of 
Security, Ogle County Sheriff's Department and the United States Coast 
Guard. The current security zone encompasses the cooling water intake 
on the Rock River located over 1 mile away from the facility. If the 
intake were to be made inoperable the facility would experience an 
``inconvenience'' rather than a detrimental consequence. In addition, 
there would be enough time to shut down the plant before the lack of 
cooling water would be an issue. Thus, the Coast Guard has determined 
that the security zone for Byron Nuclear Facility is no longer needed.
    Because of new and additional security concerns, the Coast Guard 
wishes to create a permanent security zone around the Hammond Intake 
Crib to protect this fresh water supply. Through this rulemaking, we 
propose to establish a security zone for the following location: All 
waters encompassed 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 
(Hammond Intake Crib). These coordinates are based upon North American 
Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

Regulatory Evaluation

    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. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed 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 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 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.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 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 office listed in Addresses 
in this preamble.
    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).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 is 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 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed 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 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 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 proposed 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

[[Page 47049]]

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 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 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. 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.

    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.

* * * * *
    (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[min]15[sec] N, 087[deg]29[min]49[sec] W (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: June 21, 2004.
T.W. Carter,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Chicago.
[FR Doc. 04-17741 Filed 8-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P