Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone, 48751-48754 [2011-20091]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules (U.S./Canada) or (602) 365–3099 (International Direct). You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238–7125. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 1, 2011. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2011–20170 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA–2011–F–0549] Lanxess Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Calcium Formate AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of petition. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Lanxess Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of calcium formate in poultry and swine feed as a nutrient and digestive aid. DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner’s environmental assessment by September 8, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to: http:// www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Isabel W. Pocurull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6853, email: isabel.pocurull@fda.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2261) has been filed by Lanxess Corp. (Lanxess), 111 RIDC Park West Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15275–1112. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 573) to provide for the safe use of calcium formate in poultry and swine feed as a nutrient and digestive aid. The potential environmental impact of this action is being reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Division of Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public review and comment. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA will also place on public display any amendments to, or comments on, the petitioner’s environmental assessment without further announcement in the Federal Register. If, based on its review, the Agency finds that an environmental impact statement is not required, and this petition results in a regulation, the notice of availability of the Agency’s finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding will be published with the regulation in the Federal Register in accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b). Dated: August 3, 2011. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. 2011–20126 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 48751 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 these security zones in our regulations. Specifically, the Coast Guard proposes to reduce the size of an existing security zone, disestablish another security zone, and create three new security zones. DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 8, 2011. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2011–0489 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Online: http:// www.regulations.gov. (2) Mail: 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– 0001. (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call MST1 Brenden Otjen Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986–2155. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2011–0489] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. AGENCY: Submitting Comments Based on a review of safety and security zones around critical infrastructure in the Chicago area, the If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2011–0489), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 48752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, 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. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2011–0489) in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click ‘‘Search. ’’ You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, D.C. 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 555A Plainfield Rd., Willowbrook, IL 60527, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 Proposed Rule For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.904 and 910. Specifically, this proposed rule would 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 proposed reduction of the Chicago Harbor & Burnham Park Harbor-Safety and Security Zone would result in the zone encompassing all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within Burnham Park Harbor shoreward of a line across the entrance of the harbor connecting coordinates 41°51′09″ N, 87°36′36″ W and 41°51′11″ N, 87°36′22″ W. In addition to reducing the size of the security zone described in § 165.904(a), this proposed rule would also disestablish a security zone. Specifically, this proposed rule would disestablish the security zone in 33 CFR 165.910(a)(1) entitled Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan; Navy Pier Northside. Finally, this proposed rule would establish three new security zones in 33 CFR 165.910. The first new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the Jardine Water Treatment Plant, Chicago, Illinois. The Jardine Water Filtration Plant security zone would encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within an arc of a 100yard radius with its center located on the approximate position 41°53′46″ N, 87°36′23″ W. The second new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the Wilson Avenue Crib, Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 100-yard radius with its center in PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 approximate position 41°58′00″ N, 87°35′30″ W. The third new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the new Four Mile Intake Crib in Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass 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°52′40″ N, 87°32′45″ W. In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel would be able to enter or remain in one of the security zones discussed in this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 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. We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it would have minimal impact on the economy, would not interfere with other agencies, would not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and would not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The security zones amended and established by this proposed rule would 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, E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules Sector Lake Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these security zones. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule. These security zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the security zones in this proposed 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. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways Management Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986–2155. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or object to this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 48753 Collection of Information This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 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. 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. 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. 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. 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would 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 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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 preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishing, disestablishing, and changing of security zones and therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis check list supporting this preliminary E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 48754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules determination is 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 proposed rule. Dated: July 21 2011. M.W. Sibley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. 2011–20091 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 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 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: 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; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 165.904 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 165.904 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, 87°36′36″ W and 41°51′11″ N, 87°36′22″ W. * * * * * 3. In § 165.910, revise paragraph (a)(1),(a)(1)(i) and add paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as follows: jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS § 165.910 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, 87°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, 87°35′30″ W. (NAD 83) (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, 87°32′45″ W. (NAD 83) * * * * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:11 Aug 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0032; FRL–9449–9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Reasonably Available Control Technology, Oxides of Nitrogen, Cleveland Ozone Non-Attainment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on January 3, 2008 and June 1, 2011. These revisions incorporate provisions related to the implementation of nitrogen oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in the former Cleveland-AkronLorain moderate ozone nonattainment area. These rules are not required because, as established in section 182(f) of the CAA, NOX emission control requirements do not apply if the resulting emission reductions are not needed to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, which is the case for the former Cleveland-AkronLorain moderate ozone nonattainment area. However, these rules are being submitted and approved for their SIP strengthening effect as the control requirements in the submitted rules result in a RACT level of control. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2008–0032, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. • Fax: (312) 692–2511. • Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2008– 0032. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48751-48754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0489]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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 these security zones in our regulations. Specifically, the Coast 
Guard proposes to reduce the size of an existing security zone, 
disestablish another security zone, and create three new security 
zones.

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2011-0489 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call MST1 Brenden Otjen Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, 
Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986-2155. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management 
Facility. Please see ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0489), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment

[[Page 48752]]

applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you 
include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone 
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we 
have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments 
and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket 
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit 
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by 
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you 
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the 
Facility, 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.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-0489) 
in the ``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search. '' You may also visit 
either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground 
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
D.C. 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 
555A Plainfield Rd., Willowbrook, IL 60527, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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

    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 Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Captain 
of the Port Sector Lake Michigan proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.904 and 
910. Specifically, this proposed rule would 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 proposed reduction of the Chicago Harbor & 
Burnham Park Harbor-Safety and Security Zone would result in the zone 
encompassing all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan within Burnham 
Park Harbor shoreward of a line across the entrance of the harbor 
connecting coordinates 41[deg]51'09'' N, 87[deg]36'36'' W and 
41[deg]51'11'' N, 87[deg]36'22'' W.
    In addition to reducing the size of the security zone described in 
Sec.  165.904(a), this proposed rule would also disestablish a security 
zone. Specifically, this proposed rule would disestablish the security 
zone in 33 CFR 165.910(a)(1) entitled Security Zones; Captain of the 
Port Lake Michigan; Navy Pier Northside.
    Finally, this proposed rule would establish three new security 
zones in 33 CFR 165.910. The first new security zone would be located 
in the vicinity of the Jardine Water Treatment Plant, Chicago, 
Illinois. The Jardine Water Filtration Plant security zone would 
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[deg]53'46'' N, 87[deg]36'23'' W.
    The second new security zone would be located in the vicinity of 
the Wilson Avenue Crib, Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass 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[deg]58'00'' 
N, 87[deg]35'30'' W.
    The third new security zone would be located in the vicinity of the 
new Four Mile Intake Crib in Chicago, Illinois. It would encompass 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[deg]52'40'' N, 87[deg]32'45'' W.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel would be able 
to enter or remain in one of the security zones discussed in this 
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 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. We conclude that this 
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we 
anticipate that it would have minimal impact on the economy, would not 
interfere with other agencies, would not adversely alter the budget of 
any grant or loan recipients, and would not raise any novel legal or 
policy issues. The security zones amended and established by this 
proposed rule would 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,

[[Page 48753]]

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 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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule. These security zones would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities for the following reasons: the security zones in this proposed 
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.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 this 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways 
Management Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 
Willowbrook, IL at (630) 986-2155. The Coast Guard will not retaliate 
against small entities that question or object to this rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed 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 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

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. 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, 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 preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have 
a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule 
involves the establishing, disestablishing, and changing of security 
zones and therefore, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of 
the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis check list 
supporting this preliminary

[[Page 48754]]

determination is 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 proposed 
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 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:
    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; Public Law 107-295, 116 
Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    2. Amend Sec.  165.904 by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  165.904  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[deg]51'09'' N, 87[deg]36'36'' W and 41[deg]51'11'' N, 
87[deg]36'22'' W.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  165.910, revise paragraph (a)(1),(a)(1)(i) and add 
paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as follows:


Sec.  165.910  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[deg]53'46'' N, 87[deg]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[deg]58'00'' N, 
87[deg]35'30'' W. (NAD 83)
    (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[deg]52'40'' N, 87[deg]32'45'' W. (NAD 
83)
* * * * *

    Dated: July 21 2011.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-20091 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P