[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52607-52609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-01-207]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, Seabrook, New 
Hampshire

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; change in effective period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the effective period for the 
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire Security Zone. 
This change will extend the effective period of this temporary final 
rule until November 15, 2002, allowing adequate time to continue with 
informal rulemaking to develop a permanent rule. This rule will 
continue to close certain land and water areas in the vicinity of the 
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

DATES: The amendment to Sec. 165.T01-207 in this rule is effective 
August 13, 2002. Section 165.T01-207, added at 66 FR 67487, December 
31, 2002, effective December 7, 2001 until June 15, 2002, and extended 
in effect until August 15, 2002 at 67 FR 30807, May 8, 2002, as amended 
in this rule is extended in effect until November 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for 
inspection and copying at Marine Safety Office Portland, Maine, 103 
Commercial Street, Portland, Maine 04101 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) R. F. 
Pigeon, Port Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Portland, 
Maine at (207) 780-3251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On December 31, 2001, the Coast Guard published a temporary final 
rule (TFR) entitled ``Security Zone: Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, 
Seabrook, New Hampshire'' in the Federal Register (66 FR 67487). The 
effective period for this rule was from December 7, 2001 until June 15, 
2002. The effective period for this rule was extended until August 15, 
2002 in a TFR of the same title published in the Federal Register on 
May 8, 2002 (67 FR 30807). We expected the extension of the temporary 
rule through August 15, 2002, would have provided us enough time to 
complete the rulemaking process for a

[[Page 52608]]

permanent security zone surrounding Seabrook. Now, however, we are 
extending the effective period of the temporary rule until November 15, 
2002, to ensure sufficient time to complete the rulemaking process, for 
public comment and advanced publication. Continuing the temporary rule 
in effect while the permanent rulemaking is in progress will ensure the 
security of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant and the maritime and 
surrounding communities during that period.
    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The original temporary final 
rule was urgently required to protect the plant from subversive 
activity, sabotage or possible terrorist attacks initiated from waters 
surrounding the plant. It was anticipated that the Coast Guard would 
assess the security environment at the end of the effective period to 
determine whether continuing security precautions were required and, if 
so, to propose regulations responsive to existing conditions. We have 
determined the need for continued security regulations does exist. The 
Coast Guard will utilize the extended effective period of this TFR to 
complete notice and comment rulemaking in order to develop a permanent 
regulation tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment 
within the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine zone.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that good cause exists for making 
this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. The measures contemplated by the original rule were intended 
to prevent possible terrorist attacks against the Seabrook Nuclear 
Power Plant and were needed to protect the facility, persons at the 
facility, the public and the surrounding communities from subversive 
activity, sabotage or possible terrorist attacks, either from the water 
or by access to the facility by utilizing public trust lands between 
the low and high water tide lines.
    The Coast Guard published a NPRM entitled ``Security Zone: Seabrook 
Nuclear Power Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire'' in the Federal Register 
on July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49643). This NPRM proposes to establish a 
permanent security zone that is temporarily effective under this rule.

Background and Purpose

    Due to the terrorist attacks on New York City, New York and 
Washington DC on September 11, 2001 and continued warnings from 
national security and intelligence officials that future terrorist 
attacks are possible, heightened security measures are necessary 
surrounding the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. A temporary security zone 
was implemented around the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant to protect 
against possible damage to the facility from subversive activity, 
sabotage or terrorist attacks initiated from the surrounding waters. 
The rule was also implemented to protect persons at the facility, the 
public and surrounding communities from the catastrophic impact release 
of nuclear radiation would have on the surrounding area, and to provide 
the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine with enforcement options to 
deal with potential threats to the security of the plant.
    There is a continuing need for the protection of the plant. The 
temporary security zone surrounding the plant is only effective until 
August 15, 2002. The Coast Guard intends to implement a permanent 
security zone surrounding the facility. In order to provide continuous 
protection to the plant until the permanent zone is promulgated, the 
Coast Guard is extending the effective date of the rule until November 
15, 2002. This extension will permit sufficient time to implement a 
permanent zone through notice and comment rulemaking, while ensuring 
that there is no lapse in coverage of the facility.
    No person or vessel may enter or remain in the prescribed security 
zone at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port, 
Portland, Maine. Each person or vessel in a security zone shall obey 
any direction or order of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the 
Port may take possession and control of any vessel in a security zone 
and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a security 
zone. No person may board, take or place any article or thing on board 
any vessel or waterfront facility in a security zone without permission 
of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. These regulations were 
issued under authority contained in 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 1226.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This temporary final 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We 
expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full 
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The effect of this regulation 
will not be significant for several reasons: there is ample room for 
vessels to navigate around the zone, notifications will be made to the 
local maritime community and signs will be posted informing the public 
of the boundaries of the zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard 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. For the reasons enumerated in the Regulatory Evaluation 
section above, this security zone will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 [Public Law 104-121], the Coast Guard offered to 
assist small entities in understanding this temporary final rule so 
that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in 
the rulemaking process. If your small business, organization or 
governmental jurisdiction would be affected by this rule, and you have 
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 
call Lieutenant (Junior Grade) R. F. Pigeon, Marine Safety Office, 
Portland, Maine, at (207) 780-3251.
    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

[[Page 52609]]

employees of Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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, 
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 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 action. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
require 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 will not result in such expenditure, we do 
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect 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 section 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 does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
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 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.

Environment

    The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this 
regulation and concluded that, under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 Administer of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. 
Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under 
Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons set out 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; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 165.T01--207 to read as follows:


Sec. 165.T01--207;  Security Zone: Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, 
Seabrook, New Hampshire.

* * * * *
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from December 7, 
2001 until November 15, 2002.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 2, 2002.
M. P. O'Malley,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.
[FR Doc. 02-20482 Filed 8-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P