[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61494-61495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24940]



[[Page 61494]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05-01-071]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake 
Bay, Calvert County, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; change of effective period; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the effective period and 
requesting comments for a temporary security zone in the waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Calvert 
County, Maryland. This security zone is necessary to help ensure public 
safety and security. The security zone will prohibit vessels from 
entering a well-defined area around Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant.

DATES: The amendment to Sec.  165.T05-071 (d) in this rule is effective 
at 5 p.m. on September 30, 2002. Section 165.T05-071, added at 67 FR 
9205, February 28, 2002, effective January 9, 2002, to 5 p.m. June 15, 
2002, and amended at 67 FR 41177, June 17, 2002, extending the 
effective period from June 17, 2002 to 5 p.m. September 30, 2002, as 
amended in this rule, is extended in effect to 5 p.m. on March 31, 
2003.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket CGD05-01-071 and are available for 
inspection or copying at Commander, Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 
2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, 
between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Dulani Woods, Port Safety and 
Security, Activities Baltimore, at (410) 576-2513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. When we promulgated the rule 
we intended to either allow it to expire on June 15, 2002, or to cancel 
it if we made permanent changes before that date. We requested comments 
from the public and to date have not received any. In 67 FR 41177, June 
17, 2002, we extended the effective period to September 30, 2002, to 
ensure the security of this facility and the safety of the public while 
determining whether a permanent rule is warranted. We have not 
determined whether a permanent rule is necessary; however, if we 
determine that a permanent rule is warranted, we will follow normal 
notice and comment rulemaking procedures, and a final rule should be 
published before March 31, 2003. Continuing the temporary rule in 
effect while considering promulgation of a permanent rule will help to 
ensure the security of this facility and the safety of the public 
during that period.
    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. It is not practicable to publish 
an NPRM because the security of the facility and the safety of the 
public needs to continue.

Request for Comments

    Although the Coast Guard has good cause to implement this 
regulation without engaging in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
process, we want to afford the maritime community the opportunity to 
participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related 
material regarding the size, scope and duration of the Regulated 
Navigation Areas, safety zones and security zones in order to minimize 
unnecessary burdens on waterway users. If you do so, please include 
your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking 
[CGD05-01-071], 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 
temporary rule in view of them.

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, there is an increased risk that subversive 
activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. On October 3, 2001, Constellation 
Nuclear-Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant requested a limited access 
area to reduce the potential threat that may be posed by vessels that 
approach the power plant.
    On February 28, 2002, the Coast Guard published a temporary final 
rule entitled ``Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 
Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD,'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 
9203). The temporary rule established a security zone around the 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
    There is a continuing need for the protection of the plant. The 
initial extension of the temporary security zone surrounding the plant 
was only effective to 5 p.m. on September 30, 2002. As a result, the 
Coast Guard is further extending the effective date of the rule to 5 
p.m. on March 31, 2003. There is no indication that the present rule 
has been burdensome on the maritime public; users of the areas 
surrounding the plant are able to pass safely outside the zone.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This temporary 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. Vessels may transit around the 
security zone and may be permitted within the security zone with the 
approval of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated 
representative.

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.
    This rule was not preceded by a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have 
reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. This rule 
will affect the

[[Page 61495]]

following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or 
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor near the Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, Maryland.
    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. If you think that your business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 
rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a 
comment to the office listed under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain 
why you think it qualified 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 offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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 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 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 rule will not result in such an 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 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 Security 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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

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. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, 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.

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 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. In temporary Sec.  165.T05-071, revise paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  165.T05-071  Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 
Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD.

* * * * *
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 5 p.m. on 
September 30, 2002 to 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 17, 2002.
R. B. Peoples,
Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 02-24940 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P