Security Zone; Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, Seabrook, New
Hampshire
[Federal Register: August 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 156)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52607-52609]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13au02-4]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}