SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

Regulatory Information

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, 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, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Following the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from the aircraft flown into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, this rulemaking is urgently necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against future potential terrorists strikes against public and governmental targets. A similar attack was conducted against the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect against the possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

Background and Purpose

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of the Point Beach nuclear power plant as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone is described as follows: All navigable waters of Western Lake Michigan commencing from a point on the shoreline at 44°17.1′ N, 087°32.3′ W; then northeasterly to 44°17.4′ N, 087°31.6′ W; then southeasterly to 44°16.9′ N, 087°31.3′ W; then southwesterly to 44°16.7′ N, 087°32.0′ W; then northwesterly along the shoreline back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF/FM Marine Channel 16.

Regulatory Evaluation

This 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 ( printed page 52042) regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

This is a temporary rule encompassing winter months. During periods when the waters in this area are not frozen, vessels will be able to transit around the security zone. In addition, vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the security zone.

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.

For reasons stated in the Regulatory Evaluation, 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.

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. 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 Marine Safety Office Milwaukee (see ADDRESSES. )

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 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.

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

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new temporary § 165.T09-110 is added to read as follows: