Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; change in effective period.
The Coast Guard is extending the effective period of a regulated navigation area (RNA) and certain safety and security zones published January 4, 2002. This change will extend the effective period of the temporary final rule through August 15, 2003, allowing adequate time for informal rulemaking to develop a permanent rule. This rule will continue to regulate the conditions under which certain vessels may enter, transit or operate within the regulated navigation area and will exclude all vessels from operating within 700 yards of the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant or 100 yards of anchored Coast Guard vessels.Start Printed Page 12305
The amendments of §§ 165.T01-153 and 165.T01.154 in this rule are effective March 15, 2003. Sections 165.T01-153 and 165.T01-154, added at 67 FR 519 and 520, January 4, 2002, effective December 10, 2001, until June 15, 2002, extended at 67 FR 40861, June 14, 2002, through November 15, 2002, and extended at 67 FR 69132, November 15, 2002, through March 15, 2003, as amended in this rule, are extended in effect through August 15, 2003.
Documents indicated in this preamble are available for inspection and copying at Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office (MSO) Long Island Sound, 120 Woodward Ave., New Haven, CT 06512, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Group/MSO Long Island Sound at (203) 468-4429.
On January 4, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled “Regulated Navigation Areas, Safety And Security Zones: Long Island Sound Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone” in the Federal Register (67 FR 517). The effective period for that rule was from December 10, 2001, until June 15, 2002. The effective period for that rule was extended through November 15, 2002 (67 FR 40861, June 14, 2002), and it was then extended through March 15, 2003 (67 FR 69132, November 15, 2002).
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. The original TFR was urgently required to prevent terrorist strikes within and adjacent to waters within the Long Island Sound Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone. It was anticipated that we would assess the security environment at the end of the effective period to determine whether continuing security precautions were required and, if so, propose regulations responsive to existing conditions. We have determined that the need for continued security regulations exists. The Coast Guard will utilize the extended effective period of this TFR to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment within the ports of Long Island Sound.
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. The measures contemplated by the rule were intended to prevent future terrorist attacks. The delay inherent in the NPRM process for developing a permanent rule is contrary to the public interest insofar as it may render individuals, vessels and facilities within and adjacent to the Long Island Sound Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone vulnerable to subversive activity, sabotage or terrorist attack. The Coast Guard will be publishing an NPRM to establish permanent safety and security zones that are temporarily effective under this rule. This revision preserves the status quo within the Port while permanent rules are developed. The present TFR has not been burdensome on the maritime public. The Coast Guard has not received written comments or suggestions to modify the scope of the existing TFR.
Background and Purpose
On September 11, 2001, two commercial aircraft were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston, MA and flown into the World Trade Center in New York, NY inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. A similar attack was conducted on the Pentagon with a plane launched from Newark, NJ on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. The Coast Guard established RNAs and safety and security zones within defined areas of water as part of a comprehensive, port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels and waterfront facilities from sabotage or terrorist acts. As mentioned in the original TFR, these regulations were designed to provide the Captain of the Port of Long Island Sound with maximum flexibility to respond to emergent threats and dangerous conditions. When less stringent security measures are required, the Captain of the Port communicates relaxed enforcement policies to the public. As a result, the full scope of these regulations is rarely imposed. Nevertheless, the flexibility to utilize those measures permitted by the TFR and required by the circumstances is vital to ensure port security in the present environment.
A change in the effective period of this rule was published on June 14, 2002 (67 FR 40859), which extended the rule through November 15, 2002. A second change in effective period of this rule was published on November 15, 2002 (67 FR 69132), which extended the rule through March 15, 2003. This change was necessary in order to conduct rulemaking for the establishment of permanent safety and security zones and regulated navigation area. Additional time is necessary to ensure the public has sufficient time to participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard is therefore extending the effective date of this rule until August 15, 2003, to allow the establishment of permanent safety and security zones and a regulated navigation area by notice and comment rulemaking.
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 regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: the sizes of the zones are the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the public, vessels, and vessel crews. Any vessels seeking entry into or movement within the safety and security zones must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound or his authorized patrol representative. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the national interest in protecting the public, vessels, and vessel crews from further devastating consequences of the aforementioned acts of terrorism, and from potential future sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
The Coast Guard will be publishing an NPRM to establish permanent safety and security zones and the regulated navigation area that are temporarily effective under this rule.
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 Start Printed Page 12306dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
For the reasons addressed under the “Regulatory Evaluation” section above, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this regulation to be minimal and certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Maritime advisories will be initiated by normal methods and means and be widely available to users of the area.
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 Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways Management, Coast Guard Group/MSO Long Island Sound, (203) 468-4429.
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 requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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.
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 and 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 takings 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 and 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.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule 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.
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 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.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Revise temporary § 165.T01-153(c) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) Effective dates. This section is effective from December 15, 2001, through August 15, 2003.
3. Revise temporary 165.T01-154(b) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(b) Effective dates. This section is effective from December 10, 2001, through August 15, 2003.
Dated: March 5, 2003.
Vivien S. Crea,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 03-6327 Filed 3-12-03; 2:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P