Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, Maryland. This security zone is necessary to help ensure public safety and security. The security zone will prohibit vessels and persons from entering a well-defined area around Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
This rule is effective at 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-02-080 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Activities, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791 between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Dulani Woods at Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2513.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On February 28, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled “Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD” in the Federal Register (67 FR 9203) that expired on June 15, 2002. On June 17, 2002, we published a change of effective date to a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled “Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD” in the Federal Register (67 FR 41177) that expired on September 30, 2002, and on October 1, 2002, we published another change of effective date to a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled “Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Start Printed Page 15052Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD” in the Federal Register (67 FR 61494) that expires on March 31, 2003.
On October 18, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD” in the Federal Register (67 FR 64345). We received three letters commenting on the proposed rule.
The Captain of the Port has determined that the need for this security zone continues to exist. Accordingly, this rule makes final the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2002. The zone is approximately 300 by 500 yards and is marked by white cylindrical buoys in the Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, in Calvert County, Maryland.
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 urgently necessary, for public safety and Power Plant security, that a continuous security zone be established at the Calvert Cliffs facility effective at 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003. This rule will become effective upon expiration of the current temporary rule (67 FR 61494, October 1, 2002).
Background and Purpose
Based on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon building in Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. On February 28, 2002, the Coast Guard published a temporary 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. Based on a continuing need for the protection of the plant, the effective date of the rule establishing a temporary security zone surrounding the plant was extended until 5 p.m., 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. Three letters commenting on the present rule have been received by the public.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received three written comments on the proposed rule. Two letters included comments that strongly supported the proposed security zone, one of which requested that Coast Guard increase the size of the zone to provide for additional security. The size and location of the zone was based on a request from the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The power plant is aware of the issues raised by this comment and feels that the size and location of the security zone is sufficient to provide the desired increase in security.
The third letter included comments from the Canoe Cruisers Association of Greater Washington, DC, Inc. stating that the size of the proposed security zone is reasonable; however, future proposals to expand its dimensions might compromise waterway user safety far from shore and interrupt waterway user access to the shore. The Coast Guard has considered these issues and has determined that no changes to the proposed rule are required. One commenter requested a public meeting. The Coast Guard has considered this request and determined that there is not sufficient public interest to conduct a public meeting.
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.
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.
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.
We received three letters commenting on the interim rule. Comments from the Canoe Cruisers Association of Greater Washington, DC, Inc. state that the security zone proposal is reasonable; however, future proposals to expand its dimensions might compromise waterway user safety far from shore and interrupt waterway user access to the shore.
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).
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. Start Printed Page 15053
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.
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.
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 because we are establishing a security zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.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. Add § 165.505 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Chesapeake Bay, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 38°26′06″ N, 076°26′18″ W, thence to 38°26′10″ N, 076°26′12″ W, thence to 38°26′21″ N, 076°26′28″ W, thence to 38°26′14″ N, 076°26′33″ W, thence to beginning at 38°26′06″ N, 076°26′18″ W. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum (NAD) 1983.
(b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
Dated: March 4, 2003.
Evan Q. Kahler,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 03-7385 Filed 3-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U