Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the security zone size of the Kewanuee Nuclear Power Plant on Lake Michigan. This security zone is necessary to protect the nuclear power plant from possible sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or possible acts of terrorism. The zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Lake Michigan.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 16, 2003.Start Printed Page 59753
You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) Milwaukee, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. MSO Milwaukee maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at MSO Milwaukee between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MSTC Dave McClintock, MSO Milwaukee, at 1 (414) 747-7155.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD09-03-277), 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 81/2 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 proposed rule in view of them.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Milwaukee at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On September 11, 2001, the United States was the target of coordinated attacks by international terrorists resulting in catastrophic loss of life, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and significant damage to the Pentagon. Current events indicate that significant threats of this type of attack still exist. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorists attacks are likely. The Coast Guard is responding by, amongst many other things, enacting security zones around critical infrastructure.
This regulation proposes to revise the size of the security zone for the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. This security zone is necessary to protect the public, facilities, and the surrounding area from possible sabotage or other subversive acts. All persons other than those approved by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee, or his on-scene representative, are prohibited from entering or moving within the zone. The Captain of the Port Milwaukee may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 for further instructions to request permission before transiting through the restricted area. The Captain of the Port Milwaukee's on-scene representative would be the patrol commander.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
On July 31, 2002, the Coast Guard created a permanent security zone around the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (67 FR 49578, July 31, 2002). This rulemaking proposes to change the location of that security zone to the following: All navigable waters of Western Lake Michigan encompassed by a line commencing from a point on the shoreline at 44°20.715′ N, 087°32.080′ W; then easterly to 44°20.720′ N, 087°31.630′ W; then southerly to 44°20.480′ N, 087°31.630′ W; then westerly to 44°20.480′ N, 087°31.970′ W; then northerly following the shoreline back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Since this security zone would not be located near commercial vessel shipping lanes, there would be no impact on commercial vessel traffic.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This security zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would not obstruct the regular flow of traffic and would allow vessel traffic to pass around the security zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed in ADDRESSES in this preamble.
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 proposed rule would call 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 Start Printed Page 5975413132, 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it would 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 proposed 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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this proposed rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.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 proposes to revise 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
2. Revise paragraph (a)(1) of § 165.916 to read as follows:
(a) Location. * * *
(1) Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant—All navigable waters of Western Lake Michigan encompassed by a line commencing from a point on the shoreline at 44°20.715′ N, 087°32.080′ W; then easterly to 44°20.720′ N, 087°31.630′ W; then southerly to 44°20.480′ N, 087°31.630′ W; then westerly to 44°20.480′ N, 087°31.970′ W, then northerly following the shoreline back to the point of origin. (NAD 83).
Dated: 24 September 2003.
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Milwaukee.
[FR Doc. 03-26305 Filed 10-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P