This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone around the former Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant during the demolition of the containment building. This safety zone is needed to protect persons, facilities, vessels and others in the maritime community from the safety hazards associated with the demolition of a large building by controlled implosion. Entry into this safety zone will be prohibited unless authorized by Start Printed Page 51786the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine during the specified closure periods.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 2, 2004.
You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety Office Portland, 27 Pearl Street, Portland, ME 04101. Marine Safety Office Portland maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Portland between the hours of 8 a.m. EDT and 4 p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ensign J. B. Bleacher, Port Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Portland at (207) 780-3251.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 (CGD01-04-099), 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 Marine Safety Office Portland at the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one may be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid in this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On July 20, 2004 representatives of Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant presented the Coast Guard with plans for the demolition of a former containment building. Maine Yankee plans to use controlled explosive charges to bring down the containment building. The tentative date for this operation is the second week of September 2004 but may be changed earlier or later, due to weather, winds, or other unforeseen changes in project scheduling. This safety zone will remain in effect approximately one hour before and one hour after the scheduled demolition. Due to hazards associated with the demolition of a large building, this temporary safety zone will be needed to ensure the safety of the maritime community and workers involved with the project during all portions of this evolution.
Start date for this project is scheduled for the second week of September 2004, but is subject to change.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would establish a safety zone in all navigable waters 1000-feet around the former containment building at 321 Old Ferry Road, Wiscasset, Maine, from a point located at Latitude 43° 57′ 00″ N, Longitude 069° 41′ 42″ W. This safety zone is needed to protect persons, facilities, vessels and others in the maritime community from the safety hazards associated with the demolition of a large building by controlled implosion. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine will notify the marine community when this zone will be enforced using marine safety information broadcasts and on-scene notifications by Coast Guard personnel and patrol vessels. The Captain of the Port, Portland Maine, using marine safety information broadcasts, or on-scene notifications, or both, also will notify the marine community when this zone will not be enforced and when a general permission to enter is granted.
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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed regulation will not be significant for several reasons: there will be impact on the navigational channel for only a minimal amount of time, there will be ample space for vessels to navigate around the zone, and broadcast notifications will be made to the maritime community advising them of the boundaries of the zone before and during its effective period.
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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in these safety zones during this demolition event. However, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the area, there will be ample space for vessels to maneuver and navigate around the zone, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts.
If you think your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 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 rule would affect your small business, organization or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ensign J.B. Bleacher, Marine Safety Office Portland, at (207) 780-3251.
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.).Start Printed Page 51787
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 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 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 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded 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 amend 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. Add temporary § 165.T01-099 to read as follows:
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters within 1000 feet around the former Maine Yankee containment building from a point located at Latitude 43°57′00″ N., Longitude 69°41′ 42″ W.
(b) Effective date. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 1, 2004, to 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 30, 2004.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations contained in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Portland, Maine or his designated representative.
(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP, or the designated U.S. Coast Guard representative. Designated U.S. Coast Guard representatives include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels. Emergency response vessels are authorized to move within the zone, but must abide by restrictions imposed by the COTP or his designated representative. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard personnel or a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, via siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, those hailed shall proceed as directed.
(3) Entry or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.
Dated: August 6, 2004.
Gregory D. Case,
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.
[FR Doc. 04-19251 Filed 8-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P