Proposed Rule2024-19592
Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth Massachusetts
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 30, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the existing security zone for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Since the implementation of the regulation, the facility has permanently ceased power operations making the provisions of the security zone no longer applicable. The waterfront facility's security zone will be removed from all charts, publications, and other navigational references. All related private aids to navigational marking the boundaries of the security zone will also be removed. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70587-70589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19592]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2024-0500]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth
Massachusetts
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish the existing
security zone for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Since the implementation of the regulation, the facility has
permanently ceased power operations making the provisions of the
security zone no longer applicable. The waterfront facility's security
zone will be removed from all charts, publications, and other
navigational references. All related private aids to navigational
marking the boundaries of the security zone will also be removed. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2024-0500 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking
with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be
available in this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call, or email Mr. Timothy Chase. Sector Boston,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-447-
1620, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#386c5155574c5041164f165b50594b5d784d4b5b5f16555154"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9acef3f7f5eef2e3b4edb4f9f2fbe9ffdaefe9f9fdb4f7f3f6">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Boston
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On September 11, 2001, four commercial aircraft were hijacked and
flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon,
inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. National
security and intelligence officials warned that future terrorist
attacks were likely.
In response, on May 30, 2002, the Coast Guard published a final
rule titled ``Safety and Security Zones; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant,
Plymouth Massachusetts'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 37693). On
October 2, 2009 the regulation was amended by Federal Register (74 FR
50925) establishing a permanent safety and security zone on all waters
of Cape Cod Bay and land adjacent to those waters enclosed by a line
beginning at position 41-56'59.3'' N, 070-34'58.5'' W; thence to 41-
57'12.2'' N, 070-34'41.9'' W; thence to 41-56'42.3'' N, 070-34'00.1''
W; thence to 41-56'29.5'' N, 070-34'14.5'' W within Captain of the Port
(COTP) Sector Boston, Massachusetts as part of a comprehensive, port
security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels and
waterfront facilities from sabotage or terrorist acts.
On June 10, 2019, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc (site prior owner)
notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that the power
operations have ceased at Pilgrim Nuclear Station (PNPS) and that the
nuclear fuel was permanently removed from the PNPS reactor vessel as
per 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Effectively, Entergy understood and
acknowledged that upon docketing these certifications (ML19161A033),
the PNPS 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorized operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel.
Subsequently, the facility license and ownership of Pilgrim Station was
transferred to HDI on August 27, 2019 (ML19235A050).
On December 14, 2021, HDI notified the NRC (ML21348A748) that all
nuclear fuel was transferred out of the spent nuclear fuel pool and was
placed in dry cask storage containers within the newly built
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). These dry cask
storage containers are air cooled and do not rely on cooling water from
cape cod bay for nuclear fuel cooling.
On January 9, 2024, Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc, notified the
Coast Guard that they had provided all the required documentation for
disestablishment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as per 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i). Power operations have
[[Page 70588]]
ceased at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
For the reason discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Coast
Guard proposes to disestablish the security zone cited in 33 CFR
165.115, Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant,
Plymouth, Massachusetts by removing that section completely and
reserving it for future use. The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the security zone cited in
33 CFR 165.115, Safety and Security Zones: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant,
Plymouth, Massachusetts, by removing that section and reserving it for
future use.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the need to align
the regulations with the current arrangements of the port as the
waterfront facility safety zone is no longer required. The Captain of
the Port Sector Boston proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.115(a)(1) and
reserve it for future use.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
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 rulemaking would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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 call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
disestablishment of a security zone. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this
[[Page 70589]]
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
do so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2024-0500 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the
proposed rule, you should see a ``Subscribe'' option for email alerts.
The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is
published.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
Sec. 165.115 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 165.115.
Dated: August 22, 2024.
J.C. Frederick,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Boston.
[FR Doc. 2024-19592 Filed 8-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 30, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.