5284 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add § 165.552 to read as follows.

§ 165.552 Security Zone; Oyster Creek 

Generation Station, Forked River, Ocean 

County, New Jersey. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: Starting at the south 

branch of the Forked River in the 

vicinity of the Oyster Creek Generation 

Station, bounded by a line beginning at 

39°49′12.0′′ N, 074°12′13.0′′ W; thence to 

39°48′39.7′′ N, 074°12′0′′ W; along the 

shoreline, thence to 39°48′40.0′′ N, 

074°12′0.3′′ W; thence to 39°49′11.8′′ N, 

074°12′10.5′′ W; thence back along the 

shoreline to the beginning point. All 

coordinates reference Datum: NAD 

1983. 

(b) Regulations. (1) All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing security zones in 

§ 165.33 of this part. 

(2) No person or vessel may enter or 

navigate within this security zone 

unless authorized to do so by the Coast 

Guard or designated representative. Any 

person or vessel authorized to enter the 

security zones must operate in strict 

conformance with any directions given 

by the Coast Guard or designated 

representative and leave the security 

zone immediately if the Coast Guard or 

designated representative so orders. 

(3) The Coast Guard or designated 

representative enforcing this section can 

be contacted on VHF Marine Band 

Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain 

of the Port can be contacted at (215) 

271–4807. 

(4) The Captain of the Port will notify 

the public of any changes in the status 

of this security zone by Marine Safety 

Radio Broadcast on VHF–FM marine 

band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ). 

(c) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section, Captain of the Port means 

the Commanding Officer of the Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office/Group 

Philadelphia, or any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port to act as a designated 

representative on his behalf.

Dated: January 23, 2004. 

Liam J. Slein, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Philadelphia.

[FR Doc. 04–2308 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

CFR Part 165

[COTP PHILADELPHIA 03–005] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Security Zone; Oyster Creek 

Generation Station, Forked River, 

Ocean County, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule, change in 

effective period. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

continuing a temporary security zone on 

the waters adjacent to the Oyster Creek 

Generation Station. This zone will 

protect the safety and security of the 

plants from subversive activity, 

sabotage, or terrorist attacks initiated 

from surrounding waters. This action 

will close water areas around the plants.

DATES: Effective January 24, 2004. 

Section 165.T05–091, added at 68 FR 

32645, June 2, 2003, effective from 5 

p.m. EDT on May 13, 2003, to 5 p.m. 

EST on January 24, 2004, as amended by 

this rule is effective through March 4, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in 

this preamble are available as part of 

docket COTP Philadelphia 03–005 for 

inspection or copying at Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Philadelphia, One 

Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, 19147, between 8 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Junior Grade Kevin Sligh or 

Ensign Doreen Moore, Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office/Group 

Philadelphia, at (215) 271–4889.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 

(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good 

cause exists for not publishing a NPRM 

and for making this regulation effective 

less than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. Based upon the 

warnings from national security and 

intelligence personnel, this rule is 

urgently required to protect the plant 

from subversive activity, sabotage or 

possible terrorist attacks initiated from 

the waters surrounding the plants. 

It took longer to resolve issues related 

to the final rule, which appears 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

that will create a permanent security 

zone in this area than we originally 

expected at the time the last temporary 

final rule was issued. This new 

temporary final rule is necessary 

because it would be contrary to public 

interest not to maintain a temporary 

safety and security zone until the final 

rule becomes effective March 5, 2004. 

This security zone should have 

minimal impact on vessel transits 

because the security zone does not block 

the channel. 

Background and Purpose 

Due to the continued warnings from 

national security and intelligence 

officials that future terrorist attacks are 

possible, such as those launched against 

New York and Washington, DC on 

September 11, 2001, heightened security 

measures are necessary for the area 

surrounding the Oyster Creek 

Generation Station. This rule will 

provide the Captain of the Port 

Philadelphia with enforcement options 

to deal with potnetial threats to the 

security of the plants. 

Currently, the need for this security 

zone still exists. This temporary rule 

will continue the effective period of the 

security zone through March 4, 2004 

during the 30-day delayed effective 

period of a final rule published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. That final rule, entitled 

‘‘Security Zone; Oyster Creek 

Generation Station, Forked River, Ocean 

County, NJ’’, will become effective 

March 5, 2004 and will implement a 

permanent security zone surrounding 

the plant.

Discussion of Rule 

No person or vessel may enter or 

remain in the prescribed security zone 

at any time without the permission of 

the Captain of the Port, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania or designated 

representative. Federal, state, and local 

agencies may assist the Coast Guard in 

the enforcement of this rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5285

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). 

The primary impact of this rule will 

be on vessels wishing to transit the 

affected waterway. Although this rule 

restricts traffic from freely transiting 

portions of Oyster Creek and Forked 

River, that restriction affects only a 

limited area and will be well publicized 

to allow mariners to make alternative 

plans. 

Small Entities 

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. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: Owners or operators of fishing 

vessels and recreational vessels wishing 

to transit the portions of Oyster Creek 

and Forked River. 

The rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons: The 

restrictions affect only a limited area 

and traffic will be allowed to transit 

through the zone with permission of the 

Coast Guard or designated 

representative. The opportunity to 

engage in recreational and charter 

fishing outside the geographical limits 

of the security zone will not be 

disrupted. Therefore, this regulation 

should have a negligible impact on 

recreational and charter fishing activity. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

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 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). 

Federalism 

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 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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 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 Security Risks. This rule is 

not an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to security 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. 

Energy Effects 

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.

Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

from further environmental 

documentation. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Checklist’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES.

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 amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

5286 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Document titled ‘‘Addenda to the Ozone 

Attainment Demonstrations for the Southwest 

Connecticut Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area and 

Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone Nonattainment 

Area,’’ February 8, 2000.

■ 2. Section 165.T05–091 is reinstated 

and revised to read as follows:

§ 165.T05–091 Security Zone; Oyster 

Creek Generation Station, Forked River, 

Ocean County, New Jersey. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: starting at the south 

branch of the Forked River in the 

vicinity of the Oyster Creek Generation 

Station, bounded by a line beginning at 

39°49′12.0′′ N, 074°12′13.0′′ W; thence to 

39°48′39.7′′ N, 074°12′0′′ W; along the 

shoreline, thence to 39°48′40.0′′ N, 

074°12′0.3′′ W; thence to 39°49′11.8′′ N, 

074°12′10.5′′ W; thence back along the 

shoreline to the beginning point. All 

coordinates reference Datum: NAD 

1983. 

(b) Regulations. (1) All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing security zones in 

§ 165.33 of this part. 

(2) No person or vessel may enter or 

navigate within this security zone 

unless authorized to do so by the Coast 

Guard or designated representative. Any 

person or vessel authorized to enter the 

security zone must operate in strict 

conformance with any directions given 

by the Coast Guard or designated 

representative and leave the security 

zone immediately if the Coast Guard or 

designated representative so orders. 

(3) The Coast Guard or designated 

representative enforcing this section can 

be contacted on VHF Marine Band 

Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain 

of the Port can be contacted at (215) 

271–4807. 

(4) The Captain of the Port will notify 

the public of any changes in the status 

of this security zone by Marine Safety 

Radio Broadcast on VHF–FM marine 

band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ). 

(c) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this temporary section, Captain of the 

Port means the Commanding Officer of 

the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/

Group Philadelphia or any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port to act as a designated 

representative on his behalf. 

(d) Effective period. This section is 

effective from 5 p.m. (EDT) on May 13, 

2003, through March 4, 2004.

Dated: January 16, 2004. 

Jonathan D. Sarubbi, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Philadelphia.

[FR Doc. 04–2309 Filed 2–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CT–057–7216g; A–1–FRL–7617–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Connecticut; 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

2005 and 2007 using MOBILE6.2 for the 

Connecticut Portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island 

Nonattainment Area and for 2007 for 

the Greater Connecticut Nonattainment 

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a 

revision to the Connecticut State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

attainment and maintenance of the onehour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ground level 

ozone submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. The intended effect of this 

action is to approve Connecticut’s 2005 

and 2007 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets recalculated using MOBILE6.2 

for the Connecticut portion of the New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island 

nonattainment area and to approve 

Connecticut’s 2007 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the Greater 

Connecticut nonattainment area also 

recalculated using MOBILE6.2. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

February 4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours, by appointment at the 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA 

02114–2023; and the Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023, (617) 918–

1668, cooke.donald@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following table of contents 

describes the format for the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

II. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to Its Proposal? 

A. Background information 

B. Comments Received and EPA’s 

Response 

III. What Is EPA’s Conclusion? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

On June 17, 2003, the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(CTDEP) submitted an amendment to 

the Connecticut State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) containing 2005 and 2007 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

recalculated using the MOBILE6.2 

model for the Connecticut portion of the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island nonattainment area and 2007 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. 

This SIP revision fulfills the 

commitment made by the CTDEP in its 

February 8, 2000 SIP submittal to revise 

the transportation conformity budgets 

using EPA’s MOBILE6 emissions 

model.1 In addition, this SIP revision 

demonstrates that the new levels of 

motor vehicle emissions calculated 

using MOBILE6.2 continue to support 

achievement of the rate of progress 

requirements and projected attainment 

of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Connecticut portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island 

nonattainment area and the Greater 

Connecticut nonattainment area. 

Connecticut held a public hearing on its 

proposed SIP revision on May 27, 2003. 

Today’s action approves these budgets.

The specific 2005 and 2007 motor 

vehicle emission budgets that EPA is 

approving in today’s rulemaking are 

identified below in Table 1. The 

rationale for EPA’s action are explained 

in the notice of direct final rulemaking 

(68 FR 70484) published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2003, and will 

not be restated here. 

II. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to Its Proposal? 

A. Background Information 

On December 18, 2003, the EPA 

announced in proposed and direct final 

rules published in the Federal Register

(68 FR 70437 and 68 FR 70484, 

respectively) approval of Connecticut’s 

SIP revision for its 2005 and 2007 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets using 

MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut portion 

of the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island nonattainment area and 

2007 budgets for the Greater