[Federal Register: July 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 140)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43745-43746]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jy04-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Pittsburgh-03-030]
RIN 1625-AA00
Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 119.8, Natrium, WV
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing an established security zone that
encompasses all waters extending 200 feet from the water's edge of the
left descending bank of the Ohio River, beginning from mile marker
119.0 and ending at mile marker 119.8. This security zone protects
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries (PPG), persons and vessels from
subversive or terrorist acts. Under the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, owners or operators of this facility are required
to take specific action to improve facility security. As such, a
security zone around this facility is no longer necessary under normal
conditions. This rule removes the established security zone.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2004.
ADDRESSES: 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 (COTP Pittsburgh-03-030) and are available for
inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh, Suite 1150
Kossman Bldg., 100 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1371, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Luis Parrales, Marine
Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808, ext. 2114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On January 9, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 119.8,
Natrium, WV'' in the Federal Register (69 FR 1556). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and
none was held.
Background and Purpose
On March 24, 2003, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled
``Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 119.8, Natrium, West
Virginia'', in the Federal Register (68 FR 14150). That final rule
established a security zone that encompasses all waters extending 200
feet from the water's edge of the left descending bank of the Ohio
River, beginning from mile marker 119.0 and ending at mile marker
119.8. This security protects Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries (PPG),
persons and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts.
Under the authority of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule on October 22, 2003,
entitled ``Facility Security'' in the Federal Register (68 FR 60515)
that established 33 CFR 105. That final rule became effective November
21, 2003, and provides security measures for certain facilities,
including PPG. Section 105.200 of 33 CFR requires owners or operators
of the PPG facility to designate security officers for facilities,
develop security plans based on security assessments and surveys,
implements security measures specific to the facility's operations, and
comply with Maritime Security Levels. Under 33 CFR 105.115, the owner
or operator of this facility must, by December 31, 2003, submit to the
Captain of the Port, a Facility Security Plan as described in subpart D
of 33 CFR part 105, or if intending to operate under an approved
Alternative Security Program as described in 33 CFR 101.130, a letter
signed by the facility owner or operator stating which approved
Alternative Security Program the owner or operator intends to use.
Section 105.115 of 33 CFR also requires the facility owner or operator
to be in compliance with 33 CFR part 105 on or before July 1, 2004. As
a result of these enhanced security measures, the security zone around
PPG is no longer necessary under normal conditions. The removal of this
security zone will become effective on July 1, 2004.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
We received no comments on our proposal to remove the security zone
in Sec. 165.822. Therefore, we are proceeding to remove Sec. 165.822
as we proposed.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 rule to be so minimal that a
full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary as this rule removes a regulation that is no
longer necessary.
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.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
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,
[[Page 43746]]
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
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 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 because this rule is not expected to result
in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA.
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 rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
0
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
0
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, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
Sec. 165.822 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 165.822.
Dated: June 30, 2004.
W.W. Briggs,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 04-16649 Filed 7-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P