[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40162-40164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14686]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Pittsburgh-02-005]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 34.6 to 35.1, Shippingport, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone encompassing 
all waters extending 200 feet from the shoreline of the left descending 
bank on the Ohio River, beginning from mile marker 34.6 and ending at 
mile marker 35.1. This security zone is necessary to protect the First 
Energy Nuclear Power Plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, from any and 
all subversive actions from any groups or individuals whose objective 
it is to cause disruption to the daily operations of the First Energy 
Nuclear Power Plant. Entry of persons and vessels into this security 
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the 
Port Pittsburgh or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 2002.

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 [COTP Pittsburgh-02-005] 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. 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Petty Officer Brian Smith, 
Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808 ext. 112.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 18, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rule making (NPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 34.6 to 
35.1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania'', in the Federal Register (67 FR 
11963). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing 
was requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule 
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
This final rule maintains the status quo for the security zone. We 
received no comments on either the temporary final rule or the NPRM. 
Delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest since 
immediate action is needed to respond to the security risks associated 
with nuclear power plants.

Background and Purpose

    On September 11, 2001, both towers of the World Trade Center and 
the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists. National security and 
intelligence officials have warned that future terrorist attacks 
against civilian targets are anticipated. In response to these 
terrorist acts, heightened awareness and security of our ports and 
harbors is necessary. To immediately enhance that security, the Captain 
of the Port, Pittsburgh established a temporary security zone on the 
Ohio River in the vicinity of the First Energy Nuclear Power Plant, in 
Shippingport, PA. The temporary final rule was published March 4, 2002 
in the Federal Register (67 FR 9589) and remains in effect until 8 a.m. 
on June 15, 2002.
    Because the generalized high-level threat environment continues, 
the Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh has determined that there is a need 
for this security zone to remain in effect indefinitely. This security 
zone will reduce the risk of a terrorist incident in this generalized 
high-level threat environment. It reduces the potential of a waterborne 
attack on the facility, enhancing public health, safety, defense and 
security, at this location and surrounding areas.
    The location of this security zone limits access to only the waters 
immediately adjacent to the facility and permits vessels to safely 
navigate around the facility.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, we have 
made no substantive changes to the provisions of the proposed rule. The 
words ``and vessels'' were added to paragraph (b)(2)

[[Page 40163]]

of the final rule to clarify that the term ``persons'' included 
vessels. Persons and vessels desiring entry must seek permission of the 
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh to transit the security zone.

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 Budget has not 
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This rule will not 
obstruct the regular flow of vessel traffic and will allow vessel 
traffic to pass safely around the security zone.

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 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities for the reasons enumerated under the Regulatory 
Evaluation above.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected 
by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Brian Smith, U.S. 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh, Suite 1150 Kossman Bldg. 
100 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA at (412) 644-5808.

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 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 would not result in such an expenditure, we 
do 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 will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
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 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.

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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result 
in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). A ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' is 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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.


    2. Add Sec. 165.820 to read as follows:

[[Page 40164]]

Sec. 165.820  Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 34.6 to 35.1, 
Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: The waters of 
the Ohio River, extending 200 feet from the shoreline of the left 
descending bank beginning from mile marker 34.6 and ending at mile 
marker 35.1.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is 
prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, 
Pittsburgh.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to transit the area of the 
security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh at 
telephone number 412-644-5808 or on VHF channel 16 to seek permission 
to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels 
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh 
or his designated representative.
    (c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231, the authority for 
this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.

    Dated: June 3, 2002.
S.L. Hudson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 02-14686 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U