[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14150-14151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6916]



[[Page 14150]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Pittsburgh-02-019]
RIN 1625-AA00 (Formerly RIN 2115-AA97)


Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 119.8, Natrium, West 
Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone encompassing 
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 is necessary to protect 
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries (PPG), persons and vessels from 
subversive or terrorist acts. Entry of persons and vessels into this 
security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard 
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective beginning March 15, 2003.

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-02-019] 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: Petty Officer (PO) Michael Marsula, 
Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808 x2114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On December 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking entitled ``Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 
119.8, Natrium, West Virginia'', in the Federal Register (67 FR 77008). 
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), the Coast Guard finds that 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 because immediate action is needed to 
continue to respond to existing security risks.

Background and Purpose

    The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh established a temporary security 
zone for the area adjacent to PPG that expired June 15, 2002 [COTP 
Pittsburgh-02-001] (67 FR 9589, March 4, 2002). No comments or 
objections were received concerning this rule. National security and 
intelligence officials have warned that future terrorist attacks 
against civilian targets are anticipated. In response to those 
continued threats, heightened awareness and security of our ports and 
harbors is necessary. The Captain of the Port has established a 
temporary security zone for this area [COTP Pittsburgh-02-019] (67 FR 
58332). That temporary final rule was published in the Federal Register 
on September 16, 2002. Advisories regarding continued threats of 
terrorism have revealed the need for a continuous security zone to 
protect PPG, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist attacks. 
This security zone includes the waters of the Ohio River extending 200 
feet from the water's edge of the left descending bank between mile 
markers 119.0 and 119.8.
    The Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh has determined that there is a 
need for this security zone to remain in effect indefinitely because of 
the continued threat of terrorism and the nature of the material 
handled at PPG.

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.

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 Homeland 
Security (DHS).
    This rule will not obstruct the regular flow of vessel traffic and 
will allow vessel traffic to pass safely around the security zone. 
Vessels may be permitted to enter the security zone on a case-by-case 
basis.

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. The Coast Guard is unaware of any small entities that 
would be impacted by this rule. The navigable channel remains open to 
all vessel traffic. We received no comments or objections regarding the 
previous security zone covering the same area.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected 
by this regulation please contact PO Michael Marsula, U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh, Suite 1150, Kossman Bldg., 100 Forbes 
Ave., Pittsburgh, PA at (412) 644-5808, X2114.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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

[[Page 14151]]

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 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 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 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, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.

    2. Add Sec.  165.822 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.822  Security Zone; Ohio River Mile 119.0 to 119.8 Natrium, 
WV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: the waters of 
the Ohio River extending 200 feet from the water's edge of the left 
descending bank between mile markers 119.0 and 119.8.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is 
prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 
Pittsburgh or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or 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 a 
designated representative.
    (c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231, the authority for 
this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.

    Dated: March 10, 2003.
Steve L. Hudson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 03-6916 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P