[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1556-1558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-387]


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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove 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 will be 
required to take specific action to improve facility security. As such, 
a security zone around this facility will no longer be necessary under 
normal conditions. This proposed rule would remove the established 
security zone.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 9, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety 
Office Pittsburgh, Suite 1150 Kossman Bldg., 100 Forbes Ave., 
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1371. Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh maintains 
the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received 
from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as 
being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will 
be 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: 

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP 
Pittsburgh-03-030], indicate the specific section of this document to 
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. 
Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, 
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would 
like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material 
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in 
view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at 
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If 
we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will 
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal 
Register.

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

[[Page 1557]]

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 a permanent 33 CFR part 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 this 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 will no longer be necessary under normal 
conditions. The removal of this security zone would become effective on 
July 1, 2004.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    For the reasons stated above in Background and Purpose, we propose 
to remove 33 CFR 165.822, Security Zone; Ohio River, Mile 119.0 to 
119.8, Natrium, WV. This proposed removal would become effective on 
July 1, 2004. We invite your comments on our proposed action to 
terminate this security zone.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary as this proposed 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 
would 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 want to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Luis Parrales, 
Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808, ext. 2114.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and 
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 
might disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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.

[[Page 1558]]

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 the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result 
in any significant adverse 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.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.


Sec.  165.822  [Removed]

    2. Remove Sec.  165.822.

    Dated: December 10, 2003.
W.W. Briggs,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 04-387 Filed 1-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P