[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43745-43746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16649]


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

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