Skip to Content

Rule

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

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

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) Start Printed Page 40163of 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.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

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.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Add § 165.820 to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Start Printed Page 40164
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.

Start Signature

Dated: June 3, 2002.

S.L. Hudson,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-14686 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U