Coast Guard, DHS.
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.
This final rule is effective on July 1, 2004.
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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (LT) Luis Parrales, Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808, ext. 2114.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
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 § 165.822. Therefore, we are proceeding to remove § 165.822 as we proposed.
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.
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).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Start Printed Page 43746Federalism, 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.
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.
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.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and record keeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. Remove § 165.822.End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: June 30, 2004.
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