Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

Agency: Coast Guard, DOT
Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking
Citation: FR Doc. 02-6364 · RIN 2115-AA97 · COTP Pittsburgh-02-005 · 33 CFR 165

Summary

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 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 vessels into this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port St. Louis or his designated representative.

Dates

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 17, 2002.

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 02-005], 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 that your submission 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 now plan to hold a public meeting. But 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 one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose On September 11, 2001, both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists. 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 Volume 67, Number 42, page 9589 (67 FR 9589) and remains in effect until 8 a.m. on June 15, 2002. Because the generalized high-level threat environment has persisted longer than expected, 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 and safety, and common defense and security, at this location and surrounding areas. The location of this security zone will limit access to only the waters immediately adjacent to the facility and will permit vessels to safely navigate around the facility. Navigation around the facility will not be hindered by the establishment of this security zone. Discussion of Proposed Rule A security zone is proposed for all water extending 200 feet from the shoreline of the left descending bank on the Ohio River from mile marker 34.6 to 35.1. This zone is designed to increase protection for the First Energy Nuclear Power Plant in Shippingport, PA. 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 and safety, and common defense and security, at this location and surrounding areas. All vessels are prohibited from entering the zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh. 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 Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this proposed 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 and 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This security zone will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities because this proposed rule will not obstruct the regular flow of vessel traffic and will allow vessel traffic to pass safely around the security zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. 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 this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Chief Petty Officer Brian Smith, Marine Safety Office Pittsburgh at (412) 644-5808. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call 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 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 proposed 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 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. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order. 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. 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 proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this proposed 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. 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 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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. 2. Add § 165.820 to read as follows: § 165.820 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 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. Dated: March 5, 2002. S.L. Hudson, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh. [FR Doc. 02-6364 Filed 3-15-02; 8:45 am]