[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11000-11002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5056]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0124]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Freeport LNG Basin, Freeport, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a permanent security zone in 
the Freeport LNG Basin. This security zone is needed to protect 
vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas 
from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, 
accidents, or other actions of a similar nature. Entry into this zone 
is prohibited, except for vessels that have obtained the express

[[Page 11001]]

permission from the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or his 
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective April 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2008-0124 and are available online by going to 
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-0124 in the ``Keyword'' 
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for 
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ivey, Marine Safety Unit 
Galveston, Coast Guard; telephone 409-978-2704, e-mail 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information

    On April 30, 2009 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Freeport LNG Basin, Freeport, TX in the 
Federal Register (33 FR 19926). We received no comments on the proposed 
rule.

Background and Purpose

    Heightened awareness of potential terrorist acts requires enhanced 
security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To enhance security, the 
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston has established a permanent 
security zone.
    This rule establishes a new distinct security zone within the port 
of Freeport, TX. This zone protects waterfront facilities, persons, and 
vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels operating within the 
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston Zone are potential targets of 
terrorist attacks, or platforms from which terrorist attacks may be 
launched upon from other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent 
population centers.
    This zone is for an area concentrated with commercial facilities 
considered critical to national security. This rule is not designed to 
restrict access to vessels engaged, or assisting in commerce with 
waterfront facilities within the security zones, vessels operated by 
port authorities, vessels operated by waterfront facilities within the 
security zones, and vessels operated by federal, state, county or 
municipal agencies. By limiting access to this area the Coast Guard 
reduces potential methods of attack on vessels, waterfront facilities, 
and adjacent population centers located within the zones. All vessels 
not exempted under Sec.  165.814 desiring to enter this zone are 
required to obtain express permission from the Captain of the Port 
Houston-Galveston or his designated representative prior to entry.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received regarding this rule. The Coast Guard is 
implementing the rule as proposed, without change.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    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. The economic impact of this rule is so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation was unnecessary. The basis of 
this finding is that this security zone does not interfere with regular 
vessel traffic within the Freeport Ship Channel or the Intracoastal 
Waterway.

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.
    This rule does not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: This 
rule does not interfere with regular vessel traffic within the Freeport 
Ship Channel and/or the Intracoastal Waterway.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM 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.

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 will 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 does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 11002]]

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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually 
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 
(34)(g), of the Instruction because this rule involves a regulation 
establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas 
and security or safety zones.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are 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.

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, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.


0
2. In Sec.  165.814--
0
a. Remove paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as (b); and
0
c. Add paragraph (a)(5)(vi) and revise redesignated paragraph (b)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  165.814  Security Zone; Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston 
Zone.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) The Freeport LNG Basin containing all waters shoreward of a 
line drawn between the eastern point at latitude 28[deg]56'25'' N, 
095[deg]18'13'' W, and the western point at 28[deg]56'28'' N, 
095[deg]18'31'' W, east towards the jetties.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Other persons or vessels requiring entry into a zone described 
in this section must request express permission to enter from the 
Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston, or designated representative. 
The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston's designated representatives 
are any personnel granted authority by the Captain of the Port Houston-
Galveston to receive, evaluate, and issue written security zone entry 
permits, or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel 
described in paragraph (b)(4).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 28, 2009.
M.E. Woodring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston.
[FR Doc. 2010-5056 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P