
[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 8491-8493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-16]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0501]
RIN 1625-AA87

 
Security Zones; Brazos River, Freeport, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established four permanent security zones 
in the Brazos River in Freeport, Texas. These security zones are being 
put in place to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, and surrounding 
areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by terrorism, sabotage, 
subversive acts, accidents, or incidents of a similar nature. Entry 
into these zones is prohibited except by permission of the Captain of 
the Port Houston-Galveston.

DATES: This rule is effective March 29, 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-2009-0501 and are available online by going to 
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0501 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 junior grade Margaret Brown, Coast Guard 
Sector Houston-Galveston; telephone (713) 678-9001, e-mail 
margaret.a.brown@uscg.mil. 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 November 24, 2009 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Security Zones; Brazos River, Freeport, TX in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 61305). 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 four permanent 
security zones within the port of Freeport, TX.
    These zones protect 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 potential launch platforms for terrorist attacks on other 
vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers. The 
zones are in areas with a high concentration of commercial facilities 
that are considered critical to national security.
    All vessels not exempted under 33 CFR 165.814(c) 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. 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.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received no comments on the proposed rule, published November 
24, 2009. No public meeting was requested and none was held. 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

[[Page 8492]]

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 the security zones are not part of the Federal 
Channel. The zones do not impede commercial traffic to, from, or within 
the Port of Freeport. Recreational and commercial fishing vessels are 
to transit the Brazos River within the Federal Channel.

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 any commercial vessel traffic within the 
Old Brazos River.

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 does 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.

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. This rule involves establishing security 
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, 3306, 
3703; 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.


[[Page 8493]]



0
2. Revise Sec.  165.814(a)(5) to read as follows: Sec.  165.814 
Security Zones; Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston Zone.
    (a) * * *
    (5) Freeport, Texas. (i) The Dow Barge Canal, containing all waters 
of the Dow Barge Canal north of a line drawn between 28[deg]56.81' N/
095[deg]18.33' W and 28[deg]56.63' N/095[deg]18.54' W (NAD 1983).
    (ii) The Brazos Harbor, containing all waters west of a line drawn 
between 28[deg]56.45' N, 095[deg]20.00' W, and 28[deg]56.15' N, 
095[deg]20.00' W (NAD 1983) at its junction with the Old Brazos River.
    (iii) The Dow Chemical plant, containing all waters of the Brazos 
Point Turning Basin within 100' of the north shore and bounded on the 
east by the longitude line drawn through 28[deg]56.58' N/095[deg]18.64' 
W and on the west by the longitude line drawn through 28[deg]56.64' N/
095[deg]19.13' W (NAD 1983).
    (iv) The Seaway Teppco Facility, containing all waters of the 
Brazos Port Turning Basin bounded on the south by the shore, the north 
by the Federal Channel, on the east by the longitude line running 
through 28[deg]56.44' N, 095[deg]18.83' W and 28[deg]56.48' N 
095[deg]18.83' W and on the West by the longitude line running through 
28[deg]56.12' N, 095[deg]19.27' W and 28[deg]56.11' N, 095[deg]19.34' W 
(NAD 1983).
    (v) The Conoco Phillips Facility docks, containing all waters 
within 100' of a line drawn from a point on shore at Latitude 
28[deg]55.96' N, Longitude 095[deg]19.77' W, extending west to a point 
on shore at Latitude 28[deg]56.19' N, Longitude 095[deg]20.07' W (NAD 
1983).
* * * * *

    Dated: January 7, 2010.
M.E. Woodring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston.
[FR Doc. 2010-3814 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

