Security Zone; Freeport LNG Basin, Freeport, TX, 11000-11002 [2010-5056]
Download as PDF
11000
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
§ 538.533 Exportation of certain services
and software incident to Internet-based
communications.
(a) To the extent that such
transactions are not exempt from the
prohibitions of this part and subject to
the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b)
of this section, the following
transactions are authorized:
(1) The exportation from the United
States or by U.S. persons, wherever
located, to persons in Sudan of services
incident to the exchange of personal
communications over the Internet, such
as instant messaging, chat and email,
social networking, sharing of photos and
movies, web browsing, and blogging,
provided that such services are publicly
available at no cost to the user.
(2) The exportation from the United
States or by U.S. persons, wherever
located, to persons in Sudan of software
necessary to enable the services
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, provided that such software is
classified as ‘‘EAR99’’ under the Export
Administration Regulations, 15 CFR
parts 730 through 774 (the ‘‘EAR’’), is not
subject to the EAR, or is classified by
the U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) as mass market software
under export control classification
number (‘‘ECCN’’) 5D992 of the EAR,
and provided further that such software
is publicly available at no cost to the
user.
(b) This section does not authorize:
(1) The direct or indirect exportation
of services or software with knowledge
or reason to know that such services or
software are intended for the
Government of Sudan.
(2) The direct or indirect exportation
of any goods or technology listed on the
Commerce Control List in the EAR, 15
CFR part 774, supplement No. 1
(‘‘CCL’’), except for software necessary to
enable the services described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is
classified by Commerce as mass market
software under ECCN 5D992 of the EAR.
(3) The direct or indirect exportation
of Internet connectivity services or
telecommunications transmission
facilities (such as satellite links or
dedicated lines).
(4) The direct or indirect exportation
of web-hosting services that are for
purposes other than personal
communications (e.g., web-hosting
services for commercial endeavors) or of
domain name registration services.
(c) Specific licenses may be issued on
a case-by-case basis for the exportation
of other services and software incident
to the sharing of information over the
Internet, provided the software is
classified as ‘‘EAR99,’’ not subject to the
EAR, or classified by Commerce as mass
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
market software under ECCN 5D992 of
the EAR.
(d) Nothing in this section or in any
license issued pursuant to paragraph (c)
of this section relieves the exporter from
compliance with the export license
application requirements of another
Federal agency.
PART 560—IRANIAN TRANSACTIONS
REGULATIONS
5. The authority citation for part 560
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B,
2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa–9; 31 U.S.C. 321(b);
50 U.S.C. 1601–1651, 1701–1706; Pub. L.
101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note);
22 U.S.C. 7201–7211; Pub. L. 110–96, 121
Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 12613,
52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O.
12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p.
332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995
Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3
CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217.
Subpart E—Licensing, Authorizations,
and Statements of Licensing Policy
6. Add a new § 560.540 to subpart E
to read as follows:
■
§ 560.540 Exportation of certain services
and software incident to Internet-based
communications.
(a) To the extent that such
transactions are not exempt from the
prohibitions of this part and subject to
the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b)
of this section, the following
transactions are authorized:
(1) The exportation from the United
States or by U.S. persons, wherever
located, to persons in Iran of services
incident to the exchange of personal
communications over the Internet, such
as instant messaging, chat and email,
social networking, sharing of photos and
movies, web browsing, and blogging,
provided that such services are publicly
available at no cost to the user.
(2) The exportation from the United
States or by U.S. persons, wherever
located, to persons in Iran of software
necessary to enable the services
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, provided that such software is
classified as ‘‘EAR99’’ under the Export
Administration Regulations, 15 CFR
parts 730 through 774 (the ‘‘EAR’’), is not
subject to the EAR, or is classified by
the U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) as mass market software
under export control classification
number (‘‘ECCN’’) 5D992 of the EAR,
and provided further that such software
is publicly available at no cost to the
user.
(b) This section does not authorize:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(1) The direct or indirect exportation
of services or software with knowledge
or reason to know that such services or
software are intended for the
Government of Iran.
(2) The direct or indirect exportation
of any goods or technology listed on the
Commerce Control List in the EAR, 15
CFR part 774, supplement No. 1
(‘‘CCL’’), except for software necessary to
enable the services described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is
classified by Commerce as mass market
software under ECCN 5D992 of the EAR.
(3) The direct or indirect exportation
of Internet connectivity services or
telecommunications transmission
facilities (such as satellite links or
dedicated lines).
(4) The direct or indirect exportation
of web-hosting services that are for
purposes other than personal
communications (e.g., web-hosting
services for commercial endeavors) or of
domain name registration services.
(c) Specific licenses may be issued on
a case-by-case basis for the exportation
of other services and software incident
to the sharing of information over the
Internet, provided the software is
classified as ‘‘EAR99,’’ not subject to the
EAR, or classified by Commerce as mass
market software under ECCN 5D992 of
the EAR.
Dated: March 3, 2010.
Adam J. Szubin,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2010–5023 Filed 3–8–10; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 https://
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 Kevin.L.Ivey@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11001
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.
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
11002
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R04–RCRA–2008–0900; FRL–9124–8]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
■
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting the petition
submitted by The Valero Refining
Company—Tennessee, LLC (Valero) to
exclude or ‘‘delist’’ a certain sediment
generated by its Memphis Refinery in
Memphis, Tennessee from the lists of
hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to a petition submitted by
Valero to delist F037 waste. The F037
waste is sediment generated in the
Storm Water Basin.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
The F037 exclusion is a one-time
exclusion for 2,700 cubic yards of the
F037 Storm Water Basin sediment.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA and OPA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, RCRA Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303 and is available for
viewing through the EPA Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call the
FOIA Officer at (404) 562–8028 for
appointments. The public may copy
material from any regulatory docket at
no cost for the first 100 pages and at a
cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
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.
2. In § 165.814—
a. Remove paragraph (b);
■ b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as (b);
and
■ c. Add paragraph (a)(5)(vi) and revise
redesignated paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 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°56′25″ N, 095°18′13″ W, and
the western point at 28°56′28″ N,
095°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).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11000-11002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
https://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
Kevin.L.Ivey@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 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