Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88137 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2024–1002] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel, Corpus Christi, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary moving 

security zone for navigable waters 

within a 500-yard radius of a certain 

vessel carrying cargo requiring an 

elevated level of security in the Corpus 

Christi Ship Channel and the La Quinta 

Channel. The temporary security zone is 

needed to protect the vessel, the cargo, 

and the surrounding waterway from 

terrorist acts, sabotage, or other 

subversive acts, accidents, or events of 

a similar nature. Entry of vessels or 

persons into this zone is prohibited 

unless specifically authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus 

Christi or a designated representative. 

DATES: For the purposes of enforcement, 

actual notice will be used from 

November 4, 2024, until November 7, 

2024. This rule is effective without 

actual notice from November 7, 2024 

until November 14, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2024– 

1002 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, call 

or email Lieutenant Tim Cardenas, 

Sector Corpus Christi Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 361–939–5130, email 

Timothy.J.Cardenas@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus 

Christi 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule under the authority in 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because it is 

impracticable. The Coast Guard was 

notified of this vessel’s transit and cargo 

on October 28, 2024. There is 

insufficient time to publish an NPRM 

before this operation because the 

security zone must be established by 

November 4, 2024, to ensure security of 

this vessel and the surrounding area and 

there is insufficient time to provide a 

reasonable comment period and to 

consider those comments before issuing 

the rule. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard also finds that good cause exists 

for making this rule effective less than 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be contrary to the public 

interest because quick action is needed 

to provide for the security of this vessel 

and its surroundings while it is in 

transit. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

security zone regulation under the 

authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. 

The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus 

Christi (COTP) has determined that 

potential hazards are associated with 

the transit of the Motor Vessel (M/V) 

ADAMASTOS. There is a security 

concern within a 500-yard radius of the 

vessel when it is loaded and when it is 

transiting while loaded. This rule is 

needed to provide for the safety and 

security of the vessel, its cargo, and the 

surrounding waterway from terrorist 

acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, 

accidents, or other events of a similar 

nature while the vessel is transiting 

within Corpus Christi, TX. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 500- 

yard radius, temporary, moving security 

zone around M/V ADAMASTOS. Other 

mariners and vessels will be able to 

identify the security zone because of the 

M/V ADAMASTOS’s name clearly 

marked on its stern, and port and 

starboard sides. The zone for the vessel 

will be effective from November 4, 2024, 

through November 14, 2024, and will be 

enforced when the vessel is cargo 

loaded and transiting the Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel and La Quinta Ship 

Channel to protect the vessel, its cargo, 

and the surrounding waterways from 

terrorist acts, sabotage, or other 

subversive acts, accidents, or other 

events of a similar nature while the 

vessel is traveling within the La Quinta 

Ship Channels and Corpus Christi Ship 

Channels. 

No vessel or person will be permitted 

to enter the security zone without 

obtaining permission from the COTP or 

a designated representative. As used in 

this section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port, USCG Sector Corpus Christi 

(COTP) in the enforcement of the 

security zone. Persons or vessels 

desiring to enter or pass through each 

zone must request permission from the 

COTP or a designated representative on 

VHF–FM channel 16 or by telephone at 

361–939–0450. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels must comply 

with the instructions of the COTP or 

designated representative. The COTP or 

a designated representative will inform 

the public through Broadcast Notices to 

Mariners and Marine Safety Information 

Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate for the 

enforcement times and dates for the 

security zone. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this 

rule is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, duration, and 

location of the security zone. This rule 

will impact a small, designated area of 

500-yards around the moving vessel in 

the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La 

Quinta Ship Channel as the vessel 

transits these channels over a period of 

approximately six hours or less. Most 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
88138 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

vessels will be able to move around the 

security zone and therefore the 

impediment to the movement of other 

vessels will be minimal. Moreover, the 

rule allows other vessels to seek 

permission to enter the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. 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. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the 

temporary security zone may be small 

entities, for the reasons stated in section 

V.A above, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

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). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, 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. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01 and Environmental 

Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f) and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a 

moving security zone lasting for the 

duration of time that the M/V 

ADAMASTOS is within the Corpus 

Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta 

Channel while loaded with cargo. It will 

prohibit entry within a 500-yard radius 

of the M/V ADAMASTOS while the 

vessel is transiting loaded within 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La 

Quinta Ship Channel. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

L60(a) in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. A record of Environmental 

Consideration supporting this 

determination is available in the docket. 

For instructions on locating the docket, 

see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

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 amends 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: 46 U.S.C 70034, 70051; 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–1002 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–1002 Security Zones; Corpus 

Christi Ship Channel. Corpus Christi, TX. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

moving security zone: All navigable 

waters encompassing a 500-yard radius 

around the M/V ADAMASTOS while 

the vessel loaded with cargo and is in 

the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and the 

La Quinta Ship Channel. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced during the time the 

ship is loaded and underway. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

security zone regulations in subpart D of 

this part, you may not enter the security 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

A designated representative is a Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander, including a 

Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or 

other officer operating a Coast Guard 

vessel and a Federal, State, and local 

officer designated by or assisting the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 88139 

1New Hampshire included a corrected Appendix 

W in a supplemental submission on September 21, 

2023. 

Captain of the Port, USCG Sector Corpus 

Christi (COTP) in the enforcement of the 

security zone. 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

or pass through the zones must request 

permission from the COTP Sector 

Corpus Christi on VHF–FM channel 16 

or by telephone at 361–939–0450. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels must comply with 

all lawful orders and directions of the 

COTP or the COTP’s designated 

representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public through Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners (BNMs) and Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) of 

the enforcement times and dates for this 

security zone. 

Dated: November 1, 2024. 

T.H. Bertheau, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25891 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187; FRL–11554– 

02–R1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the regional 

haze state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by New Hampshire 

on May 5, 2022, as satisfying applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for 

the program’s second implementation 

period. New Hampshire’s SIP 

submission addresses the requirement 

that states must periodically revise their 

long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of preventing any future, 

and remedying any existing, 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility, 

including regional haze, in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. The SIP 

submission also addresses other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 9, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2023–0187. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at https://

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Rackauskas, Air Quality Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (Mail code 5–MI), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1628, email 

rackauskas.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On May 5, 2022, supplemented on 

September 21, 2023,1 the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) 

submitted a revision to its SIP to 

address regional haze for the second 

implementation period. NHDES made 

this SIP submission to satisfy the 

requirements of the CAA’s regional haze 

program pursuant to CAA sections 169A 

and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. This 

submission included an updated 

version of Env-A 2300, Mitigation of 

Regional Haze. 

On November 20, 2023, EPA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in which EPA 

proposed to approve New Hampshire’s 

May 5, 2022, SIP submission 

(supplemented on September 21, 2023) 

as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is now 

determining that the New Hampshire 

regional haze SIP submission for the 

second implementation period meets 

the applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and is thus approving 

New Hampshire’s submission into its 

SIP. 

Other specific requirements of the 

New Hampshire submittal and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPRM and will not be 

restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

In response to the NPRM, EPA 

received four sets of comments, 

including a comment letter signed by 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association, the Sierra Club, the 

Appalachian Mountain Club, and the 

Coalition to Protect America’s National 

Parks (collectively, the ‘‘Conservation 

Groups’’ or the ‘‘Groups’’), an 

anonymous comment, a comment letter 

from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANEVU), and a 

comment letter from the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

Division of Air Quality. Below, EPA 

summarizes significant comments and 

provides responses. The verbatim 

comments may be viewed under Docket 

ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2023–0187 

on the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. 

Comment 1: The Conservation Groups 

comment that EPA improperly relied on 

the fact that the Class I areas impacted 

by New Hampshire sources are below 

their respective Uniform Rate of 

Progress (URP) glidepaths to allow New 

Hampshire to avoid a ‘‘rigorous 

analysis,’’ and that EPA allows New 

Hampshire to use being below the URP 

as a ‘‘safe harbor’’ to avoid Regional 

Haze and Clean Air Act requirements. 

Response 1: The comment appears to 

conflate two issues regarding rule 

requirements related to the URP 

glidepath. EPA has said that a Class I 

area’s position below the URP glidepath 

is not a safe harbor—that is, being below 

the glidepath cannot be a basis for 

justifying a particular set of controls or 

decision not to require any controls. 

EPA did not ‘‘rely on the fact that the 

Class I areas impacted by New 

Hampshire sources are below their 

respective URP glidepaths’’ or consider 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1