[Federal Register: November 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 218)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68540-68542]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12no02-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD08-02-017]
RIN 2115-AA98
Anchorage Regulation; Boothville Anchorage, Venice, LA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulation on Boothville
Anchorage, located near mile 12.9, Lower Mississippi River, Venice,
Louisiana. This amendment is necessary to accommodate the construction
of Sea Point, a container transshipment facility. The anchorage would
be reduced in size approximately 0.8 miles.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 13, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine
Street, New Orleans LA 70130, or comments and related material may be
delivered to Room 1341 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Commander, Eighth
Coast Guard District (m) maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) between 8 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Karrie Trebbe, Project
Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, telephone (504) 589-
6271.
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 (CCGD08-02-
017), 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
they 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 Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District (m) 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 later notice in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard received a request from Sea Point LLC to reduce the
size of the Boothville Anchorage by approximately 0.8 miles in order to
accommodate the construction of Sea Point, a container transshipment
facility in Venice, Louisiana. Sea Point is designed to provide the
immediate transfer of containers from deep draft vessels to barges
destined for ports on the Mississippi River and along the Gulf of
Mexico.
Sea Point LLC has advised two local pilot organizations of its
intended construction. The Crescent River Pilot's Association and the
Associated Federal Pilots and Docking Masters of Louisiana, pilot
organizations that pilot vessels through this area and anchor vessels
in the anchorage, voiced no objections to the proposed reduction in the
size of the anchorage.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed amendment would reduce the size the southern end of
the Boothville Anchorage by 0.8 miles to
[[Page 68541]]
accommodate the construction of a container transshipment facility. The
new anchorage would be 5.5 miles in length along the right descending
bank of the river extending from mile 13.0 to 18.5 above Head of
Passes. The width of the anchorage would remain unchanged.
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 10(e) of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This
anchorage is primarily used for deep draft vessels waiting for mooring
facilities further up river, vessels waiting for fog to dissipate, and
for vessels waiting for heavy weather in the Gulf of Mexico to
diminish. The proposed amendment would not obstruct the regular flow of
traffic nor would it adversely affect vessels requiring anchorage as
the anchorage has been more than ample to accommodate all vessels
desiring to use it.
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 because this anchorage is primarily used for
deep draft vessels waiting for mooring facilities further up river,
vessels waiting for fog to dissipate, and vessels waiting for heavy
weather in the Gulf of Mexico to diminish. The proposed shortening of
this anchorage would not obstruct the regular flow of traffic nor have
an adverse impact to anchoring vessels.
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 (Pub. L. 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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact, LT Karrie Trebbe, Project
Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, telephone (504) 589-
6271.
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 rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect 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)(f), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation because this rule is an amendment to a
regulation already in effect. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
[[Page 68542]]
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
2. Amend Sec. 110.195 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 110.195 Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South
and Southwest Passes.
(a) * * *
(4) Boothville Anchorage. An area 5.5 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river extending from mile 13.0 to mile
18.5 above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 750 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
250 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the Low
Water Reference Plane (LWRP). The outer boundary of the anchorage is a
line parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet from the water's edge into
the river as measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
Dated: November 1, 2002.
Roy J. Casto,
Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth District Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 02-28680 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P