[Federal Register: October 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 191)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58330-58332]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc06-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD08-06-026]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations
for the Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX anchorage in order to
improve navigation safety for vessels entering and exiting Cheniere
Energy's Liquefied Natural Gas terminal. This proposed rule would
reduce the overall size of the existing anchorage.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396, Attn: Doug Blakemore. The
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander 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 Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs
Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Blakemore, Waterways Management
Branch for the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs
Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone
(504) 671-2109.
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 [CGD08-06-
026], 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,
[[Page 58331]]
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 plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District
(dpw), 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
Cheniere Energy is constructing a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminal on the eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass Channel. This
facility is located immediately north and adjacent to the Sabine Pass
Channel anchorage. Due to the angle that the terminal berth lays
relative to the channel, vessels intending to berth at or depart the
LNG terminal would have to follow a path that passes through the
existing anchorage. Vessels anchored in the existing anchorage would be
at an increased risk for being struck by an arriving or departing
vessel.
In order to reduce this risk, the Coast Guard proposes to make the
overall size of the anchorage area smaller. This action would reduce
the possible conflict associated with vessels that may anchor too close
to the entrance of the LNG terminal. It would also provide a larger
maneuvering area for vessels arriving to or departing from the LNG
terminal, which consequently will reduce the possibility of a grounding
or collision with another vessel in the area.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for the
Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX anchorage in order to improve
navigation safety for vessels entering and exiting Cheniere Energy's
Liquefied Natural Gas terminal. This proposed rule would reduce the
overall size of the existing anchorage.
The current description of the anchorage is found in 33 CFR 110.196
and is listed as follows: ``The navigable waters of Sabine Pass within
a trapezoidal area 1,500 feet wide and varying uniformly in length from
5,800 feet to 3,000 feet with the long side adjacent to the
northeasterly edge of Sabine Pass Channel at a location opposite the
town of Sabine Pass.''
This proposed rule would shorten the ``long side'', also referred
to as the channel side, from 5,800 feet to approximately 5,000 feet.
This would be accomplished by shortening the northern portion of this
side by 800 feet. No other changes to the anchorage would be made.
In order to eliminate confusion regarding the geographic boundary
of the proposed anchorage, the current description would be replaced
with geographic coordinates that would define the boundary of the
anchorage. The proposed coordinates of the anchorage would be:
Latitude Longitude
29[deg]44'14'' N 93[deg]52'24'' W
29[deg]44'18'' N 93[deg]52'06'' W
29[deg]43'53'' N 93[deg]51'47'' W
29[deg]43'32'' N 93[deg]51'52'' W
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
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Current information indicates
that this anchorage area is rarely used, and the overall reduction in
anchorage area would not significantly impact those vessels desiring to
use the anchorage.
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. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to anchor in the Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass,
TX anchorage. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because this anchorage
area is believed to be rarely used.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 Doug Blakemore at (504) 671-
2109.
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
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with
[[Page 58332]]
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.
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. 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 proposed rule would not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result
in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an
Environmental Analysis Check List and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are not required because this proposed rule would reduce
the size of the existing anchorage. Comments on this section will be
considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should
be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage regulations.
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 and
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In Sec. 110.196, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.196 Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, Tex.
(a) The anchorage area. The waters bounded by a line connecting the
following coordinates:
Latitude Longitude
29[deg]44'14'' N 93[deg]52'24'' W
29[deg]44'18'' N 93[deg]52'06'' W
29[deg]43'53'' N 93[deg]51'47'' W
29[deg]43'32'' N 93[deg]51'52'' W
* * * * *
Dated: August 28, 2006.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-16315 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P