[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58330-58332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16315]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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