[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65609-65612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27699]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2018-0388]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Ground; 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 ground for the
navigational safety of vessels entering and exiting a new liquefied
natural gas terminal mooring basin being constructed on the eastern
waterfront of the Sabine Pass Channel. This proposed rulemaking would
reduce the overall size of the existing anchorage. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0388 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Scott K. Whalen, Marine Safety
Unit Port Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LNG Liquefied natural gas
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
In 1967, the Secretary of the Army transferred responsibility for
certain functions, power, and duties to the Secretary of
Transportation. Among the responsibilities transferred to the Secretary
of Transportation was establishment and administration of water vessel
anchorages. On December 12, 1967, the regulations for the Sabine Pass
Anchorage Ground were
[[Page 65610]]
republished in 33 CFR part 110, without change, under this new
authority (32 FR 17726). The regulations for the Sabine Pass Channel
Anchorage Ground in Sabine, TX are contained in 33 CFR 110.196.
The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed
rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 33 CFR 1.05-1, and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize
the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory
anchorages. As reflected in title 33 CFR 109.05, the Commandant of the
U.S. Coast Guard has delegated the authority to establish anchorage
grounds to U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders.
As discussed earlier, administration of the Sabine Pass Anchorage
Ground was originally transferred to the Coast Guard in 1967. Under 33
CFR 110.196, the anchorage ground is ``for the temporary use of vessels
of all types, but especially for naval and merchant vessels awaiting
weather and tidal conditions favorable to the resumption of their
voyages.'' In 2006, Cheniere Energy began construction of a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) terminal on the eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass
Channel, immediately north and adjacent to the Sabine Pass Channel
Anchorage Ground. On October 3, 2006, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to reduce the area of the
Sabine Pass Anchorage Ground by 800 feet on the north end of the
anchorage in order to reduce the risk of collision between anchored
vessels and berthing and unberthing vessels at Cheniere's terminal, as
well as to reduce the risk of grounding by providing a larger
maneuvering area for vessels calling Cheniere's terminal (71 FR 58330).
Both comments we received during that rulemaking process supported the
proposed reduction on the basis of enhancing navigation safety. One
commenter noted that ``the anchorage was infrequently used and would
have minimal impact on the economy.'' On January 5, 2007, the Coast
Guard published the final rule reducing the overall size of the
anchorage consistent with the proposal (72 FR 463).
On November 8, 2017, we received a request from Sabine Pass LNG
L.P. to disestablish the Sabine Pass Anchorage Ground in its entirety.
The request states that the anchorage is rarely used and its
disestablishment would not significantly impact vessels that use the
area.
On June 15, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of inquiry;
request for comments asking for public comments in response to Sabine
Pass LNG's request to disestablish the anchorage ground titled
Anchorage Ground; Sabine Pass, TX (83 FR 27932). There, we explained
that our data showed that the anchorage is utilized an average of 27
times each year by shallow draft vessels (for example, tows, dredges,
and work boats) for shortening tow or for use as a staging area for
local work projects such as dredging, and that deep draft vessels have
not made use of the anchorage in the last decade. In particular, we
requested public input on whether there remains a need for a regulated
anchorage in this area, and if so, to what extent and for what purpose;
if a reduction in size of the anchorage would meet current and
anticipated industry needs; or if options other than disestablishment
should also be considered.
In response to the above inquiry, the Coast Guard received three
comments. One commenter observed that the navigation channel and the
anchorage overlapped, and expressed concern that the elimination of the
anchorage ground would reduce the federally maintained channel and have
a negative impact on maritime activities. The Coast Guard consulted
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and confirmed that although
overlapping, the elimination of the anchorage ground would not alter
the dimensions of the federal channel. Therefore, there would be no
reduction in the dimensions of the federal channel by the
disestablishment or the reduction of the anchorage.
One comment was filed after the deadline, but we have added it to
the notice of inquiry; request for comments online docket folder. That
commenter requested additional time to comment in order to study the
effect that the removal of the anchorage ground might have on its
proposed upstream facility. That commenter will have an additional
period to present their comment during the comment period provided in
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
One commenter expressed support for maintaining anchorages
generally, and listed pros and cons for maintaining this anchorage
ground. The Coast Guard agrees that even occasional, or limited use of
the anchorage supports maintaining a portion of the anchorage, and that
reducing the size of the anchorage would both provide for the safety of
vessels using Cheniere's terminal, as well as the needs of the maritime
community.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to reduce the overall
dimensions of the Sabine Pass Channel anchorage ground. This action
would provide for the safe navigation of vessels entering and exiting
Cheniere Energy's new vessel berth while retaining a portion of the
anchorage for use by those vessels that continue to use the anchorage
grounds.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Cheniere Energy is constructing a new LNG mooring basin on the
eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass Channel. This facility is located
immediately south and adjacent to the existing mooring basin. 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 utilize
a portion of the existing anchorage to swing the vessels into position
for mooring. 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 reduce
the overall size of the anchorage area. 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 would reduce the possibility of a
grounding or collision with another vessel in the area.
Vessel Traffic Service data indicates that the anchorage ground
described in 33 CFR 110.196 is no longer used for the anchoring of
large sea-going vessels, but that it is used infrequently by a handful
of smaller vessels each year. The Coast Guard believes that those
vessels that have been using the anchorage would be able to continue
anchoring in the remaining portion of the anchorage area.
This proposed rule would move the ``long side,'' also known as the
channel side, shoreward and adjacent to the federal channel, shortening
this side from 5,000 feet to approximately 2,725 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]43'59.0'' N 93[deg]52'08.1'' W
29[deg]44'06.8'' N 93[deg]51'57.6'' W
29[deg]43'53.0'' N 93[deg]51'47.1'' W
29[deg]43'36.7'' N 93[deg]51'50.9'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A chart depicting the proposed boundaries is included in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. The
[[Page 65611]]
above coordinates would be the new west, north, east, and south corners
of the anchorage, respectively.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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.
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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on current
information, which indicates that the anchorage area is rarely used,
and that the overall reduction in anchorage area would not
significantly impact those vessels desiring to use the anchorage.
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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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.
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. 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination 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 proposed rule involves the reduction of size of the
Sabine Pass Channel anchorage ground. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L59(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
[[Page 65612]]
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. In Sec. 110.196, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.196 Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX.
(a) The anchorage area. The water bounded by a line connecting the
following coordinates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29[deg]43'59.0'' N 93[deg]52'08.1'' W
29[deg]44'06.8'' N 93[deg]51'57.6'' W
29[deg]43'53.0'' N 93[deg]51'47.1'' W
29[deg]43'36.7'' N 93[deg]51'50.9'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: December 3, 2018.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-27699 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P