Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, Including South and Southwest Passes, 21698-21700 [05-8458]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21698-21700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD08-05-016]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA, 
Including South and Southwest Passes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations 
for the Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and 
Southwest Passes in order to improve safety at the Lower Kenner Bend 
Anchorage. This proposed rule is needed to protect aircraft passengers 
and crew, mariners and the public from the potential safety hazards 
associated with the ascent and descent of aircraft over vessels 
anchored in the vicinity of the Louis Armstrong New Orleans 
International Airport, New Orleans, LA.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, 
Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras 
Street, New Orleans, LA 70131, Attn: Lieutenant Kevin Lynn. 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 (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 
500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70131 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project 
Manager for the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs 
Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, 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 [CGD08-05-
016], 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

    Runway 1-19 at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International 
Airport is positioned in a north-south line running parallel to the 
Airport Access Road. Aircraft approaching the runway from the south or 
departing the runway from the north pass over the Lower Kenner Bend 
Anchorage. Due to the close proximity of Runway 1-19 to Kenner Bend, 
aircraft occasionally descend and ascend directly over vessels anchored 
in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage, creating a potentially dangerous 
situation that is of particular concern during periods of reduced 
visibility. Aircraft approaching the runway from the south follow a 
descending glide slope path with a minimum height of 311 feet above 
mean sea level over the Kenner Bend Anchorage. Certain vessels with 
cargo handling equipment such as cranes and booms are capable of 
extending this equipment to a height upwards of 300 feet above the 
waterline. This amendment to the anchorage regulations for the 
Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest 
Passes is proposed to prohibit vessels that are anchored in the Lower 
Kenner Bend Anchorage from engaging in cargo transfer operations or 
exercising any cargo handling equipment such as cranes or booms while 
at anchor. This proposed amendment is needed to increase safety at 
Kenner Bend by reducing the potential for collision between aircraft 
and vessels anchored in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for the 
Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest 
Passes in order to improve safety at the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. 
This proposed amendment would prohibit vessels that are anchored in the 
Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage from engaging in cargo transfer operations 
or exercising any cargo handling equipment such as cranes or booms 
while at anchor.

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.

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 Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. This 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) 
This proposed rule does not prohibit vessels from anchoring in the 
Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage; and (2) Cargo transfer operations are not 
typically conducted at the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage.

[[Page 21699]]

    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 Lieutenant Kevin Lynn at (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 
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 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).
    A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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. Revise paragraph 110.195(c)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.195  Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South 
and Southwest Passes.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) The intention to transfer any cargo while in an anchorage shall 
be reported to the Captain of the Port, giving particulars as to name 
of ships involved, quantity and type of cargo, and expected duration of 
the operation.
    The Captain of the Port shall be notified upon completion of 
operations. Cargo transfer operations are not

[[Page 21700]]

permitted in the New Orleans General, Quarantine or Lower Kenner Bend 
Anchorages. Vessels at anchor in the Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage shall 
not exercise any cargo handling equipment. Bunkering and similar 
operations related to ship's stores are exempt from reporting 
requirements.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 11, 2005.
R. F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-8458 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P