Anchorage Regulations; Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX, 58330-58332 [E6-16315]

Download as PDF 58330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules (FOIA or CEII requests). The cost of duplication of records not available in the Public Reference Room will depend on the number of documents requested, the time necessary to locate the documents requested, and the category of the persons requesting the records. The procedures for appeal of requests for fee waiver or reduction are provided in § 388.110. * * * * * 3. In § 388.112, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: § 388.112 Requests for special treatment of documents submitted to the Commission. * * * * * (b) Procedures. A person claiming that information warrants special treatment as CEII or privileged must file: (1) A written statement requesting CEII or privileged treatment for some or all of the information in a document, and the justification for special treatment of the information; and (2) The following, as applicable: (i) An original plus the requisite number of copies of the public volume filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary; (ii) An original plus two copies of the CEII volume, if any, filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary; and (iii) An original only of the privileged volume, if any, filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary. * * * * * 4. Amend § 388.113 by redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as paragraph (d)(4), by adding new paragraph (d)(3), revising redesignated paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii), redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(iii) as paragraph (d)(4)(iv), and adding new paragraphs (d)(4)(iii) and (e) to read as follows: § 388.113 Accessing critical energy infrastructure information. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS * * * * * (d) * * * (3) A landowner whose property is crossed by or in the vicinity of a project may received detailed alignment sheets containing CEII directly from the CEII Coordinator without submitting a nondisclosure agreement as outlined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. A landowner must provide the CEII Coordinator with proof of his or her property interest in the vicinity of a project. (4) * * * (i) File a signed, written request with the Commission’s CEII Coordinator. The request must contain the following: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 Requester’s name (including any other name(s) which the requester has used and the dates the requester used such name(s)), date and place of birth, title, address, and telephone number; the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity on whose behalf the information is requested; a detailed statement explaining the particular need for and intended use of the information; and a statement as to the requester’s willingness to adhere to limitations on the use and disclosure of the information requested. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, a requester must also file an executed non-disclosure agreement. A requester is also requested to include his or her social security number for identification purposes. A requester who seeks the information on behalf of all employees of an organization should clearly state that the information is sought for the organization, that the requester is authorized to seek the information on behalf of the organization, and that the requester agrees to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement which will be applied to all individuals who access to the CEII. (ii) Once the request is received, the CEII Coordinator will determine if the information is CEII, and, if it is, whether to release the CEII to the requester. The CEII Coordinator will balance the requester’s need for the information against the sensitivity of the information. If the requester is determined to be eligible to receive the information requested, the CEII Coordinator will determine what conditions, if any, to place on release of the information. (iii) Once a CEII requester has been verified by Commission staff as a legitimate requester who does not pose a security risk, his or her verification will be valid for the remainder of that calendar year. Such a requester is not required to provide detailed information about himself with subsequent requests during the calendar year. The requester also is not required to file an NDA with subsequent requests during the calendar year. * * * * * (e) Fees for processing CEII requests will be determined in accordance with § 388.109. [FR Doc. E6–15822 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD08–06–026] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: 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 81⁄2 by 11 inches, E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 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.’’ VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 29°44′14″ 29°44′18″ 29°43′53″ 29°43′32″ Longitude 93°52′24″ W 93°52′06″ W 93°51′47″ W 93°51′52″ W N N N N 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, PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 58331 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 E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 58332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 § 110.196, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 110.196 Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, Tex. (a) The anchorage area. The waters bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Latitude 29°44′14″ 29°44′18″ 29°43′53″ 29°43′32″ PO 00000 Longitude 93°52′24″ W 93°52′06″ W 93°51′47″ W 93°51′52″ W N N N N Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 * * * * * 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 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07–06–050] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Venetian Causeway (West) Drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) Drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing the Venetian Causeway (West) drawbridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1088.6, and Venetian Causeway (East) drawbridge, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. This proposed rule will require these drawbridges to open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays the drawbridges will open on the hour and half-hour. This proposed rule will change the individual Federal holiday dates and align it with all Federal holidays. 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 (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131–3050. Commander (dpb) 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 (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131–3050 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305–415–6744. E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58330-58332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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