Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River, Mile Markers 12 to 85 Above Head of Passes, 48354-48357 [2021-18467]
Download as PDF
48354
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
MM Mile Marker
MNSA Maritime Navigation Safety
Association
NOI Notice of Inquiry
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RDB Right Descending Bank
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2020–0154]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi
River, Mile Markers 12 to 85 Above
Head of Passes
Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend anchorage regulations for the
Lower Mississippi River (LMR) between
mile markers (MM) 12 and 85 Above
Head of Passes (AHP). This action
would modify nine anchorages and
establish one new anchorage grounds.
The rule would increase the available
anchorage areas necessary to
accommodate vessel traffic, promote
navigational safety, provide for the
overall safe and efficient flow of vessel
traffic and commerce, and bolster the
economy through increased anchorage
capacity. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before September 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0154 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.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant
Commander Thao Nguyen, Sector New
Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
504–365–2231, email Thao.V.Nguyen@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Table of Abbreviations
AHP Above Head of Passes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New
Orleans
CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority
CRPPA Crescent River Port Pilots’
Association
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LDB Left Descending Bank
LMR Lower Mississippi River
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
The legal basis and authorities for this
notice of proposed rulemaking are
found in 46 U.S.C. 70006, 33 CFR
109.05, 33 CFR 1.05–1, and DHS
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to propose, establish, and define
regulatory anchorage grounds. Under
Title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR) § 109.05, U.S. Coast
Guard District Commanders are
delegated the authority to establish
anchorage grounds by the Commandant
of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard established Anchorage Grounds
under Title 33 CFR 110.1(b), Subpart B
(32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as
amended by 52 FR 33811, Sept. 8, 1987;
63 FR 5526, June 30, 1998).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
nine existing anchorage grounds;
Boothville Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(4)), Magnolia Anchorage (33
CFR 110.195(a)(7)), Davant Anchorage
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)), Wills Point
Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)),
Cedar Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)), Belle Chasse Anchorage
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(13)), Lower 12 Mile
Point Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(14)), Lower 9 Mile
Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)),
Point Michel Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(35)), and to establish one
new anchorage grounds—Phoenix
Anchorage at 33 CFR 110.195(a)(37).
The project to modify or establish
multiple anchorage grounds along the
LMR was initiated in 2019. From 2019
through 2021, certain port stakeholders,
(including Crescent River Port Pilots’
Association (CRPPA), Maritime
Navigation Safety Association (MNSA),
Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority (CPRA) and United States
Coast Guard (USCG)) worked to
determine if the proposed modifications
were necessary and in suitable locations
with consideration given to, among
other things, environmental factors.
The Coast Guard published a Notice
of Inquiry (NOI), 85 FR 61671, on
September 30, 2020. The NOI solicited
comments from maritime stakeholders
on the proposal to amend ten existing
anchorage grounds and to establish two
new anchorage grounds. At the end of
the comment period, ending on
November 30, 2020, we received a total
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of nine comments. The Coast Guard
addresses the comments below.
Seven of the nine comments
supported the proposed modifications
of existing or establishment of new
anchorage grounds along the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR); one comment
opposed several of the proposed
modifications of existing or
establishment of new anchorage
grounds along the LMR (detailed
below), and one comment was outside
of the scope of the NOI as it related to
change in presidency.
One commenter objected to the
following modifications/new
anchorages:
(1) 0.6 miles establishment of Phoenix
Anchorage located at Mile Marker (MM)
57.82–58.42. The justification provided
was that the anchorage could conflict
with a borrow source identified for
marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with
this objection. Operations routinely
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(2) 0.3 miles expansion of Davant
Anchorage located at MM 52.8–53.9.
The justification was that the anchorage
could conflict with a borrow source
identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with
this objection. Operations routinely
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(3) 0.1 miles expansion of Magnolia
Anchorage located at MM 45.5–47.6.
The justification was that the anchorage
could conflict with a borrow source
identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with
this objection. Operations routinely
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(4) 0.95 miles expansion of Boothville
Anchorage located at MM 13.0–18.5.
The justification was that the anchorage
could conflict with a borrow source
identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with
this objection. Operations routinely
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(5) 0.2 miles expansion of Alliance
Anchorage located at MM 63.8–65.8.
The justification was that the anchorage
could conflict with a borrow source
identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with
this objection. Operations routinely
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(6) 0.2 miles shift upriver and 0.15
miles expansion of Wills Point
Anchorage currently located at MM
66.5–67.6. The proposed location would
be MM 66.7–67.9. The provided
justification was twofold. First, the shift
upriver would directly overlap with the
footprint of the Mid-Breton Sediment
Diversion intake structure located at
MM 68 that is intended to convey
sediment, fresh water, and nutrients
from the Mississippi River into MidBreton Sound Basin to reduce coastal
land loss and sustain surrounding
wetlands. Second, the anchorage could
conflict with a borrow source for marsh
restoration.
The Coast Guard agrees that the
proposed shift upriver and expansion of
the anchorage could pose negative
impacts to the Mid-Breton sediment
Diversion intake structure. The Coast
Guard does not agree with second part
of the objection. Operations routinely
occur along the Mississippi River in and
around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the
borrow site, are minimal.
(7) 0.5 miles establishment of
Bertrandville Anchorage located at MM
68.5–69.0. The justification was that the
anchorage, being directly upriver of the
Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion intake
structure, would obstruct the intake
flowline and could pose a navigational
safety concern.
The Coast Guard agrees that the
proposed establishment of an anchorage
grounds at this location could pose
negative impacts to the Mid-Breton
sediment Diversion intake structure.
Note: The following anchorages were
mentioned in the opposition comment
but are not locations that are being
considered for amendment by this
rulemaking at this time: Myrtle Grove
anchorage and Point Celeste Anchorage.
In March 2021, two additional
comments were received from
stakeholders. Although these comments
were received outside of the NOI
comment period, the Coast Guard chose
to consider them. In one new comment,
the commenter that submitted the
opposing comments above withdrew
their opposing comments on items 1–4
listed above (Phoenix, Davant,
Magnolia, and Boothville Anchorages),
but maintained the objections raised in
items 5–7 to the expansions of Wills
Point Anchorage and Alliance
Anchorage and the establishment of
Bertrandville Anchorage. The second
new comment proposed to remove the
establishment of Bertrandville
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
Anchorage from consideration to
expand Wills Point Anchorage from MM
66.5–67.9 and decrease the width of the
anchorage to 500 feet.
After considering the stakeholder
comments, the Coast Guard has decided
that: (1) The width reduction at Wills
Point Anchorage will be added to this
proposed rulemaking, (2) the length
expansions and shift at Wills Point
Anchorage and the length expansion at
Alliance Anchorage would not be
further pursued at this time, and (3) the
establishment of a new anchorage
ground at Bertrandville would not be
further pursued at this time.
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to improve navigational safety,
providing for the overall safe and
efficient flow of vessel traffic and
commerce, and bolster the economy
through increased anchorage capacity,
thus streamlining vessel throughput and
increasing ship to port interactions.
The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70006.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Commander of Coast Guard
District Eight proposes to establish one
new anchorage ground and amend nine
existing anchorage grounds along the
LMR, ranging from MM 12 to MM 85
AHP. There are not currently adequate
anchorage grounds along the river
system to facilitate the safe anchorage of
shallow and deep draft vessels along the
LMR. This proposed action would
ensure the safety and efficiency of
navigation of vessels transiting in and
out of the LMR. The specific anchorage
boundaries are described in detail in the
proposed regulatory text at the end of
the document. In general, this proposed
rule will have the following effects:
1. Increase the length of the
Boothville Anchorage from 5.5 miles to
6.45 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(4)).
2. Increase the length of the Magnolia
Anchorage from 2.1 miles to 2.2 miles
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(7)).
3. Increase the lengh of the Davant
Anchorage from 1.1 miles to 1.4 miles
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)).
4. Decrease the width of the Wills
Point Anchorage from 600 feet to 500
feet (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)).
5. Add a note to the text of the Cedar
Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)).
6. Increase the length of the Belle
Chasse Anchorage from 2.1 miles to 2.15
miles, and decrease the width from 575
feet to 500 feet (33 CFR 110.195(a)(13)).
7. Add a Note to the text of the Lower
12 Mile Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(14)).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48355
8. Increase the length of the Lower 9
Mile Anchorage from 2.3 miles to 2.4
miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)).
9. Increase the length of the Point
Michel Anchorage from 1.4 miles to 2.2
miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(35)).
10. Add a new anchorage, the Phoenix
Anchorage, to include the area, 0.6
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 400 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
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, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
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.
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).
This proposed regulatory action is
based on minimal impact to routine
navigation. The proposed anchorage
areas would not restrict traffic as they
are located well outside the established
navigation channel. Vessels would still
be able to maneuver in, around and
through the anchorages.
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.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
48356
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the
anchorage grounds may be small
entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
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 call or email 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 call or email the person
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
section.
CONTACT
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, Rev. 1,
associated implementing instructions,
and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 establishment of one
new anchorage grounds and the
modification of nine existing anchorage
grounds along the LMR. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket,
see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, call or email the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments.
Comments we post to https://
www.regulations.gov will include any
personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. We review all
comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of
the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or
duplicate comments that we receive. 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.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110—ANCHORAGE GROUNDS
1. The authority citation for part 110
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C 2071, 46 U.S.C. 70006,
70034; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 110.195 by revising
paragraphs (a)(4), (7), (9), (11) through
(15), and 35, and adding paragraph
(a)(37) to read as follows:
■
§ 110.195 Mississippi River below Baton
Rouge, LA, including South and Southwest
Passes.
(a) * * *
(4) Boothville Anchorage. An area,
6.45 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 12.05 to mile 18.5 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
anchorage is 750 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2
miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 45.4 to mile 47.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
700 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 400 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
800 feet.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area,
1.1 miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 200 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 700 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area,
1.34 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area,
2.15 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 73.05 to mile 75.2 Above
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Aug 27, 2021
Jkt 253001
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 375 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 875 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage.
An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river
extending from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8
Above Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 300 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area,
2.4 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 82.6 to mile 85.0 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 300 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area,
2.2 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 40.0 to mile 42.2 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 325 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 825 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 400 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48357
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 19, 2021.
Richard V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2021–18467 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0353; FRL–8916–01–
R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015
Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. The State of Connecticut
made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these requirements for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submission as
meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 29,
2021.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2021–0353 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48354-48357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18467]
[[Page 48354]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2020-0154]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Mississippi River, Mile Markers 12 to 85
Above Head of Passes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend anchorage regulations for
the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) between mile markers (MM) 12 and 85
Above Head of Passes (AHP). This action would modify nine anchorages
and establish one new anchorage grounds. The rule would increase the
available anchorage areas necessary to accommodate vessel traffic,
promote navigational safety, provide for the overall safe and efficient
flow of vessel traffic and commerce, and bolster the economy through
increased anchorage capacity. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0154 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 Lieutenant Commander Thao Nguyen,
Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2231, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
AHP Above Head of Passes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority
CRPPA Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LDB Left Descending Bank
LMR Lower Mississippi River
MM Mile Marker
MNSA Maritime Navigation Safety Association
NOI Notice of Inquiry
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RDB Right Descending Bank
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed
rulemaking are found in 46 U.S.C. 70006, 33 CFR 109.05, 33 CFR 1.05-1,
and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.
Under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sec. 109.05,
U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders are delegated the authority to
establish anchorage grounds by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard established Anchorage Grounds under Title 33 CFR
110.1(b), Subpart B (32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by 52 FR
33811, Sept. 8, 1987; 63 FR 5526, June 30, 1998).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend nine existing anchorage grounds;
Boothville Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(4)), Magnolia Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(7)), Davant Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)), Wills Point
Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)), Cedar Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)), Belle Chasse Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(13)), Lower
12 Mile Point Anchorage (33 CFR 110.195(a)(14)), Lower 9 Mile Anchorage
(33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)), Point Michel Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(35)), and to establish one new anchorage grounds--Phoenix
Anchorage at 33 CFR 110.195(a)(37).
The project to modify or establish multiple anchorage grounds along
the LMR was initiated in 2019. From 2019 through 2021, certain port
stakeholders, (including Crescent River Port Pilots' Association
(CRPPA), Maritime Navigation Safety Association (MNSA), Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) and United States Coast
Guard (USCG)) worked to determine if the proposed modifications were
necessary and in suitable locations with consideration given to, among
other things, environmental factors.
The Coast Guard published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 85 FR 61671,
on September 30, 2020. The NOI solicited comments from maritime
stakeholders on the proposal to amend ten existing anchorage grounds
and to establish two new anchorage grounds. At the end of the comment
period, ending on November 30, 2020, we received a total of nine
comments. The Coast Guard addresses the comments below.
Seven of the nine comments supported the proposed modifications of
existing or establishment of new anchorage grounds along the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR); one comment opposed several of the proposed
modifications of existing or establishment of new anchorage grounds
along the LMR (detailed below), and one comment was outside of the
scope of the NOI as it related to change in presidency.
One commenter objected to the following modifications/new
anchorages:
(1) 0.6 miles establishment of Phoenix Anchorage located at Mile
Marker (MM) 57.82-58.42. The justification provided was that the
anchorage could conflict with a borrow source identified for marsh
restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
(2) 0.3 miles expansion of Davant Anchorage located at MM 52.8-
53.9. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
(3) 0.1 miles expansion of Magnolia Anchorage located at MM 45.5-
47.6. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
(4) 0.95 miles expansion of Boothville Anchorage located at MM
13.0-18.5. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with
a borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage
grounds and impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow
site, are minimal.
(5) 0.2 miles expansion of Alliance Anchorage located at MM 63.8-
65.8. The justification was that the anchorage could conflict with a
borrow source identified for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard does not agree with this objection. Operations
routinely
[[Page 48355]]
occur along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage grounds and
impacts to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow site, are
minimal.
(6) 0.2 miles shift upriver and 0.15 miles expansion of Wills Point
Anchorage currently located at MM 66.5-67.6. The proposed location
would be MM 66.7-67.9. The provided justification was twofold. First,
the shift upriver would directly overlap with the footprint of the Mid-
Breton Sediment Diversion intake structure located at MM 68 that is
intended to convey sediment, fresh water, and nutrients from the
Mississippi River into Mid-Breton Sound Basin to reduce coastal land
loss and sustain surrounding wetlands. Second, the anchorage could
conflict with a borrow source for marsh restoration.
The Coast Guard agrees that the proposed shift upriver and
expansion of the anchorage could pose negative impacts to the Mid-
Breton sediment Diversion intake structure. The Coast Guard does not
agree with second part of the objection. Operations routinely occur
along the Mississippi River in and around anchorage grounds and impacts
to navigation and work-sites, such as the borrow site, are minimal.
(7) 0.5 miles establishment of Bertrandville Anchorage located at
MM 68.5-69.0. The justification was that the anchorage, being directly
upriver of the Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion intake structure, would
obstruct the intake flowline and could pose a navigational safety
concern.
The Coast Guard agrees that the proposed establishment of an
anchorage grounds at this location could pose negative impacts to the
Mid-Breton sediment Diversion intake structure.
Note: The following anchorages were mentioned in the opposition
comment but are not locations that are being considered for amendment
by this rulemaking at this time: Myrtle Grove anchorage and Point
Celeste Anchorage.
In March 2021, two additional comments were received from
stakeholders. Although these comments were received outside of the NOI
comment period, the Coast Guard chose to consider them. In one new
comment, the commenter that submitted the opposing comments above
withdrew their opposing comments on items 1-4 listed above (Phoenix,
Davant, Magnolia, and Boothville Anchorages), but maintained the
objections raised in items 5-7 to the expansions of Wills Point
Anchorage and Alliance Anchorage and the establishment of Bertrandville
Anchorage. The second new comment proposed to remove the establishment
of Bertrandville Anchorage from consideration to expand Wills Point
Anchorage from MM 66.5-67.9 and decrease the width of the anchorage to
500 feet.
After considering the stakeholder comments, the Coast Guard has
decided that: (1) The width reduction at Wills Point Anchorage will be
added to this proposed rulemaking, (2) the length expansions and shift
at Wills Point Anchorage and the length expansion at Alliance Anchorage
would not be further pursued at this time, and (3) the establishment of
a new anchorage ground at Bertrandville would not be further pursued at
this time.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve navigational
safety, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel
traffic and commerce, and bolster the economy through increased
anchorage capacity, thus streamlining vessel throughput and increasing
ship to port interactions.
The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70006.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Commander of Coast Guard District Eight proposes to establish
one new anchorage ground and amend nine existing anchorage grounds
along the LMR, ranging from MM 12 to MM 85 AHP. There are not currently
adequate anchorage grounds along the river system to facilitate the
safe anchorage of shallow and deep draft vessels along the LMR. This
proposed action would ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation of
vessels transiting in and out of the LMR. The specific anchorage
boundaries are described in detail in the proposed regulatory text at
the end of the document. In general, this proposed rule will have the
following effects:
1. Increase the length of the Boothville Anchorage from 5.5 miles
to 6.45 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(4)).
2. Increase the length of the Magnolia Anchorage from 2.1 miles to
2.2 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(7)).
3. Increase the lengh of the Davant Anchorage from 1.1 miles to 1.4
miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(9)).
4. Decrease the width of the Wills Point Anchorage from 600 feet to
500 feet (33 CFR 110.195(a)(11)).
5. Add a note to the text of the Cedar Grove Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(12)).
6. Increase the length of the Belle Chasse Anchorage from 2.1 miles
to 2.15 miles, and decrease the width from 575 feet to 500 feet (33 CFR
110.195(a)(13)).
7. Add a Note to the text of the Lower 12 Mile Anchorage (33 CFR
110.195(a)(14)).
8. Increase the length of the Lower 9 Mile Anchorage from 2.3 miles
to 2.4 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(15)).
9. Increase the length of the Point Michel Anchorage from 1.4 miles
to 2.2 miles (33 CFR 110.195(a)(35)).
10. Add a new anchorage, the Phoenix Anchorage, to include the
area, 0.6 miles in length, along the left descending bank of the river
extending from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above Head of Passes. The width
of the anchorage is 400 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a
line parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into
the river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet from the
water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.
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, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
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. 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).
This proposed regulatory action is based on minimal impact to
routine navigation. The proposed anchorage areas would not restrict
traffic as they are located well outside the established navigation
channel. Vessels would still be able to maneuver in, around and through
the anchorages.
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.
[[Page 48356]]
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
anchorage grounds may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 call or email 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 call or email 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, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
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
establishment of one new anchorage grounds and the modification of nine
existing anchorage grounds along the LMR. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive. 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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE GROUNDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C 2071, 46 U.S.C. 70006, 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 110.195 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (7), (9), (11)
through (15), and 35, and adding paragraph (a)(37) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.195 Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South
and Southwest Passes.
(a) * * *
(4) Boothville Anchorage. An area, 6.45 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river extending from mile 12.05 to mile
18.5 Above Head of Passes. The width of the
[[Page 48357]]
anchorage is 750 feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet from the water's edge into the
river as measured from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is
a line parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet from the water's edge
into the river as measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river extending from mile 45.4 to mile
47.6 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 700 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water's edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4 miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9
Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 800 feet.
* * * * *
(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area, 1.1 miles in length, along the
left descending bank of the river extending from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6
Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank 200
feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the LWRP.
The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area, 1.34 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 69.56 to
mile 70.9 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet.
The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 200 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend Revetment extends/runs
adjacent to the lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are urged
to use caution in this anchorage.
(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area, 2.15 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 73.05 to
mile 75.2 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet.
The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest
bank 375 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 875 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length,
along the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 78.6
to mile 80.8 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500
feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 300 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel
to the nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn Revetment extends/
runs adjacent to the lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area, 2.4 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 82.6 to mile
85.0 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
300 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *
(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area, 2.2 miles in length, along
the right descending bank of the river extending from mile 40.0 to mile
42.2 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 500 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
325 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 825 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *
(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6 miles in length, along the
left descending bank of the river extending from mile 57.82 to mile
58.42 Above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 400 feet. The
inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the nearest bank
400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP.
* * * * *
Dated: August 19, 2021.
Richard V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2021-18467 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P