48354 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 Thao.V.Nguyen@

uscg.mil. 

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 

§ 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) § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 

■ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

ADDRESSES: 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS