[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57901-57904]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD11-04-002]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is submitting for public consideration this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We propose to create in San
Francisco Bay a temporary anchorage area, designated Anchorage 8A,
adjacent to existing anchorage 8 that can be activated by Coast Guard
Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) when the number of vessels requesting to
anchor in Anchorages 8 and 9 exceeds the capacity of these two
anchorages. Promulgating a permanent rule to establish the temporary
anchorage area allows the Coast Guard to define its use and location,
and to establish procedures for activating the anchorage area and
notifying the maritime public.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways
Safety Branch, Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San
Francisco, California 94130. Waterways Safety Branch 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 the Waterways Safety Branch,
Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California
94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Eric Ramos, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch at telephone (415)
399-7443.
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 (CGD11 04-
002), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
that your submission 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. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Safety Branch 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 separate notice in the Federal Register.
[[Page 57902]]
Regulatory History
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA'' in the Federal Register
on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17119), under docket number CGD11-04-002. Due
to the lengthy period of time that has lapsed since April 1, 2004, and
the reduction of the size of the proposed new Anchorage 8A, the Coast
Guard decided to resubmit this proposal to the public for further
consideration. The difference between this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking and the original notice of proposed rulemaking is
the size of proposed anchorage 8A. The size has been reduced based upon
public comment to the original notice of proposed rulemaking.
Discussion of Comments
Comments were received from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC). The BCDC requested that a consistency
determination be submitted evaluating the proposal in relation to BCDC
Coastal Zone Management Policies. A 15 CFR Part 930.35 Negative
Determination was submitted to BCDC on September 18, 2006. In a letter
dated October 17, 2006, BCDC suggested that the Coast Guard consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding threatened or endangered species. A
biological evaluation was submitted to the USFWS and NMFS on November
21, 2006.
On December 4, 2006, USFWS copied the Coast Guard on a 2004
memorandum in which they found that proposed Anchorage 8A could
adversely affect the endangered California least tern (Stern antillarum
browni). The Coast Guard redefined the size and configuration of the
proposed anchorage based on consultation with USFWS. As a result, USFWS
concurred with the Coast Guard's determination of ``not likely to
adversely affect'' as described below. BCDC also concurred that the
proposed action would be consistent with their Amended Coastal Zone
Management Program for San Francisco Bay.
NMFS wrote to the Coast Guard on June 4, 2007, that ``based on the
best available scientific information, the NMFS has determined that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed salmonids or
green sturgeon,'' populations which are listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act and which may be present in
the proposed Anchorage 8A area.
Background and Purpose
Due to the trend toward larger ships arriving in San Francisco Bay,
the growth of faster Marine Transportation Systems, and increased large
vessel traffic, use of Anchorages 8 and 9 in San Francisco Bay has
increased. In addition to more vessels needing to anchor while awaiting
the departure of other vessels at berth, periodic labor strikes and
disputes have caused delays in the turnaround time of cargo, and filled
Anchorages 8 and 9 to capacity.
To address the continuing need to temporarily activate an
additional anchorage area, the Coast Guard issued a proposed rule on
April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17119) that proposed to formalize temporary
anchorage 8A.
The April 1, 2004, NPRM originally proposed that Anchorage 8A be
bounded by the following lines: Beginning latitude 37[deg]47'35.5'' N
and longitude 122[deg]21'50'' W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude
37[deg]47'05'' N and longitude 122[deg]22'07.5'' W; thence south-
southeasterly to latitude 37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'56'' W; thence easterly along the northern border of
Anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'21.5'' N and longitude
122[deg]19'07'' W; thence northerly to latitude 37[deg]46'34.5'' N and
longitude 122[deg]19'05.5'' W; thence westerly to latitude
37[deg]46'36.5'' N and longitude 122[deg]19'52'' W; thence westerly
along the southern border of Anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]45'40'' N
and longitude 122[deg]21'23'' W; thence northwesterly along the
southwestern border of Anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD
83). The proposed perimeter of the original size of Anchorage 8A was
approximately six and one-half nautical miles.
Due to the lengthy period of time that has lapsed since April 1,
2004, and the reduction of the size of the proposed new Anchorage 8A,
the Coast Guard decided to publish a supplemental notice to allow the
public to comment on the reduced size of proposed anchorage 8A.
Discussion of Supplemental Proposed Rule
This SNPRM proposes that the new perimeter of Anchorage 8A be
approximately four nautical miles and bounded by the following lines:
Beginning at latitude 37[deg]47'35'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'50'' W;
thence south-southwesterly to latitude 37[deg]47'07'' N and longitude
122[deg]22'09'' W; thence south-southeasterly to latitude
37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'57'' W; thence easterly along
the northern border of anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'26'' N and
longitude 122[deg]20'42'' W; thence northerly to latitude
37[deg]46'38'' N and longitude 122[deg]20'42'' W; thence westerly along
the southern border of anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]46'41'' N and
longitude 122[deg]21'23'' W; thence northwesterly along the
southwestern border of anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD
83).
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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of
this regulation will not be significant because the anchorage will only
be used when unusual circumstance require that it be activated,
recreational traffic can still traverse the anchorage area when
necessary, and the temporary anchorage area only takes up a small
portion of San Francisco Bay. In addition, this temporary anchorage
area has been used twice in the past to accommodate vessels during
labor disputes that resulted in Anchorages 8 and 9 being filled to
capacity.
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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation above.
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.
[[Page 57903]]
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 they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Eric
Ramos, Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch Chief, 1 Yerba
Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, (415) 399-7443.
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 will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
does 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 does 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 does 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
M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination 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 we are changing an
anchorage regulation.
A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be
considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should
be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
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.
2. In Sec. 110.224--
a. In paragraph (d), revise Table 110.224(D)(1) and add a new
paragraph to Notes at the end of the table and;
b. In paragraph (e), redesignate paragraphs (6) through (21) as
paragraphs (7) through (22) , and add new paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 110.224 San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait,
Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and connecting waters,
CA.
* * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
[[Page 57904]]
Table 110.224(D)(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage No. General location Purpose Specific regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................ San Francisco Bay... General............. Notes a, b.
5................................ ......do............ ......do............ Do.
6................................ ......do............ ......do............ Note a.
7................................ ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, b, c, d, e.
8................................ ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, b, c.
8A............................... ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, b, c, d, e, j, n.
9................................ ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, b, m.
10............................... ......do............ Naval............... Note a.
12............................... ......do............ Explosives.......... Notes a, f.
13............................... ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, e, g.
14............................... ......do............ ......do............ Notes a, f, h.
18............................... San Pablo Bay....... General. .................................
19............................... ......do............ ......do............ Note b.
20............................... ......do............ ......do. .................................
21............................... ......do............ Naval. .................................
22............................... Carquinez Strait.... General. .................................
23............................... Benicia............. General............. Notes c, d, e, l.
24............................... Carquinez Strait.... General............. Note j.
26............................... Suisun Bay.......... ......do............ Note k.
27............................... ......do............ ......do. .................................
28............................... San Joaquin River... ......do. .................................
30............................... ......do............ Explosives. .................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * * *
n. This temporary anchorage will be activated by VTS San Francisco when Anchorages 8 and 9 are at capacity and
additional anchorage capacity in the vicinity of Alameda is required. VTS will notify a vessel that this
temporary anchorage is activated and available for use when Anchorages 8 and 9 are full, and a vessel requests
permission from VTS to anchor in Anchorage 8 or 9.
(e) Boundaries. * * *
(6) Anchorage No. 8A. In San Francisco Bay bounded by the following
lines: Beginning at latitude 37[deg]47'35'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'50'' W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude
37[deg]47'07'' N and longitude 122[deg]22'09'' W; thence south-
southeasterly to latitude 37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'57'' W; thence easterly along the northern border of
anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'26'' N and longitude 122[deg]20'42''
W; thence northerly to latitude 37[deg]46'38'' N and longitude
122[deg]20'42'' W; thence westerly along the southern border of
anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]46'41'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'23''
W; thence northwesterly along the southwestern border of anchorage 8
back to the beginning point (NAD 83).
* * * * *
Dated: August 15, 2007.
C.E. Bone,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E7-19995 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P