Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to create an anchorage ground adjacent to existing Anchorage 8 that can be used 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. This area has been used twice in the past and the Captain of the Port has recognized the potential for needing this anchorage ground in the future. Having the anchorage ground published in the Federal Register will allow the Coast Guard to define its use and location, and establish procedures for notifying the maritime public.

DATES:

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

You may mail comments and related material to the Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California 94501. The Waterways Management 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 Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, (510) 437-3073.

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 (CCGD11-04-002), 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 81/2 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 now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management 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.

Background and Purpose

Due to the trend toward larger ships arriving in San Francisco Bay and the growth of faster marine transportation systems, 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. On two occasions, Vessel Traffic Services San Francisco has used an anchorage ground around Anchorage 8 to accommodate vessels when the safe capacity of Anchorages 8 and 9 has been exceeded. According to 33 CFR 160.5, Commanding Officers, Vessel Traffic Services are delegated authority under 33 CFR 1.01-30 to issue anchorage orders to vessels required to participate in a Vessel Traffic Service.

In this proposed rulemaking, to address the continuing need for additional anchorage space, the Coast Guard is proposing to create a new anchorage ground 8A, which can be used by VTS San Francisco when needed.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 110.224 to add Anchorage 8A, which can be used as needed by VTS San Francisco. This anchorage ground, located immediately west and south of existing Anchorage 8, will allow VTS San Francisco to accommodate the safe anchoring of vessels when the safe capacity of Anchorages 8 and 9 has been exceeded.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. 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 would 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.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they could 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 Doug Ebbers, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, (510) 437-3073.

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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because 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 proposed to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 110.224—

a. In paragraph (d), revise Table 110.224(D)(1) by adding immediately following entry for Anchorage No. 8, a new entry for Anchorage No. 8A and add a new note n” to notes at the end of the table and;

b. In paragraph (e), renumber paragraphs (6) through (21) as paragraphs (7) through (22) and add new paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows: