[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57901-57904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19995]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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