Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA, 57901-57904 [E7-19995]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
completion of an investigation, based on
all relevant factors, including, as
appropriate, an illustrative list of factors
contained in section 721, which has
been expanded by FINSA.
Regulations: FINSA requires the
President to direct the issuance of
implementing regulations. These
regulations shall impose civil penalties
for violations of section 721, including
those relating to mitigation agreements.
Proposed regulations will be published
in the Federal Register and be subject
to notice and comment before final
regulations are published. Treasury
must also publish in the Federal
Register guidance on the types of
transactions that CFIUS has reviewed
and that have presented national
security considerations. Treasury plans
to do so separately from the regulations
that will be published under section
721.
Request for Comment: The purpose of
issuing this notice of inquiry and
convening a public meeting is to obtain
a wide array of views of businesses
active in international mergers and
acquisitions on several broad topics, in
order to inform regulatory development.
Topics of particular interest to Treasury
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Procedural issues relating to the
review process, including pre-filing,
filing of voluntary notice, unilateral
initiation of review by CFIUS,
withdrawal of notice, refiling of notice,
and notice to filers of the results of a
review or investigation;
(ii) Definitional issues, including the
definitions of ‘‘control,’’ ‘‘foreign
person,’’ ‘‘person engaged in interstate
commerce in the United States,’’
‘‘critical infrastructure,’’ and ‘‘critical
technologies’’;
(iii) Mitigation agreements, including
determinations of the need for risk
mitigation, scope of provisions,
compliance monitoring, modification,
and enforcement, including civil
penalties and other remedies for breach;
(iv) Confidentiality issues;
(v) Collection of information from
filers, including personal identifier
information and information to aid
CFIUS in determining jurisdiction and
whether the transaction raises national
security considerations; and
(vi) Emerging trends in international
investment and their relevance to the
CFIUS process, including legal
structures for effecting acquisitions of
U.S. businesses.
Treasury would also be interested in
hearing views on other topics of interest
to the private sector that relate to the
CFIUS review process or FINSA.
Public Meeting: Treasury announces a
public meeting to be held from two to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:15 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
four o’clock (2–4 p.m.) on October 23,
2007, in Room 4121 of the Treasury
Building, at 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20220, to discuss
issues associated with this legislation.
The meeting will be open to the public
on a first-come, first-served basis. Space
is limited. Due to security requirements
and to facilitate entry to the meeting
site, anyone wishing to attend must
contact Mr. Michael Kimack at
Michael.Kimack@do.treas.gov or (202)
622–0414 no later than October 16,
2007, in order to provide the necessary
clearance information: Full name,
business affiliation, date of birth, and
Social Security number. For foreign
nationals: Full name, business
affiliation, date of birth, passport
number, and the country where the
passport was issued. When arriving for
the meeting, attendees must present
photo or passport identification and/or
a U.S. Government building pass, if
applicable, and should arrive at least
one-half hour prior to the start time of
the meeting. The public meeting is
physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Individuals requiring
special services, such as sign language
interpretation, are asked to indicate this
to Mr. Kimack.
Dated: October 4, 2007.
Gay Hartwell Sills,
Staff Chair, Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States (CFIUS).
[FR Doc. E7–20042 Filed 10–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811–42–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD11–04–002]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco
Bay, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57901
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 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
57902
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory History
Background and Purpose
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.
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°47′35.5″ N and
longitude 122°21′50″ W; thence southsouthwesterly to latitude 37°47′05″ N
and longitude 122°22′07.5″ W; thence
south-southeasterly to latitude 37°46′30″
N and longitude 122°21′56″ W; thence
easterly along the northern border of
Anchorage 9 to latitude 37°46′21.5″ N
and longitude 122°19′07″ W; thence
northerly to latitude 37°46′34.5″ N and
longitude 122°19′05.5″ W; thence
westerly to latitude 37°46′36.5″ N and
longitude 122°19′52″ W; thence westerly
along the southern border of Anchorage
8 to latitude 37°45′40″ N and longitude
122°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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:15 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
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°47′35″ N and
longitude 122°21′50″ W; thence southsouthwesterly to latitude 37°47′07″ N
and longitude 122°22′09″ W; thence
south-southeasterly to latitude 37°46′30″
N and longitude 122°21′57″ W; thence
easterly along the northern border of
anchorage 9 to latitude 37°46′26″ N and
longitude 122°20′42″ W; thence
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
northerly to latitude 37°46′38″ N and
longitude 122°20′42″ W; thence westerly
along the southern border of anchorage
8 to latitude 37°46′41″ N and longitude
122°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.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:15 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57903
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 § 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:
§ 110.224 San Francisco Bay, San Pablo
Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay,
Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and
connecting waters, CA.
*
*
*
(d)(1) * * *
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
*
*
57904
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 110.224(D)(1)
Anchorage No.
General location
Purpose
Specific regulations
4 ...........................................................
5 ...........................................................
6 ...........................................................
7 ...........................................................
8 ...........................................................
8A .........................................................
9 ...........................................................
10 .........................................................
12 .........................................................
13 .........................................................
14 .........................................................
18 .........................................................
19 .........................................................
20 .........................................................
21 .........................................................
22 .........................................................
23 .........................................................
24 .........................................................
26 .........................................................
27 .........................................................
28 .........................................................
30 .........................................................
San Francisco Bay .............................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
San Pablo Bay ...................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
Carquinez Strait ..................................
Benicia ................................................
Carquinez Strait ..................................
Suisun Bay .........................................
......do ..................................................
San Joaquin River ..............................
......do ..................................................
General ...............................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
Naval ..................................................
Explosives ..........................................
......do ..................................................
......do ..................................................
General.
......do ..................................................
......do.
Naval.
General.
General ...............................................
General ...............................................
......do ..................................................
......do.
......do.
Explosives.
Notes a,
Do.
Note a.
Notes a,
Notes a,
Notes a,
Notes a,
Note a.
Notes a,
Notes a,
Notes a,
b.
b,
b,
b,
b,
c, d, e.
c.
c, d, e, j, n.
m.
f.
e, g.
f, h.
Note b.
Notes c, d, e, l.
Note j.
Note k.
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°47′35″ N
and longitude 122°21′50″ W; thence
south-southwesterly to latitude
37°47′07″ N and longitude 122°22′09″
W; thence south-southeasterly to
latitude 37°46′30″ N and longitude
122°21′57″ W; thence easterly along the
northern border of anchorage 9 to
latitude 37°46′26″ N and longitude
122°20′42″ W; thence northerly to
latitude 37°46′38″ N and longitude
122°20′42″ W; thence westerly along the
southern border of anchorage 8 to
latitude 37°46′41″ N and longitude
122°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]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:15 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05–07–093]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Corson Inlet, New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway (NJICW), Townsend Inlet, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the drawbridge operation
regulations of four Cape May County
Bridge Commission (the Commission)
bridges: The Corson Inlet Bridge, at mile
0.9, at Strathmere; the Stone Harbor
Boulevard Bridge, at NJICW mile 102.0,
across Great Channel at Stone Harbor;
the Two-Mile Bridge, at NJICW mile
112.2, across Middle Thorofare in
Wildwood Crest; and the Townsend
Inlet Bridge, at mile 0.3 in Avalon, NJ.
This proposal would allow the
drawbridges to operate on an advance
notice basis on particular dates at
particular times during holidays in
December of every year. This proposal
would allow the draw tenders to spend
the holiday with their families while
still providing for the reasonable needs
of navigation.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA
23704–5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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 Commander (dpb), Fifth
Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard
District, at (757) 398–6222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
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 CGD05–07–093,
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,
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57901-57904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
