Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA, 57901-57904 [E7-19995]

Download as PDF 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