[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64549-64551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD11-04-007]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; San Pedro Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to enlarge the current anchorage area 
outside the federal breakwater of the Port of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach, CA. This rule is necessary to accommodate vessels of increasing 
size than what can currently be anchored in the existing anchorages. 
The anchorage area would be able to accommodate the largest of the 
vessels calling on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before January 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding 
Officer, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, 
1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California 90731. 
The Port Operations Department 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 Marine Safety Office and Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1001 
South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731, 
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ryan Manning, USCG, Chief 
of Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020.

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-
007), 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 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office/Group Los 
Angeles-Long Beach 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 later 
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Ships of increasing size are calling on the Port of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach. While in an anchorage area, these larger ships require 
watch circles of 1500 yards in diameter. Currently, the anchorage area 
outside the federal breakwater is made up of watch circles 1000 yards 
in diameter. An increase in the anchorage boundary would allow us to 
add three additional anchorages for vessels with watch circles of 1500 
yards in diameter.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed regulations would increase the size of the current 
commercial anchorage area outside the federal breakwater off of the 
Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach by relocating the southwest corner 
approximately one nautical mile southeast. The traffic separation 
scheme will not be affected by this increased anchorage area.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposal will impose no cost 
on vessel operators, and have minimal impact to vessel traffic.

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

[[Page 64550]]

owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and 
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule will possibly affect the following 
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators 
of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the 
affected area. The impact to these entities would not, however, be 
significant since this zone will encompass only a small portion of the 
waterway and vessels can safely navigate around the anchored vessels. 
Additionally, large passenger vessels already routinely anchor within 
the proposed anchorage areas.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Ryan Manning, Chief 
of Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020.

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 would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

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.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit 
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation. This rule changes the size of an existing 
anchorage.
    A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft 
?Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are 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-

[[Page 64551]]

1(g). Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  110.214(b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.214  Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Calif.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (b)(6) Commercial Anchorage F (outside of Long Beach Breakwater). 
The waters southeast of the Long Beach Breakwater bounded by a line 
connecting the following coordinates:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Latitude                           Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning point..........................  33[deg]43'05.1'' N.                 118[deg]07'59.0'' W.
Thence west to...........................  33[deg]43'05.1'' N.                 118[deg]10'36.5'' W.
Thence south/southeast to................  33[deg]38'17.5'' N.                 118[deg]07'00.0'' W.
Thence north/northeast to................  33[deg]40'23.0'' N.                 118[deg]06'03.0'' W.
And thence north/northwest to the
 beginning point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: October 25, 2004.
Kevin J. Eldridge,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-24686 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P