Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64551

1(g). Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Revise § 110.214(b)(6) to read as 

follows:

§ 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°43′05.1′′ N. 118°07′59.0′′ W. 

Thence west to .............................................................................................................................................. 33°43′05.1′′ N. 118°10′36.5′′ W. 

Thence south/southeast to ............................................................................................................................ 33°38′17.5′′ N. 118°07′00.0′′ W. 

Thence north/northeast to ............................................................................................................................. 33°40′23.0′′ N. 118°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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD11–04–006] 

RIN 1625–AA01

Anchorage Ground; Pacific Ocean at 

Santa Catalina Island, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish three anchorage areas outside 

Avalon Bay, Santa Catalina Island, 

California, for large passenger vessels. 

This proposed rule is necessary to 

provide designated anchorage grounds 

outside the harbor thereby allowing safe 

and secure anchorage for an increasing 

number of large passenger vessels. This 

rule is intended to increase safety for 

vessels by enhancing voyage planning 

and by alerting other recreational and 

commercial vessels to potential 

anchorage locations for these large 

vessels.

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/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 (CGD11–04–006), 

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 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 the 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 

Large passenger vessels calling on 

Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, are 

forced to anchor offshore due to limited 

docking capabilities in Avalon Harbor. 

While these vessels have been 

anchoring in this location for over 15 

years, there has never been a designated 

anchorage area or annotation on the 

NOAA chart to indicate these activities. 

However, with the increase in large 

passenger vessel operations in Southern 

California and multiple ships visiting 

Avalon Harbor on the same day, it is 

becoming apparent that designated 

anchorage areas are needed to ensure 

the safety and security of these vessels. 

In developing the proposed rule, the 

Coast Guard consulted various owners 

and masters of the large passenger 

vessels currently calling on Avalon 

Harbor.

Designated anchorages and the 

subsequent chart annotations will help 

ensure recreational and commercial 

boaters are aware that large passenger 

vessels may be anchored in these 

locations. This will be most helpful in 

conditions of low visibility. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule will establish three 

anchorage areas in which large 

passenger vessels calling on Avalon, 

Santa Catalina Island will be able to 

anchor safely. The locations of the 

anchorage grounds discussed in this 

proposed rule are within the same area 

that the large passenger vessels 

currently anchor. The proposed 

anchorage positions were chosen due to 

the rapid increase in water depth within 

close proximity to Santa Catalina Island. 

This increased depth of water does not 

allow for safe anchoring of the 

passenger vessels at distances further 

offshore than the proposed positions. 

We propose to establish these 

anchorages due to the increase in large 

passenger vessel operations in this area, 

the need to maintain positive control in 

the event of increased security posture, 

and for the safety of other vessels 

operating in Avalon Bay. The proposed 

anchorage areas are of sufficient size to 

allow up to three large passenger vessels 

to anchor and still maintain safe 

navigation fairways available for other 

vessels to proceed to and from Avalon 

Harbor. The proposed regulation does 

not intend to exclude fishing activity or 

64552 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the transit of vessels in the anchorage 

areas. However, the Coast Guard does 

intend to advise boaters to proceed with 

caution in order to minimize the 

disruption that large wakes can cause 

during the transfer of passengers 

between the passenger vessels and 

ferries. 

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 conclusion is 

based upon the fact that there would be 

no fees, permits, or specialized 

requirements for the maritime industry 

to utilize these anchorage areas. The 

regulation is solely for the purpose of 

advancing the safety of maritime 

commerce and navigation. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule would 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 would 

encompass only a small portion of the 

waterway and vessels could 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64553

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 because we are 

proposing to create an anchorage area. 

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–

1(g); Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 110.216 add new paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (b)(6) to read as follows:

§ 110.216 Pacific Ocean at Santa Catalina 

Island, Calif. 

(a) * * *

(3) Avalon Bay. (i) Anchorage A. The 

waters within an area described as 

follows: A circle of 1350 feet radius 

centered at latitude 33°20′59.0′′ N., 

longitude 118°18′56.2′′ W. 

(ii) Anchorage B. The waters within 

an area described as follows: A circle of 

1350 feet radius centered at latitude 

33°20′38.3′′ N., longitude 118°18′35.8′′

W. 

(iii) Anchorage C. The waters within 

an area described as follows: A circle of 

1350 feet radius centered at latitude 

33°21′21.0′′ N., longitude 118°19′16.7′′

W. 

(b) * * *

(6) The Avalon Bay anchorage is 

reserved for large passenger vessels of 

over 1600 gross tons, unless otherwise 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Los Angeles-Long Beach.

Dated: October 25, 2004. 

Kevin J. Eldridge, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–24685 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–04–036] 

RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. 

Croix River, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

Stillwater Highway Drawbridge, across 

the St. Croix River at Mile 23.4, at 

Stillwater, Minnesota. The drawbridge 

need not open for river traffic and may 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position from midnight, October 14, 

2005 until midnight, March 15, 2006. 

This proposed rule would allow time to 

perform maintenance/repairs to the 

bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, 

MO 63103–2832. Commander (obr) 

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 

room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young 

Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard 

District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 

Administrator, (314) 539–3900, 

extension 2378.

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 (CGD08–04–036), 

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 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 the Eighth 

Coast Guard District, Bridge 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 later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On September 13, 2004, the 

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation requested a temporary 

change to the operation of the Stillwater 

Highway Drawbridge across the St. 

Croix River, Mile 23.4 at Stillwater, 

Minnesota to allow the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position for 152 consecutive days for 

critical repairs and maintenance. 

Navigation on the waterway consists 

primarily of commercial and 

recreational watercraft and will not be 

significantly impacted due to the 

reduced navigation in winter months. 

Presently, the draw opens from October 

16 until May 14 with 24 hours advance 

notice for passage of river traffic. The 

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation requested the 

drawbridge be permitted to remain 

closed-to-navigation from midnight, 

October 14, 2005 until midnight, March 

15, 2006. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This 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