70818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29166 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[Docket No. USCG–2002–12702] 

RIN 1625–AA48 

Traffic Separation Schemes: In the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and Its 

Approaches; in Puget Sound and Its 

Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In this interim rule with 

request for comments, the Coast Guard 

codifies traffic separation schemes in 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches, in Puget Sound and its 

approaches, and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia. These traffic separation 

schemes (TSSs) were validated by a Port 

Access Route Study (PARS) conducted 

under the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1221–1232 and 

were adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). They 

have been shown on National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) charts since 2006, and are 

currently documented in the IMO 

publication ‘‘Ships’ Routeing,’’ Ninth 

Edition, 2008. 

Codifying these internationally 

recognized traffic separation schemes 

provides better routing order and 

predictability, increases maritime safety, 

and reduces the potential for collisions, 

groundings, and hazardous cargo spills. 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

interim rule with a request for 

comments to permit the public to 

comment on changes made to some 

geographic positions located in Haro 

Strait, Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia that were made after the notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

DATES: This interim rule is effective 

January 18, 2011. 

Comments and related material must 

be received by the Coast Guard on or 

before January 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2002–12702 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, contact 

Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast Guard 

Office of Waterways Management, 

telephone 202–372–1566, or e-mail 

George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Regulatory History 

IV. Basis and Purpose 

A. General 

B. TSS History 

C. Port Access Route Study (PARS) 

V. Discussion of NPRM Comments 

VI. Discussion of the Interim Rule (IR) 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit comments, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2002–12702), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a 

telephone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and click on 

the ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2002–12702’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

this rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and click on 

the ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2002– 

12702’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

Internet, you may view the document 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70819 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. In your 

request, explain why you believe a 

public meeting 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. 

II. Abbreviations 

ATBA Area To Be Avoided 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CVTS Cooperative Vessel Traffic 

Service 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime 

Organization 

IR Interim Rule 

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

PARS Port Access Route Study 

PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

RNA Regulated Navigation Area 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit 

III. Regulatory History 

On August 27, 2002, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Traffic Separation Schemes: In 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

Approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

Approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia’’ in the Federal Register (67 FR 

54981). The NPRM was originally 

assigned a Department of Transportation 

rulemaking identification number (RIN) 

2115–AG45. It has been reassigned a 

Department of Homeland Security RIN 

1625–AA48. The docket number has not 

changed. We received nine letters 

commenting on the proposed 

regulations discussed in the NPRM. We 

discuss our responses to these 

comments in Part V of this interim rule. 

The commenters did not request a 

public meeting, and we did not hold 

one. 

IV. Basis and Purpose 

A. General 

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

(PWSA; 33 U.S.C. 1221–1232) grants the 

Coast Guard authority to establish traffic 

separation schemes (TSSs) where 

necessary, to provide safe access routes 

for vessels proceeding to or from United 

States ports. Before implementing a new 

TSS or modifying an existing TSS, we 

conduct a Port Access Route Study 

(PARS). Through the PARS process, we 

consult with affected parties to 

reconcile the need for safe access routes 

with the need to accommodate other 

reasonable uses of the waterway, such 

as oil and gas exploration, deepwater 

port construction, establishment of 

marine sanctuaries, and recreational and 

commercial fishing. If a PARS 

recommends a new or modified TSS, we 

must initiate a rulemaking to implement 

or modify the TSS. Once a TSS has been 

established, the right of navigation takes 

precedence over all other uses within 

the TSS. 

The International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) follows a parallel 

structure. It receives proposals for vessel 

traffic measures from the country or 

countries with jurisdiction over the 

affected waterway. If the IMO adopts a 

proposal, it publishes the vessel traffic 

measure in its publication ‘‘Ships 

Routeing.’’ In this way, the IMO serves 

as a clearing agent to ensure that vessel 

traffic measures are made available to 

the global maritime community through 

a single source. Additionally, when the 

IMO adopted the TSSs, it made the 

provisions of Rule 10 of the 

International Regulations for Avoiding 

Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) applicable 

to vessels using the TSSs. 

B. TSS History 

The IMO first adopted TSSs in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches on April 3, 1981, and 

implemented them January 1, 1982. The 

IMO adopted TSSs in Puget Sound and 

its approaches on December 1992, and 

implemented them on June 10, 1993. As 

discussed in C. below, on January 20, 

1999, the Coast Guard published a 

PARS ‘‘Notice of Study’’ (64 FR 3145). 

We published a notice of preliminary 

study recommendations with request for 

comments on February 23, 2000 (65 FR 

8917). On August 27, 2002, the Coast 

Guard published an NPRM (66 FR 6514) 

regarding the TSSs that are the subject 

of this rulemaking as discussed in Part 

III, ‘‘Regulatory History’’ above. 

However, these TSSs were never added 

to the CFR. 

As described in the NPRM, the TSSs 

in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of Georgia 

were implemented on December 1, 

2002, per IMO Circular COLREG.2/ 

Circ.51 dated May 31, 2002. To view the 

circular, visit the docket for this 

rulemaking at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Canada and the United States 

submitted a joint proposal to the IMO in 

March 2004 requesting minor changes to 

some coordinates of the TSSs in Puget 

Sound and its approaches in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia. The IMO approved the changes 

and they were implemented on July 1, 

2005, per IMO Circular COLREG.2/ 

Circ.55 dated December 15, 2004. To 

view the circular, visit the docket for 

this rulemaking at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Canada and the United States 

submitted a second joint proposal to the 

IMO in March 2005, requesting 

additional minor changes to the 

Canadian portion of the TSSs in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches. The IMO approved the 

changes and they were implemented on 

December 1, 2006, per IMO Circular 

COLREG.2/Circ.57 dated May 26, 2006. 

To view the circular, visit the docket for 

this rulemaking at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

All TSSs that would be codified by 

this interim rule have been shown in 

their current configuration on NOAA 

charts since 2006 and are published in 

‘‘Ships’ Routeing,’’ Ninth Edition, 2008, 

published by the IMO. NOAA adds or 

modifies TSSs on its charts after they 

are either added to the CFR by the Coast 

Guard or adopted by the IMO. The IMO 

Ships’ Routeing instructions can be 

purchased from IMO through their Web 

site at http://www.imo.org. 

C. Port Access Route Study (PARS) 

The Coast Guard published a notice of 

study on January 20, 1999, (64 FR 3145). 

The study results can be found at 

Regulations.gov under docket number 

USCG–1999–4974. The purpose of the 

study was to review and evaluate the 

need for modifications to the vessel 

routing and traffic management 

measures in and around the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, including Admiralty Inlet, 

Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, the Strait of 

Georgia, Rosario Strait, and adjacent 

waters. The study area also outlined 

both United States and Canadian TSSs 

and the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) ‘‘Off 

the Washington Coast.’’ United States 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and Canadian Coast Guards 

cooperatively manage portions of the 

study area. The countries accomplish 

joint waterway management primarily 

through the Cooperative Vessel Traffic 

Service (CVTS). A CVTS agreement 

entered into in 1979 sets forth the terms 

and conditions for joint management of 

the CVTS. Under the CVTS Agreement, 

vessel traffic centers located at Tofino 

and Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; 

and Seattle, Washington, manage vessel 

traffic transiting in the study area, 

regardless of the boundary between the 

two countries. 

We developed the PARS using several 

related vessel traffic studies, waterways 

analysis and management system 

reports, and extensive consultations 

between the United States and Canadian 

governments. Officials from both 

governments embarked on an outreach 

program to present recommended 

changes in the study area and request 

comments from a wide group of 

waterway users and other potentially 

affected and interested groups, 

including the general public; 

representatives of the shipping industry, 

master mariners, ports, pilots, and 

environmental interests; U.S. Federal, 

State, and local government agencies; 

Canadian government agencies; and 

tribal governments. We took into 

account the responders’ concerns, 

including impacts to industry and the 

environment, when conducting the 

PARS. The recommended changes also 

considered the increased burden to and 

the practical navigation aspects for the 

shipping industry. We published a 

notice of preliminary study 

recommendations with request for 

comments on February 23, 2000 (65 FR 

8917). We published a notice of study 

results for the PARS on January 22, 2001 

(66 FR 6514). 

In the PARS, we concluded that the 

TSSs, as they existed prior to the NPRM, 

should be modified by: 

1. Reconfiguring and extending 

seaward the TSS at the entrance to the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca; 

2. Modifying the location, orientation, 

and dimensions of the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca TSS; 

3. Relocating the pilot area and 

reconfiguring the traffic lanes and 

precautionary area off Port Angeles, 

Washington, to improve traffic flow and 

reduce risks; 

4. Moving the vessel traffic lanes 

southeast of Victoria, British Columbia, 

farther offshore; 

5. Establishing precautionary areas off 

of Discovery Island and around the 

Victoria Pilot Station; 

6. Creating a new two-way route in 

Haro Strait and Boundary Pass and 

establishing a precautionary area off of 

Turn Point; 

7. Expanding the precautionary area 

designated ‘‘RB,’’ at the south end of 

Rosario Strait; 

8. Revising and aligning the existing 

TSS in Georgia Strait with the existing 

TSS north of Rosario Strait and linking 

them with a new precautionary area off 

of East Point; and 

9. Creating a new precautionary area 

in Georgia Strait west of Delta Port and 

the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal. 

V. Discussion of NPRM Comments 

As a follow-up to the PARS, the Coast 

Guard published an NPRM on August 

27, 2002 (67 FR 54981). We received 

nine letters in response to the NPRM. 

Five commenters disagreed with the 

proposed TSS in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca and stated that: 

(1) The proposed TSS would cause a 

net loss of over 30 percent of fishable 

waters; 

(2) The proposed TSS represented a 

violation of certain tribal treaty rights 

that had been enjoyed by local tribes for 

decades; and 

(3) The proposed TSS would affect a 

significant number of local tribes. 

A sixth commenter disagreed with the 

modified TSS on the grounds that it 

would cause local tribes to lose a 

significant amount of fishable waters. 

Because of these comments, we entered 

into tribal consultations under 

Executive Order 13175. As a result of 

these consultations, the local tribes 

agreed to take no action that would 

prevent the TSSs as described in the IR 

from taking effect and the Coast Guard 

agreed to: (1) Make permanent existing 

interim Vessel Traffic Service measures 

related to the treaty longline fishery and 

treaty salmon fishery; and (2) 

implement a regulated navigation area 

(RNA) to further protect the tribes’ 

interest in the area. The local tribes and 

the U.S. Government, acting through the 

Coast Guard, entered into a Settlement 

Agreement on April 19, 2006, to reflect 

the rights and obligations of the parties. 

An explanation of the consultation 

process and its results are further 

discussed in section VII. J., ‘‘Indian 

Tribal Governments.’’ 

Five commenters also proposed that 

we adopt a differently configured TSS, 

which they claimed would maintain 

safety while adding to the fishable area 

in the separation zone by 5 percent. A 

sixth commenter proposed that we 

revisit the TSS and come up with a new 

scheme that would not diminish 

fishable waters in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca. We did not concur with the 

comments, but, as noted above, entered 

into tribal consultations. Ultimately, we 

did not reconfigure the TSSs as 

recommended by these commenters. An 

explanation of the consultation process 

and its results are further discussed in 

section VII. J., ‘‘Indian Tribal 

Governments.’’ 

One commenter agreed that a 

modified TSS is necessary in the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca, but disagreed with the 

new demarcation around Haro Strait. 

The same commenter proposed that the 

lane near the Haro Strait be widened so 

that faster ships would be able to pass 

slower ships in transit. We agreed with 

the commenter. The area referred to by 

the commenter is managed by the 

Canadian Coast Guard. Therefore, we 

worked with Canada and developed a 

mutually agreeable proposal that is 

currently shown on NOAA charts and 

IMO publications. The IR reflects 

changes to the demarcation around Haro 

Straight and a widening of the lane near 

Haro Straight. 

One commenter assessed the TSS in 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca and asserted 

that the proposed lanes would not 

create any new safety problems in the 

Strait. The commenter also evaluated 

the tribes’ proposals and concluded that 

the proposed lanes would not cause any 

extra safety hazards in the Strait. We 

concurred with this commenter and did 

not amend the TSSs in this area. 

One commenter agreed with the 

proposed TSS in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca, but advocated that we implement 

more stringent safety guidelines for oil 

tankers. This commenter also proposed 

that we provide charts of the modified 

TSSs in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). We did not concur with 

implementing more stringent safety 

guidelines for oil tankers in this 

rulemaking. Implementing more 

stringent safety guidelines for oil 

tankers is not within the scope of this 

rulemaking. The focus of this rule is on 

the codification of TSSs. 

One commenter proposed including 

charts of the TSSs in the CFR. We did 

not concur with providing charts of the 

modified TSSs in the CFR. Providing 

charts of the TSSs in the CFR would be 

unwieldy, difficult to read, and would 

not be useful to mariners for 

navigational purposes. All TSSs 

codified in this rule are reflected on 

current NOAA charts and published in 

the IMO’s ‘‘Ships’ Routeing,’’ Ninth 

Edition, 2008. 

VI. Discussion of the Interim Rule (IR) 

This rule codifies the TSSs in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia. All TSSs codified in this rule 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70821 

are shown on current NOAA charts and 

are published in ‘‘Ships’ Routeing,’’ 

Ninth Edition, 2008, International 

Maritime Organization. The TSSs 

codified in this rule, except as 

explained in paragraph 10 below, 

‘‘Adjustment of TSSs in the IR,’’ are 

based on the recommendations of the 

PARS study published on January 22, 

2001 (66 FR 6514). 

1. Reconfiguring and extending 

seaward the TSS at the entrance to the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. In August 2002, 

all traffic entering the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca was funneled into the Strait 

through one of two short traffic lanes. 

The southwest inbound traffic lane 

directed traffic within 1 mile of Duntze 

Rock. This convergence near Buoy Juliet 

was close to the rocky shoreline of Cape 

Flattery, lay within the Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary, and 

funneled inbound southern traffic along 

the northern and western borders of the 

existing ATBA. 

A large percentage of the slower 

traffic, including tugs and barges and 

small fishing vessels, usually transited 

inbound and outbound south of the 

designated traffic lanes when on 

coastwise voyages to and from the 

south. This practice eliminated the need 

for slower southbound traffic to cross 

the traffic lanes and the potentially 

dangerous overtaking situations arising 

from disparate transit speeds. However, 

under the configuration as of August 

2002, this traffic scheme forced slower 

traffic to transit extremely close to 

Duntze Rock and infringed on either the 

ATBA or the inbound traffic lane. 

Commercial and sport fishing areas 

were in and adjacent to the traffic lanes 

at the entrance to the Strait. 

Occasionally, fishing vessels in the area 

created a potentially hazardous conflict 

for vessels following the TSS, 

particularly during periods of reduced 

visibility. 

This interim rule with request for 

comments extends the TSS at the 

entrance to the Strait approximately 10 

nautical miles farther offshore and 

centers the separation zone on the 

international border at the entrance. 

This creates a ‘‘buffer zone’’ between the 

southernmost TSS lane and Duntze 

Rock and the nearby ATBA. This 

relocation provides ample maneuvering 

space for resolving conflicting routes as 

vessels converge toward the entrance of 

the Strait, which improves order and 

predictability for all entry and exit 

lanes. These changes, along with 

changes for the ATBA boundary, allow 

sufficient room for slower vessels to 

transit without conflicting with inbound 

traffic steering for the southern 

approach to the TSS. They also provide 

a greater margin of safety around the 

hazards of Duntze Rock and Tatoosh 

Island. 

In reconfiguring and extending the 

TSSs beyond the configuration as it 

existed in August 2002, we considered 

the location of fishing areas off the 

entrance to the Strait. While it was not 

possible to completely segregate the TSS 

from the fishing areas, the changes 

minimize potential conflicts and 

improve the existing configuration. 

Reconfiguring and extending the routes 

provides predictability farther offshore, 

thereby reducing potentially hazardous 

conflicts between vessels following the 

TSS and vessels fishing at the entrance 

to the Strait. 

2. Modifying the location, orientation, 

and dimensions of the TSS in the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca. In August 2002, over 

two-thirds of the TSS was located on the 

United States side of the International 

Boundary. The separation zone was 

approximately four nautical miles wide, 

of which approximately three nautical 

miles was in United States waters. This 

alignment of the TSS reduced the 

amount of navigable water available to 

vessels transiting, outbound or inbound, 

south of the TSS and placed inbound 

traffic following the lanes closer to land 

than vessels transiting in the outbound 

lanes. 

In this interim rule with request for 

comments, the western segment of the 

TSS shifts one-half mile to the north 

and reduces the width of the entire 

separation zone to a maximum of three 

nautical miles. The minimum width of 

the separation zone and the width of the 

traffic lanes remains one nautical mile. 

This reduces the potential for powered 

groundings on the United States 

shoreline by creating a larger buffer 

between the TSS and shore. It also 

creates additional space for the existing 

in-shore vessel traffic that transits south 

of the TSS. 

We considered the impact of the 

changes on the existing Canadian 

Practice Firing Range (Exercise Area 

WH). Exercises will continue to be 

conducted in a manner that does not 

conflict with commercial traffic 

following the TSS. 

3. Relocating the Pilot Area and 

reconfiguring the traffic lanes and 

precautionary area off Port Angeles to 

improve traffic flow and reduce risks. In 

August 2002, five TSSs converged at the 

precautionary areas (‘‘PA’’ and ‘‘ND’’) 

located to the north and east of Port 

Angeles. Ferries, recreational vessels, 

piloted deep-draft vessels, non-piloted 

deep-draft vessels, tugs and tows, naval 

vessels, and large and small commercial 

fishing vessels all interacted and 

competed for space at this convergence 

point in the traffic scheme. 

The traffic configuration was designed 

primarily to deliver inbound vessels to 

the pilot stations located at Port 

Angeles, Washington; and Victoria, 

British Columbia. The configuration did 

not give adequate safety consideration 

to other waterway users. For example, 

the configuration did not separate the 

Port Angeles pilots’ boarding area from 

either the through traffic following the 

TSS or the traffic choosing to follow the 

informal inshore traffic lanes. The 

August 2002 TSS routing leading to the 

Port Angeles pilot station was identified 

through casualty histories as a 

substantial cause for concern. Vessels 

bound for the Port Angeles pilots’ 

station were required by the TSS to steer 

almost directly on Ediz Hook. To pick 

up a pilot, a vessel first had to execute 

a 60-degree turn and then slow to 

maneuvering speed, which created 

different impacts on the vessel’s steering 

capability. At this point, a vessel was 

particularly vulnerable to currents and 

seas. If an engineering failure occurred 

during this operation, the vessel was at 

significant risk of a drift or powered 

grounding on Ediz Hook. 

Since publication of the NPRM in 

August 2002 the pilot station has been 

relocated. Changing the traffic lane 

leading to the relocated pilot station 

eliminated the need for an incoming 

deep-draft vessel to steer directly 

toward Ediz Hook to pick up a pilot. 

The IR also adds a new east/west TSS 

leading east from precautionary area 

‘‘PA’’ to establish a predictable route for 

vessels that do not require pilotage, thus 

reducing the risk of collision with 

vessels maneuvering to pick up a pilot. 

4. Moving the vessel traffic lanes 

southeast of Victoria, British Columbia, 

farther off shore. In August 2002, on the 

Canadian side of the international 

boundary, outbound tugs and barges 

exited the TSS at Discovery Island. 

These vessels headed directly for the 

inshore routes south of Race Rocks, 

cutting across the inbound and 

outbound TSS lanes south of Victoria. 

Outbound fishing vessels, exiting 

Baynes Channel or passing east of 

Discovery Island, attempted to stay 

north of the TSS. However, vessels 

frequently entered the lanes near Trial 

Island, Discovery Island, and the pilot 

station. This behavior created 

unnecessary and potentially dangerous 

interactions between deep-draft vessels 

following the TSS and smaller vessels 

that choose to skirt or cut diagonally 

across the TSS. 

In the IR we move the vessel traffic 

lanes to create an inshore buffer by 

decreasing the width of the TSS leading 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

from the Victoria Pilot Station to the 

turn south of Discovery Island while 

maintaining the same southern 

boundary on the inbound lane. This 

inshore buffer allows fishing vessels and 

other small, slow moving vessels to 

transit directly between Discovery 

Island and Race Rocks, then inshore 

north of the TSS, while avoiding the 

deep-draft TSS. 

5. Establishing precautionary areas off 

Discovery Island and around the 

Victoria Pilot Station. In August 2002, 

the Victoria Pilot Station was located at 

the convergence of two TSSs where 

there was significant traffic congestion 

as vessels transited to and from the 

ports of Victoria and Esquimault. 

Likewise, three TSSs converged east and 

northeast of Discovery Island, where 

vessels often entered or exited the traffic 

scheme. Consequently, vessels had to 

proceed with caution in both these 

areas. To address the traffic congestion 

in these areas this IR establishes new 

precautionary areas ‘‘V’’, ‘‘HS,’’ and ‘‘DI.’’ 

6. Creating a new two-way route in 

Haro Strait and Boundary Pass and 

establishing a precautionary area off 

Turn Point. In August 2002, there were 

no formal traffic lanes in Haro Strait and 

Boundary Pass. In recent years, the level 

of recreational boating has significantly 

increased. Also, there has been 

explosive growth in the number of small 

commercial vessels providing whalewatching tours off the western shore of 

San Juan Island. This growth in the 

number of whale-watching tours has 

resulted in an increased number of 

conflicts with deep-draft vessels. 

Turn Point is one of the more 

navigationally challenging areas of Haro 

Strait and Boundary Pass. Transiting 

vessels must negotiate a blind rightangle turn close to shore and in the 

presence of strong currents. In addition, 

numerous secondary channels and 

passages route traffic into Haro Strait in 

the vicinity of Turn Point. 

This rule establishes a two-way route 

in Haro Strait and Boundary Pass that 

connects the TSS in Puget Sound and its 

approaches and the TSS Haro Strait and 

Boundary Pass in the south. This rule 

increases order and predictability for 

vessel traffic in these waters. The route 

established by this IR reduces dangerous 

interactions between the deep-draft 

vessels following the TSS and smaller 

vessels that choose not to follow the 

TSS. The regulation moves the edge of 

the traffic lane to the east from Kellet 

Bluff to Turn Point and creates a flair, 

or pull out, south of Turn Point to 

provide maneuvering room for a vessel 

to safely negotiate the strong ebb 

currents. The regulation also creates a 

precautionary area around Turn Point 

where vessels must negotiate a sightobscured, right-angle turn in the 

presence of strong currents and 

numerous small craft. 

7. Expanding precautionary area ‘‘RB’’ 

at the south end of Rosario Strait. In 

August 2002, deep-draft vessels often 

could not precisely follow the TSS 

when approaching Rosario Strait from 

the south. Strong currents made it 

impossible for vessels to avoid the 

separation zone as they negotiated the 

slight turns in the TSS just south of 

precautionary area ‘‘RB.’’ The small 

turns in the TSS approaching 

precautionary area ‘‘RB’’ could not be 

eliminated without placing the TSS 

uncomfortably close to other shoal 

water. 

This rule replaces a small portion of 

the lane with an expansion of 

precautionary area ‘‘RB.’’ The regulation 

enhances the safety of deep-draft 

transits by eliminating a routing 

measure where large ships cannot 

comply and replacing it with a 

precautionary area where ships must 

navigate with particular caution. 

8. Revising and aligning the TSS in 

the Strait of Georgia with the exiting 

TSS north of Rosario Strait and linking 

them with a precautionary area off East 

Point. In August 2002, there were no 

routing measures connecting the TSS in 

the Strait of Georgia that terminated off 

Patos Island with the TSS north of 

Rosario Strait that terminated off 

Saturna Island. Furthermore, these two 

TSSs were not aligned. Traffic exiting 

the Strait of Georgia bound for Rosario 

Strait followed the TSS to its 

termination before angling back to the 

north to enter the TSS at Patos Island. 

Routing vessels in this manner crowded 

the area and created a possible conflict 

with traffic southbound for Boundary 

Pass. Finally, there was no 

precautionary area in the vicinity of East 

Point where traffic merged from several 

directions. 

This rule creates a seamless and 

logical traffic scheme for this area. TSSs 

are aligned and connected to the new 

two-way route in Boundary Pass 

through the creation of a new 

precautionary area. By providing a 

contiguous TSS that connects the Strait 

of Georgia TSS with both the new 

Boundary Pass traffic lane and the old 

Patos Island TSS, this rule will allow 

traffic bound for Rosario Strait to follow 

the TSS without impeding traffic 

southbound for Boundary Pass. The new 

precautionary area highlights the need 

for potential crossing traffic in this area 

to exercise caution and provides oil 

tankers departing Cherry Point bound 

for Haro Strait with a predictable and 

safe location to enter the traffic scheme. 

9. Creating a new precautionary area 

in Georgia Strait west of Delta Port and 

the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. The 

completion of the container facility at 

Delta Port significantly increased the 

volume of traffic entering and exiting 

the TSS in the Strait of Georgia. There 

has also been a considerable increase in 

traffic to and from the Tsawwassen 

Ferry Terminal. This rule establishes a 

precautionary area southwest of Delta 

Port and accommodates vessels 

departing Delta Port and the 

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, as they 

reach maneuvering speed before and 

while entering the TSS. 

10. Adjustment of TSSs in the IR. This 

IR adjusts the configuration of certain 

TSSs as proposed in the NPRM. The 

TSSs have some coordinates located in 

United States waters and some 

coordinates located in Canadian waters. 

As discussed above, the United States 

and Canada cooperatively manage 

vessel traffic in this area. Since 

publication of the NPRM in August 

2002, the United States and Canada 

have jointly submitted two proposals to 

make adjustments to geographical 

coordinates located in Canadian waters. 

Both proposals were approved and are 

reflected on current NOAA charts and 

published in the IMO’s ‘‘Ships’ 

Routeing,’’ Ninth Edition, 2008. 

Since publication of the NPRM there 

have been changes to some of the 

geographical coordinates located in both 

Canadian and U.S. waters. Issuing an IR 

allows the Coast Guard to codify the 

coordinates of the TSSs as currently 

shown on NOAA charts and IMO 

publications but also solicit public 

comment on the adjustments that 

occurred since publication of the 

NPRM. 

As discussed above, the Coast Guard 

published a NPRM for the TSSs in 2002. 

Subsequently, the U.S. and Canada have 

jointly submitted two proposals to 

change some of the coordinates. Both 

proposals were adopted by the IMO 

(IMO Circular COLREG.2/Cir.55 dated 

December 15, 2004 and IMO Circular 

COLREG.2/Circ. 57 dated May 26, 

2006). The Coast Guard did not publish 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM) for these changes. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

not publishing an SNPRM. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

‘‘good cause’’ exception in 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), an agency may dispense with 

notice and comment procedures if the 

agency finds that following these APA 

requirements would be ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ See Jeffrey L. Lubbers, A 

Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70823 

1 Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbit, 58 F.3d 

1392 (9th Cir. 1995). 

2 Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbit, supra. 

3AFL–CIO v. Office of Personnel Management, 

618 F. Supp. 1254 (D.D.C. 1985); and Public Citizen 

Health Research Group v. F.D.A., 724 F. Supp. 

1013, 1022 (D.D.C. 1989). 

(4th ed.) 105–109 (2006) for a discussion 

of agency findings of good cause in lieu 

of notice and comment procedures. 

‘‘Unnecessary,’’ for the purpose of the 

good cause exceptions to the 

requirements of the APA, refers to ‘‘the 

issuance of a minor rule in which the 

public is not particularly interested.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, 

Attorney General’s Manual On The 

Administrative Procedure Act at 31 

(1947). Its use should be ‘‘confined to 

those situations in which the 

administrative rule is a routine 

determination, insignificant in nature 

and impact, and inconsequential to the 

industry and to the public.’’ Utility Solid 

Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 

749, 755 (DC Cir. 2001), citing South 

Carolina v. Block, 558 F.Supp. 

1004,1016 (D.S.C. 1983). Participation 

in a TSS by a ship’s master is 

completely voluntary. Participation in a 

voluntary scheme does not impose a 

new requirement on mariners and 

therefore incorporation of the TSSs into 

the CFR is insignificant in nature and 

impact. 

Including the TSSs in the CFR at this 

point is also inconsequential to the 

maritime industry and to the public 

because the maritime industry and the 

public have been aware of, and in fact 

actively using, the proposed TSSs for at 

least four years. The IR merely seeks to 

incorporate into the CFR the same TSSs 

that have been in use since 2006 when 

the current configurations first appeared 

on NOAA charts and in IMO 

publications. There have been no 

comments, complaints, or requests for 

modification regarding the TSSs since 

that time. As the agency charged with 

the establishment of TSSs, the Coast 

Guard would be aware of any such 

comments, complaints or requests. 

Courts prefer supplemental notice and 

comment when the public is likely to 

have new or different information.1 The 

proposed TSSs are unchanged from the 

current familiar configuration. 

Therefore, as there is little or no 

likelihood that the public has new or 

different information than what is 

currently available, there is no reason to 

delay reaching a timely and final 

decision by engaging in an unnecessary 

second round of public comment. 

Additional notice and comment is 

contrary to the public interest: As stated 

above, courts prefer supplemental 

notice and comment.2 However, they 

have also made clear that this 

preference should be balanced against 

the public’s interest in reaching a timely 

and final decision without unnecessary 

or duplicative rounds of public 

comment.3

In the current rule, the public’s 

interest to reach a timely and final 

decision without unnecessary or 

duplicative rounds of public comment 

outweighs the preference for additional 

notice and comment because the public 

is not likely to have new or different 

information. In fact, not only is it 

unlikely the public will have any new 

or different information, but the public 

is no longer interested in changes to this 

rule. As far as the public is concerned, 

these TSSs have been in active use for 

over four years. There have been no 

comments, complaints, or requests for 

modification. Therefore, an SNPRM is 

contrary to the public interest in that it 

defeats the public’s interest in reaching 

a timely and final decision. 

The table of changes below highlights 

those coordinates that have changed 

since the NPRM. If we receive 

comments on those changes, we will 

consult with the Canadian Coast Guard 

regarding those comments. 

TABLE OF CHANGES

Section No. in the NPRM 

Geographical position coordinates 

Proposed in the NPRM IR adjustment 

167.1301(b) ................................. 48°31.09′ N; 125°04.67′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°04.67′ W. 

48°31.93′ N; 125°09.00′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°08.98′ W. 

167.1303 ..................................... 48°31.09′ N; 125°04.67′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°04.67′ W (point listed twice). 

48°31.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W. 

167.1311(b)(1) ............................. 48°31.09′ N; 124°47.13′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 124°49.90′ W. 

48°31.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W. 

167.1311(b)(2) ............................. 48°31.09′ N; 124°47.13′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 124°49.90′ W (point listed twice). 

48°31.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W .......................................... 48°32.09′ N; 125°00.00′ W. 

167.1322(c)(1) ............................. 48°27.79′ N; 123°07.80′ W .......................................... 48°28.72′ N; 123°08.53′ W. 

48°27.58′ N; 123°08.10′ W .......................................... 48°28.39′ N; 123°08.64′ W. 

167.1322(c)(3) ............................. 48°28.15′ N; 123°07.31′ W .......................................... 48°29.28′ N; 123°08.35′ W. 

167.1322(c)(5) ............................. 48°27.43′ N; 123°08.94′ W .......................................... 48°27.86′ N; 123°08.81′ W. 

167.1331 ..................................... All geographical positions are changed. A new precautionary area ‘‘DI’’ has been added to the regulations.

167.1332(e) ................................. 49°00.37′ N; 123°13.32′ W .......................................... 49°02.20′ N; 123°16.28′ W. 

48°58.18′ N; 123°16.74′ W .......................................... 49°00.00′ N; 123°19.69′ W. 

167.1332(f) .................................. 48°59.53′ N; 123°14.66′ W .......................................... 49°01.39′ N; 123°17.53′ W. 

49°03.80′ N; 123°21.24′ W .......................................... 49°03.84′ N; 123°21.30′ W. 

49°03.14′ N; 123°22.26′ W .......................................... 49°03.24′ N; 123°22.41′ W. 

48°58.90′ N; 123°15.63′ W .......................................... 49°03.24′ N; 123°22.41′ W. 

49°00.75′ N; 123°18.52′ W. 

167.1332(g) ................................. 49°00.37′ N; 123°13.32′ W .......................................... 49°02.20′ N; 123°16.28′ W. 

167.1332(h) ................................. 48°58.18′ N; 123°16.74′ W .......................................... 49°00.00′ N; 123°19.69′ W. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this interim rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This interim 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. 

Public comments on the NPRM are 

summarized in Part V of this preamble. 

Since the publication of the NPRM, 

some geographical coordinates in 

Canadian waters were modified. The 

local tribal governments and the Coast 

Guard have reached an agreement 

relative to the TSSs as described in this 

preamble. An explanation of the 

consultation process and its results are 

further discussed in section VII.J., 

‘‘Indian Tribal Governments.’’ We 

anticipate that the modifications to the 

TSSs made in consultation with the 

Indian Tribal governments do not alter 

our assessment of economic impacts in 

the NPRM. 

We received no further public 

comments and have made no other 

changes that would alter our assessment 

of economic impacts in the NPRM. We 

have found no additional data or 

information that would change our 

findings in the NPRM. We have adopted 

the assessment in the NPRM for this 

interim rule. 

As previously discussed, the TSSs 

codified in this IR are reflected on 

current NOAA charts and published in 

the IMO’s publication ‘‘Ships’ 

Routeing,’’ Ninth Edition, 2008. 

As discussed in the NPRM, this 

rulemaking may result in a slight 

increase in transit time because it 

codifies the extension of the TSS at the 

entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

approximately 10 miles farther offshore. 

The additional 10-mile transit coming to 

or from the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

through the southwestern approach may 

result in a minimal increase in 

regulatory costs to industry. 

We anticipate no increased costs for 

vessels traveling within the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and adjacent waterways, 

nor any increased costs due to 

modifications of the TSSs in Puget 

Sound and its approaches. 

The expected benefits associated with 

codifying the existing TSSs include a 

potential reduction in the instances of 

groundings, collisions, and other vessel 

casualties, as well as an increase in 

vessel traffic efficiency. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this interim rule has 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. 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

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

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We received no public 

comments and have made no changes 

that would alter our assessment of 

impacts to small entities in the NPRM. 

We have found no additional data or 

information that would change our 

findings in the NPRM. See the ‘‘Small 

Entity’’ section of the NPRM for 

additional details. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this interim 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If you think 

that your business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a 

small entity and that this rule will have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the Docket 

Management Facility at the address 

under ADDRESSES. In your comment, 

explain why you think it qualifies and 

how and to what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If you 

believe this rule affects your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult George 

Detweiler, Coast Guard, Marine 

Transportation Specialist, at 202–372– 

1566. The U.S. Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

E. 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 rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

The PWSA authorizes the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to issue regulations 

to designate TSSs to protect the marine 

environment. In enacting the PWSA in 

1972, Congress found that advance 

planning and consultation with the 

affected States and other stakeholders 

was necessary in the development and 

implementation of a TSS. Throughout 

the history of the development of the 

TSSs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

its approaches; in Puget Sound and its 

approaches; and in Haro Strait, 

Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia, we consulted with the affected 

State and Federal pilots’ associations, 

vessel operators, users, United States 

and Canadian Vessel Traffic Services, 

Canadian Coast Guard and Transport 

Canada representatives, environmental 

advocacy groups, Native American 

tribal groups, and all affected 

stakeholders. 

Presently, there are no Washington 

State laws or regulations concerning the 

same subjects as those contained in this 

rule. We understand that the State does 

not contemplate issuing any such 

regulations. It should be noted that, by 

virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSSs 

in this rule preempt any State rule on 

the same subject. 

In order for TSSs to apply to foreignflagged vessels on the high seas, the 

IMO must adopt and implement the 

TSSs. The individual States of the 

United States are not represented at the 

IMO; that is the role of the Federal 

government. The U.S. Coast Guard is the 

principal agency responsible for 

advancing the interests of the United 

States at the IMO. We recognize the 

interests of all local stakeholders as we 

work with the IMO to advance the goals 

of these TSSs. 

F. 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 (adjusted for inflation), or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70825 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This 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. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

At least four Native American tribes, 

the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Lower 

Elwha Kallam Tribe, Makah Tribe, and 

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (the 

Tribes), have traditionally fished in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca and its 

approaches. The TSSs in the Strait, as 

it existed when we published a notice 

of study on January 20, 1999 (64 FR 

3145), provided a broad separation 

zone, which allowed ample room for the 

Tribes’ traditional longline and drift 

gillnet fisheries between the inbound 

and outbound vessel traffic lanes. 

We published a Notice of Preliminary 

Study Recommendations with request 

for comments on February 23, 2000 (65 

FR 8917). That notice contained the 

recommendation that the broad 

separation zone be narrowed and 

aligned with the international border. 

Implementation of that recommendation 

would straighten the routes for vessels 

transiting the TSS and move them 

farther north of Olympic Peninsula. The 

Tribes objected to this recommendation 

because they believed it would 

significantly decrease the area available 

to fish by leaving insufficient room to 

deploy their nets without interfering 

with, or being interfered by, deep-draft 

vessels transiting the Strait. To address 

their concerns, we met with the Tribes 

in March and August of 2000 and 

February of 2001. The meetings were 

intended to gather the Tribes’ 

recommendations on how to improve 

the TSSs, yet minimize the impact on 

their longline and drift gillnet fisheries. 

Following these meetings, the Tribes 

submitted recommendations to widen 

the separation zone. Based on these 

submittals and discussions at the 

meetings, we reassessed the PARS 

recommendation and widened the 

proposed zone enough to support the 

Tribes’ longline and drift gillnet 

fisheries. 

On August 27, 2002, we published an 

NPRM in the Federal Register (67 FR 

54981), which proposed amending the 

then existing TSSs in the Strait. The 

decision to amend the then existing 

TSSs was based on a 1999–2000 PARS 

conducted by the Thirteenth Coast 

Guard District Office, Seattle, 

Washington. We used the PARS process, 

which included many consultations and 

meetings with various maritime entities, 

including the Tribes, to develop the 

proposals presented in the NPRM. 

When developing the proposed changes 

to the TSSs, we considered the location 

of the usual and accustomed fishing 

grounds off the entrance to and in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. We knew then 

that it was not possible to completely 

segregate the TSSs from the fishing 

grounds, but believed that the 

recommended changes would minimize 

potential conflicts and improve the 

TSSs configurations. We also believed 

that the proposed changes would 

provide better routing order and 

predictability, particularly offshore, 

thus reducing conflicts between vessels 

fishing at or near the entrance to the 

Strait and other vessel traffic. Based on 

the recommendations of the PARS, we 

submitted a proposal to the IMO, which 

included changes to the TSSs at the 

entrance to and in the Strait. The IMO 

adopted the changes, which were 

scheduled to take effect on December 1, 

2002. 

As discussed in Part V. ‘‘Discussion of 

Comments’’ above, the Tribes submitted 

comments to the NPRM docket stating 

that the proposed changes to the TSSs 

would substantially alter and diminish 

the Tribes’ present and future fish 

harvests, as well as significantly reduce 

access to their usual and accustomed 

fishing areas. The Tribes asserted that 

this diminished access to the usual and 

accustomed fishing areas would 

diminish catches. They stated that 

diminished catches would impose 

substantial economic and non-economic 

costs on the Tribes and would constitute 

a substantial impact on the Tribes’ 

treaty-protected rights to take fish at all 

usual and accustomed fishing areas. On 

November 8, 2002, out of concern that 

the proposed changes were scheduled to 

take effect on December 1, 2002, the 

Tribes sent the United States a request 

to meet and confer. 

After discussions between the Tribes 

and the U.S. Coast Guard, the Tribes 

agreed to take no action to prevent the 

TSSs, as amended by the PARS and 

adopted by IMO, from taking effect on 

December 1, 2002. The Tribes and the 

U.S. Coast Guard further agreed to enter 

into additional consultations and to 

make best efforts to arrive at a mutually 

acceptable TSS in the Western Strait of 

Juan de Fuca. We agreed that if 

agreement on a revised TSS was not 

reached by March 15, 2003, the U.S. 

Coast Guard would take the necessary 

measures both to suspend TSS between 

Buoy Juliet and the precautionary area 

of Port Angeles [as amended by the 

PARS and adopted by IMO] and to 

implement a domestic TSS that would 

return the southern boundary of the 

traffic separation zone to its original 

location. 

The first consultation meeting 

between the Tribes and the United 

States acting through the U.S. Coast 

Guard was held on December 18, 2002, 

at the Point No Point Treaty Council 

offices. Additional consultation 

meetings also took place. These 

consultation meetings resulted in 

mutually agreeable, interim VTS 

measures that were intended to allow 

treaty fishing within the original TSS 

while the parties negotiated a more 

permanent solution to the TSS issue. 

The interim VTS measures were used in 

2003 to ensure the successful 

completion of the treaty longline and 

drift gillnet fisheries. 

At the consultation meeting on 

October 10, 2003, the parties agreed that 

implementation of the interim VTS 

measures on a permanent basis would 

better serve the interests of both the 

Tribes and the U.S. Coast Guard than 

revisions to the TSSs. The Tribes asked 

the U.S. Coast Guard to enter into a 

settlement agreement to provide the 

Tribes with assurance that the interim 

VTS measures that had been 

successfully used in 2003 would be 

made permanent, while providing 

procedures that would allow changes to 

these permanent VTS measures with the 

agreement of all affected Parties should 

it become necessary to do so. 

On April 19, 2006, the United States, 

acting through the U.S. Coast Guard, 

and the Tribes, signed a settlement 

agreement. The document, entitled 

‘‘Settlement Agreement Between the 

United States of America and the 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Lower 

Elwha Klallam Tribe, Makah Tribe, and 

Port Gamble S’Khallam Tribe,’’ is 

available in the docket for this IR, and 

can be found by following the 

instructions listed above in section I.B., 

‘‘Viewing comments and documents.’’ A 

provision of the settlement agreement 

required the U.S. Coast Guard to create 

regulations establishing a regulated 

navigation area (RNA), to be published 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

in 33 CFR part 165. We have reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments. 

Rulemakings that are determined to 

have ‘‘tribal implications’’ under that 

Order (i.e., those that 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) require 

the preparation of a tribal summary 

impact statement. This rule will not 

have implications of the kind 

envisioned under the Order because it 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

preempt tribal law, or substantially 

affect lands or rights held exclusively 

by, or on behalf of, those governments. 

Whether or not the Executive Order 

applies in this case, it is the policy of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in 

policy decisions that have tribal 

implications under the Presidential 

Memorandum of November 5, 2009, (74 

FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and to 

seek out and consult with Native 

Americans on all of its rulemakings that 

may affect them. We regularly consulted 

and collaborated with the Tribes 

throughout the PARs and this 

rulemaking. We entered into a 

settlement agreement to mitigate the 

effects of this rule on the Tribes and 

their use of their historical fishing 

grounds. We invite your comments on 

how the codification of the existing 

TSSs might impact tribal governments, 

even if that impact may not constitute 

a ‘‘tribal implication’’ under the Order. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this 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. 

L. 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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction. 

This rule involves navigational aids, 

which include TSSs. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), and Waterways. 

■ Accordingly, 33 CFR Part 167 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 167—OFFSHORE TRAFFIC 

SEPARATION SCHEMES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 167 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add §§ 167.1300 through 167.1303 

to read as follows: 

§ 167.1300 In the approaches to the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca: General. 

The traffic separation scheme for the 

approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

consists of three parts: the western 

approach, the southwestern approach, 

and precautionary area ‘‘JF.’’ These parts 

are described in §§ 167.1301 through 

167.1303. The geographic coordinates in 

§§ 167.1301 through 167.1303 are 

defined using North American Datum 

(NAD 83). 

§ 167.1301 In the approaches to the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca: Western approach. 

In the western approach to the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°30.10′ N 125°09.00′ W 

48°30.10′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°29.11′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°29.11′ N 125°09.00′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for westbound traffic 

between the separation zone and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°32.09′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°32.09′ N 125°08.98′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic 

between the separation zone and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°27.31′ N 125°09.00′ W 

48°28.13′ N 125°04.67′ W 

§ 167.1302 In the approaches to the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca: Southwestern approach. 

In the southwestern approach to the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°23.99′ N 125°06.54′ W 

48°27.63′ N 125°03.38′ W 

48°27.14′ N 125°02.08′ W 

48°23.50′ N 125°05.26′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for north-eastbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°22.55′ N 125°02.80′ W 

48°26.64′ N 125°00.81′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for south-westbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°28.13′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°24.94′ N 125°09.00′ W 

§ 167.1303 In the approaches to the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca: Precautionary area ‘‘JF.’’ 

In the approaches to the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca, precautionary area ‘‘JF’’ is 

established and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70827 

48°32.09′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°30.10′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°29.11′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°28.13′ N 125°04.67′ W 

48°27.63′ N 125°03.38′ W 

48°27.14′ N 125°02.08′ W 

48°26.64′ N 125°00.81′ W 

48°28.13′ N 124°57.90′ W 

48°29.11′ N 125°00.00′ W 

48°30.10′ N 125°00.00′ W 

48°32.09′ N 125°00.00′ W 

48°32.09′ N 125°04.67′ W 

■ 3. Add §§ 167.1310 through 167.1315 

to read as follows: 

§ 167.1310 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

General. 

The traffic separation scheme in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca consists of five 

parts: the western lanes, southern lanes, 

northern lanes, eastern lanes, and 

precautionary area ‘‘PA.’’ These parts are 

described in §§ 167.1311 through 

167.1315. The geographic coordinates in 

§§ 167.1311 through 167.1315 are 

defined using North American Datum 

(NAD 83). 

§ 167.1311 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

Western lanes. 

In the western lanes of the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°29.11′ N 125°00.00′ W 

48°29.11′ N 124°43.78′ W 

48°13.89′ N 123°54.84′ W 

48°13.89′ N 123°31.98′ W 

48°14.49′ N 123°31.98′ W 

48°17.02′ N 123°56.46′ W 

48°30.10′ N 124°43.50′ W 

48°30.10′ N 125°00.00′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for north-westbound 

traffic. 

(1) The traffic lane is established 

between the separation zone and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°16.45′ N 123°30.42′ W 

48°15.97′ N 123°33.54′ W 

48°18.00′ N 123°56.07′ W 

48°32.00′ N 124°46.57′ W 

48°32.09′ N 124°49.90′ W 

48°32.09′ N 125°00.00′ W 

(2) An exit from this lane between 

points 48°32.00′ N, 124°46.57′ W and 

48°32.09′ N, 124°49.90′ W. Vessel traffic 

may exit this lane at this location or 

may remain in the lane between points 

48°32.09′ N, 124°49.90′ W and 48°32.09′ 

N, 125°00.00′ W en route to 

precautionary area ‘‘JF,’’ as described in 

§ 167.1315. 

(c) A traffic lane for south-eastbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°28.13′ N 124°57.90′ W 

48°28.13′ N 124°44.07′ W 

48°12.90′ N 123°55.24′ W 

48°12.94′ N 123°32.89′ W 

§ 167.1312 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

Southern lanes. 

In the southern lanes of the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°10.82′ N 123°25.44′ W 

48°12.38′ N 123°28.68′ W 

48°12.90′ N 123°28.68′ W 

48°12.84′ N 123°27.46′ W 

48°10.99′ N 123°24.84′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.24′ N 123°23.82′ W 

48°12.72′ N 123°25.34′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°12.94′ N 123°32.89′ W 

48°09.42′ N 123°24.24′ W 

§ 167.1313 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

Northern lanes. 

In the northern lanes of the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°21.15′ N 123°24.83′ W 

48°16.16′ N 123°28.50′ W 

48°15.77′ N 123°27.18′ W 

48°20.93′ N 123°24.26′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°21.83′ N 123°25.56′ W 

48°16.45′ N 123°30.42′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic between the separation zone and 

a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°20.93′ N 123°23.22′ W 

48°15.13′ N 123°25.62′ W 

§ 167.1314 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

Eastern lanes. 

In the eastern lanes of the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°13.22′ N 123°15.91′ W 

48°14.03′ N 123°25.98′ W 

48°13.54′ N 123°25.86′ W 

48°12.89′ N 123°16.69′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for westbound traffic 

between the separation zone and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°14.27′ N 123°13.41′ W 

48°14.05′ N 123°16.08′ W 

48°15.13′ N 123°25.62′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic 

between the separation zone and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°12.72′ N 123°25.34′ W 

48°12.34′ N 123°18.01′ W 

§ 167.1315 In the Strait of Juan de Fuca: 

Precautionary area ‘‘PA.’’ 

In the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

precautionary area ‘‘PA’’ is established 

and is bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°12.94′ N 123°32.89′ W 

48°13.89′ N 123°31.98′ W 

48°14.49′ N 123°31.98′ W 

48°16.45′ N 123°30.42′ W 

48°16.16′ N 123°28.50′ W 

48°15.77′ N 123°27.18′ W 

48°15.13′ N 123°25.62′ W 

48°14.03′ N 123°25.98′ W 

48°13.54′ N 123°25.86′ W 

48°12.72′ N 123°25.34′ W 

48°12.84′ N 123°27.46′ W 

48°12.90′ N 123°28.68′ W 

48°12.94′ N 123°32.89′ W 

■ 4. Add §§ 167.1320 through 167.1323 

to read as follows: 

§ 167.1320 In Puget Sound and its 

approaches: General. 

The traffic separation scheme in Puget 

Sound and its approaches consists of 

three parts: Rosario Strait, approaches to 

Puget Sound other than Rosario Strait, 

and Puget Sound. These parts are 

described in §§ 167.1321 through 

167.1323. The North American Datum 

(NAD 83) defines the geographic 

coordinates in §§ 167.1321 through 

167.1323. 

§ 167.1321 In Puget Sound and its 

approaches: Rosario Strait. 

In Rosario Strait, the following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°48.98′ N 122°55.20′ W 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

48°46.76′ N 122°50.43′ W 

48°45.56′ N 122°48.36′ W 

48°45.97′ N 122°48.12′ W 

48°46.39′ N 122°50.76′ W 

48°48.73′ N 122°55.68′ W 

(b) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic located within the separation 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°49.49′ N 122°54.24′ W 

48°47.14′ N 122°50.10′ W 

48°46.35′ N 122°47.50′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic located within the separation 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°44.95′ N 122°48.28′ W 

48°46.76′ N 122°53.10′ W 

48°47.93′ N 122°57.12′ W 

(d) Precautionary area ‘‘CA’’ contained 

within a circle of radius 1.24 miles 

centered at geographical position 

48°45.30′ N, 122°46.50′ W. 

(e) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°44.27′ N 122°45.53′ W 

48°41.72′ N 122°43.50′ W 

48°41.60′ N 122°43.82′ W 

48°44.17′ N 122°45.87′ W 

(f) A traffic lane for northbound traffic 

located within the separation zone 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°44.62′ N 122°44.96′ W 

48°41.80′ N 122°42.70′ W 

(g) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic located within the separation 

zone described in paragraph (e) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°44.08′ N 122°46.65′ W 

48°41.25′ N 122°44.37′ W 

(h) Precautionary area ‘‘C’’ contained 

within a circle of radius 1.24 miles 

centered at geographical position 

48°40.55′ N, 122°42.80′ W. 

(i) A two-way route between the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°39.33′ N 122°42.73′ W 

48°36.08′ N 122°45.00′ W 

48°26.82′ N 122°43.53′ W 

48°27.62′ N 122°45.53′ W 

48°29.48′ N 122°44.77′ W 

48°36.13′ N 122°45.80′ W 

48°38.38′ N 122°44.20′ W 

48°39.63′ N 122°44.03′ W 

(j) Precautionary area ‘‘RB’’ bounded 

as follows: 

(1) To the north by the arc of a circle 

of radius 1.24 miles centered on 

geographical position 48°26.38′ N, 

122°45.27′ W and connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°25.97′ N 122°47.03′ W 

48°25.55′ N 122°43.93′ W 

(2) To the south by a line connecting 

the following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°25.97′ N 122°47.03′ W 

48°24.62′ N 122°48.68′ W 

48°23.75′ N 122°47.47′ W 

48°25.20′ N 122°45.73′ W 

48°25.17′ N 122°45.62′ W 

48°24.15′ N 122°45.27′ W 

48°24.08′ N 122°43.38′ W 

48°25.55′ N 122°43.93′ W 

§ 167.1322 In Puget Sound and its 

approaches: Approaches to Puget Sound 

other than Rosario Strait. 

(a) The traffic separation scheme in 

the approaches to Puget Sound other 

than Rosario Strait consists of a 

northeast/southwest approach, a 

northwest/southeast approach, a north/ 

south approach, and an east/west 

approach and connecting precautionary 

areas. 

(b) In the northeast/southwest 

approach consisting of two separation 

zones, two precautionary areas (‘‘RA’’ 

and ‘‘ND’’), and four traffic lanes, the 

following are established: 

(1) A separation zone that connects 

with precautionary area ‘‘RA,’’ as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°24.13′ N 122°47.97′ W 

48°20.32′ N 122°57.02′ W 

48°20.53′ N 122°57.22′ W 

48°24.32′ N 122°48.22′ W 

(2) Precautionary area ‘‘RA,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 1.24 

miles centered at 48°19.77′ N, 

122°58.57′ W. 

(3) A separation zone that connects 

with precautionary area ‘‘RA,’’ as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°16.25′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°16.57′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°19.20′ N 123°00.35′ W 

48°19.00′ N 123°00.17′ W 

(4) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°23.75′ N 122°47.47′ W 

48°19.80′ N 122°56.83′ W 

(5) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°15.70′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°18.67′ N 122°59.57′ W 

(6) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°24.62′ N 122°48.68′ W 

48°20.85′ N 122°57.80′ W 

(7) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°19.70′ N 123°00.53′ W 

48°17.15′ N 123°06.57′ W 

(8) Precautionary area ‘‘ND,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.00′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°17.15′ N 123°06.57′ W 

48°14.27′ N 123°13.41′ W 

48°12.34′ N 123°18.01′ W 

48°12.72′ N 123°25.34′ W 

48°11.24′ N 123°23.82′ W 

48°10.82′ N 123°25.44′ W 

48°09.42′ N 123°24.24′ W 

48°08.39′ N 123°24.24′ W 

48°11.00′ N 123°06.58′ W 

(c) In the northwest/southeast 

approach consisting of two separation 

zones, two precautionary areas (‘‘RA’’ 

and ‘‘SA’’), and four traffic lanes, the 

following are established: 

(1) A separation zone that connects 

with precautionary area ‘‘RA,’’ as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°28.72′ N 123°08.53′ W 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70829 

48°25.43′ N 123°03.88′ W 

48°22.88′ N 123°00.82′ W 

48°20.93′ N 122°59.30′ W 

48°20.82′ N 122°59.62′ W 

48°22.72′ N 123°01.12′ W 

48°25.32′ N 123°04.30′ W 

48°28.39′ N 123°08.64′ W 

(2) A separation zone that connects 

with precautionary area ‘‘RA,’’ as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°18.83′ N 122°57.48′ W 

48°13.15′ N 122°51.33′ W 

48°13.00′ N 122°51.62′ W 

48°18.70′ N 122°57.77′ W 

(3) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, and is located between the 

separation zone described in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°29.28′ N 123°08.35′ W 

48°25.60′ N 123°03.13′ W 

48°23.20′ N 123°00.20′ W 

48°21.00′ N 122°58.50′ W 

(4) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°19.20′ N 122°57.03′ W 

48°13.35′ N 122°50.63′ W 

(5) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, and is located between the 

separation zone described in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°27.86′ N 123°08.81′ W 

48°25.17′ N 123°04.98′ W 

48°22.48′ N 123°01.73′ W 

48°20.47′ N 123°00.20′ W 

(6) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic connecting with precautionary 

area ‘‘RA,’’ as described in paragraphs 

(b)(2) of this section, and is located 

between the separation zone described 

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°18.52′ N 122°58.50′ W 

48°12.63′ N 122°52.15′ W 

(7) Precautionary area ‘‘SA,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 2 

miles centered at geographical position 

48°11.45′ N, 122°49.78′ W. 

(d) In the north/south approach 

between precautionary areas ‘‘RB’’ and 

‘‘SA,’’ as described in paragraph (b)(2) 

and (c)(7) of this section, respectively, 

the following are established: 

(1) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°24.15′ N 122°44.08′ W 

48°13.33′ N 122°48.78′ W 

48°13.38′ N 122°49.15′ W 

48°24.17′ N 122°44.48′ W 

(2) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°24.08′ N 122°43.38′ W 

48°13.10′ N 122°48.12′ W 

(3) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°24.15′ N 122°45.27′ W 

48°13.43′ N 122°49.90′ W 

(e) In the east/west approach between 

precautionary areas ‘‘ND’’ and ‘‘SA,’’ as 

described in paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(7) 

of this section, respectively, the 

following are established: 

(1) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.50′ N 122°52.73′ W 

48°11.73′ N 122°52.70′ W 

48°12.48′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°12.23′ N 123°06.58′ W 

(2) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°12.22′ N 122°52.52′ W 

48°12.98′ N 123°06.58′ W 

(3) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.73′ N 123°06.58′ W 

48°10.98′ N 122°52.65′ W 

§ 167.1323 In Puget Sound and its 

approaches: Puget Sound. 

The traffic separation scheme in Puget 

Sound consists of six separation zones 

and two traffic lanes connected by six 

precautionary areas. The following are 

established: 

(a) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.08′ N 122°46.88′ W 

48°06.85′ N 122°39.52′ W 

48°02.48′ N 122°38.17′ W 

48°02.43′ N 122°38.52′ W 

48°06.72′ N 122°39.83′ W 

48°10.82′ N 122°46.98′ W 

(b) Precautionary area ‘‘SC,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 48°01.85′ N, 

122°38.15′ W. 

(c) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°01.40′ N 122°37.57′ W 

47°57.95′ N 122°34.67′ W 

47°55.85′ N 122°30.22′ W 

47°55.67′ N 122°30.40′ W 

47°57.78′ N 122°34.92′ W 

48°01.28′ N 122°37.87′ W 

(d) Precautionary area ‘‘SE,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 47°55.40′ N, 

122°29.55′ W. 

(e) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

47°54.85′ N 122°29.18′ W 

47°46.52′ N 122°26.30′ W 

47°46.47′ N 122°26.62′ W 

47°54.80′ N 122°29.53′ W 

(f) Precautionary area ‘‘SF,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 47°45.90′ N, 

122°26.25′ W. 

(g) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

47°45.20′ N 122°26.25′ W 

47°40.27′ N 122°27.55′ W 

47°40.30′ N 122°27.88′ W 

47°45.33′ N 122°26.60′ W 

(h) Precautionary area ‘‘SG,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 47°39.68′ N, 

122°27.87′ W. 

(i) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

47°39.12′ N 122°27.62′ W 

47°35.18′ N 122°27.08′ W 

47°35.17′ N 122°27.35′ W 

47°39.08′ N 122°27.97′ W 

(j) Precautionary area ‘‘T,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 47°34.55′ N, 

122°27.07′ W. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
70830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(k) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

47°34.02′ N 122°26.70′ W 

47°26.92′ N 122°24.10′ W 

47°23.07′ N 122°20.98′ W 

47°19.78′ N 122°26.58′ W 

47°19.98′ N 122°26.83′ W 

47°23.15′ N 122°21.45′ W 

47°26.85′ N 122°24.45′ W 

47°33.95′ N 122°27.03′ W 

(l) Precautionary area ‘‘TC,’’ which is 

contained within a circle of radius 0.62 

miles, centered at 47°19.48′ N, 

122°27.38′ W. 

(m) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

areas ‘‘SC,’’ ‘‘SE,’’ ‘‘SF,’’ ‘‘SG,’’ ‘‘T,’’ and 

‘‘TC,’’ as described in paragraphs (b), (d), 

(f), (h), (j), and (k) of this section, 

respectively, and is located between the 

separation zones described in 

paragraphs (a), (c), (e), (g), (i), and (k) of 

this section, respectively, and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°11.72′ N 122°46.83′ W 

48°07.13′ N 122°38.83′ W 

48°02.10′ N 122°37.32′ W 

47°58.23′ N 122°34.07′ W 

47°55.83′ N 122°28.80′ W 

47°45.92′ N 122°25.33′ W 

47°39.68′ N 122°26.95′ W 

47°34.65′ N 122°26.18′ W 

47°27.13′ N 122°23.40′ W 

47°23.33′ N 122°20.37′ W 

47°22.67′ N 122°20.53′ W 

47°19.07′ N 122°26.75′ W 

(n) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic that connects with precautionary 

areas ‘‘SC,’’ ‘‘SE,’’ ‘‘SF,’’ ‘‘SG,’’ ‘‘T,’’ and 

‘‘TC,’’ as described in paragraphs (b), (d), 

(f), (h), (j), and (k) of this section, 

respectively, and is located between the 

separation zones described in 

paragraphs (a), (c), (e), (g), (i), and (k) of 

this section, respectively, and a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°10.15′ N 122°47.58′ W 

48°09.35′ N 122°45.55′ W 

48°06.45′ N 122°40.52′ W 

48°01.65′ N 122°30.03′ W 

47°57.47′ N 122°35.45′ W 

47°55.07′ N 122°30.35′ W 

47°45.90′ N 122°27.18′ W 

47°39.70′ N 122°28.78′ W 

47°34.47′ N 122°27.98′ W 

47°26.63′ N 122°25.12′ W 

47°23.25′ N 122°22.42′ W 

47°20.00′ N 122°27.90′ W 

■ 5. Add §§ 167.1330 through 167.1332 

to read as follows: 

§ 167.1330 In Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, 

and the Strait of Georgia: General. 

The traffic separation scheme in Haro 

Strait, Boundary Pass, and the Strait of 

Georgia consists of a series of traffic 

separation schemes, two-way routes, 

and five precautionary areas. These 

parts are described in §§ 167.1331 and 

167.1332. The geographic coordinates in 

§§ 167.1331 and 167.1332 are defined 

using North American Datum (NAD 83). 

§ 167.1331 In Haro Strait and Boundary 

Pass. 

In Haro Strait and Boundary Pass, the 

following are established: 

(a) Precautionary area ‘‘V,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°23.15′ N 123°21.12′ W 

48°23.71′ N 123°23.88′ W 

48°21.83′ N 123°25.56′ W 

48°21.15′ N 123°24.83′ W 

48°20.93′ N 123°24.26′ W 

48°20.93′ N 123°23.22′ W 

48°21.67′ N 123°21.12′ W 

48°23.15′ N 123°21.12′ W 

(b) A separation zone that connects 

with precautionary area ‘‘V,’’ as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, and is bounded by a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°22.25′ N 123°21.12′ W 

48°22.25′ N 123°17.95′ W 

48°23.88′ N 123°13.18′ W 

48°24.30′ N 123°13.00′ W 

48°22.55′ N 123°18.05′ W 

48°22.55′ N 123°21.12′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic 

located between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°21.67′ N 123°21.12′ W 

48°21.67′ N 123°17.70′ W 

48°23.10′ N 123°13.50′ W 

(d) A traffic lane for westbound traffic 

located between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°25.10′ N 123°12.67′ W 

48°23.15′ N 123°18.30′ W 

48°23.15′ N 123°21.12′ W 

(e) Precautionary area ‘‘DI,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°23.10′ N 123°13.50′ W 

48°24.30′ N 123°09.95′ W 

48°26.57′ N 123°09.22′ W 

48°25.10′ N 123°12.67′ W 

48°23.10′ N 123°13.50′ W 

(f) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°25.96′ N 123°10.65′ W 

48°27.16′ N 123°10.25′ W 

48°28.77′ N 123°10.84′ W 

48°29.10′ N 123°11.59′ W 

48°25.69′ N 123°11.28′ W 

(g) A traffic lane for northbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (f) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°26.57′ N 123°09.22′ W 

48°27.86′ N 123°08.81′ W 

(h) A traffic lane for southbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (e) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°29.80′ N 123°13.15′ W 

48°25.10′ N 123°12.67′ W 

(i) Precautionary area ‘‘HS,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°27.86′ N 123°08.81′ W 

48°29.28′ N 123°08.35′ W 

48°30.55′ N 123°10.12′ W 

48°31.60′ N 123°10.65′ W 

48°32.83′ N 123°13.45′ W 

48°29.80′ N 123°13.15′ W 

48°27.86′ N 123°08.81′ W 

(j) A two-way route between the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°31.60′ N 123°10.65′ W 

48°35.21′ N 123°12.61′ W 

48°38.37′ N 123°12.36′ W 

48°39.41′ N 123°13.14′ W 

48°39.41′ N 123°16.06′ W 

48°32.83′ N 123°13.45′ W 

(k) Precautionary area ‘‘TP,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°41.06′ N 123°11.04′ W 

48°42.23′ N 123°11.35′ W 

48°43.80′ N 123°10.77′ W 

48°43.20′ N 123°16.06′ W 

48°39.41′ N 123°16.06′ W 

48°39.32′ N 123°13.14′ W 

48°39.76′ N 123°11.84′ W 

(l) A two-way route between the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°42.23′ N 123°11.35′ W 

48°45.51′ N 123°01.82′ W 

48°47.78′ N 122°59.12′ W 

48°48.19′ N 123°00.84′ W 

48°46.43′ N 123°03.12′ W 

48°43.80′ N 123°10.77′ W 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70831 

§ 167.1332 In the Strait of Georgia. 

In the Strait of Georgia, the following 

are established: 

(a) Precautionary area ‘‘GS,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°52.30′ N 123°07.44′ W 

48°54.81′ N 123°03.66′ W 

48°49.49′ N 122°54.24′ W 

48°47.93′ N 122°57.12′ W 

48°47.78′ N 122°59.12′ W 

48°48.19′ N 123°00.84′ W 

48°52.30′ N 123°07.44′ W 

(b) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°53.89′ N 123°05.04′ W 

48°56.82′ N 123°10.08′ W 

48°56.30′ N 123°10.80′ W 

48°53.39′ N 123°05.70′ W 

(c) A traffic lane for north-westbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°54.81′ N 123°03.66′ W 

48°57.68′ N 123°08.76′ W 

(d) A traffic lane for south-eastbound 

traffic between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°55.34′ N 123°12.30′ W 

48°52.30′ N 123°07.44′ W 

(e) Precautionary area ‘‘PR,’’ which is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

48°55.34′ N 123°12.30′ W 

48°57.68′ N 123°08.76′ W 

49°02.20′ N 123°16.28′ W 

49°00.00′ N 123°19.69′ W 

(f) A separation zone bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

49°01.39′ N 123°17.53′ W 

49°03.84′ N 123°21.30′ W 

49°03.24′ N 123°22.41′ W 

49°00.75′ N 123°18.52′ W 

(g) A traffic lane for north-westbound 

traffic located between the separation 

zone described in paragraph (f) of this 

section and a line connecting the 

following geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

49°02.20′ N 123°16.28′ W 

49°04.52′ N 123°20.04′ W 

(h) A traffic lane for south-eastbound 

traffic between the separation zone 

described in paragraph (f) of this section 

and a line connecting the following 

geographical positions: 

Latitude Longitude 

49°02.51′ N 123°23.76′ W 

49°00.00′ N 123°19.69′ W 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Dana A. Goward, 

U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine 

Transportation Systems Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29165 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 482 and 485 

[CMS–3228–F] 

RIN 0938–AQ06 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs: 

Changes to the Hospital and Critical 

Access Hospital Conditions of 

Participation To Ensure Visitation 

Rights for All Patients 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule will revise the 

Medicare conditions of participation for 

hospitals and critical access hospitals 

(CAHs) to provide visitation rights to 

Medicare and Medicaid patients. 

Specifically, Medicare- and Medicaidparticipating hospitals and CAHs will 

be required to have written policies and 

procedures regarding the visitation 

rights of patients, including those 

setting forth any clinically necessary or 

reasonable restriction or limitation that 

the hospital or CAH may need to place 

on such rights as well as the reasons for 

the clinical restriction or limitation. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on January 18, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Cooper, (410) 786–9465. Danielle 

Shearer, (410) 786–6617. Jeannie Miller, 

(410) 786–3164. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 15, 2010, the President 

issued a Presidential Memorandum on 

Hospital Visitation to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services. The 

memorandum may be viewed on the 

Web at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/presidential- 

/memorandum-/hospital-/visitation. As 

part of the directives of the 

memorandum, the Department, through 

the Office of the Secretary, tasked CMS 

with developing proposed requirements 

for hospitals (including Critical Access 

Hospitals (CAHs)), that would address 

the right of a patient to choose who may 

and may not visit him or her. In the 

memorandum, the President pointed out 

the plight of individuals who are denied 

the comfort of a loved one, whether a 

family member or a close friend, at their 

side during a time of pain or anxiety 

after they are admitted to a hospital. The 

memorandum indicated that these 

individuals are often denied this most 

basic of human needs simply because 

the loved ones who provide them 

comfort and support do not fit into a 

traditional concept of ‘‘family.’’ 

Section 1861(e)(1) through (9) of the 

Social Security Act—(1) Defines the 

term’’hospital’’; (2) lists the statutory 

requirements that a hospital must meet 

to be eligible for Medicare participation; 

and (3) specifies that a hospital must 

also meet other requirements as the 

Secretary finds necessary in the interest 

of the health and safety of individuals 

who are furnished services in the 

facility. Under this authority, the 

Secretary has established in the 

regulations at 42 CFR part 482 the 

requirements that a hospital must meet 

in order to participate in the Medicare 

program. This authority extends as well 

to the separate requirements that a CAH 

must also meet to participate in the 

Medicare program, established in the 

regulations at 42 CFR part 485. 

Additionally, section 1820 of the Act 

sets forth the conditions for designating 

certain hospitals as CAHs. Section 

1905(a) of the Act provides that 

Medicaid payments may be applied to 

hospital services. Regulations at 42 CFR 

440.10(a)(3)(iii) require hospitals to 

meet the Medicare CoPs to receive 

payment under States’ Medicaid 

programs. 

While the existing hospital conditions 

of participation (CoPs) in our 

regulations at 42 CFR part 482 do not 

address patient visitation rights 

specifically, there is a specific CoP 

regarding the overall rights of hospital 

patients contained in § 482.13. We note 

that the existing CoPs for CAHs in our 

regulations do not address patient rights 

in any form. The hospital CoP for 

patient rights at § 482.13 specifically 

requires hospitals to—(1) Inform each 

patient or, when appropriate, the 

patient’s representative (as allowed 

under State law) of the patient’s rights; 

(2) ensure the patient’s right to 

participate in the development and 

implementation of the plan of care; (3) 

ensure the patient’s (or his or her 

representative’s) right to make informed 

decisions about care; (4) ensure the 

patient’s right to formulate advance 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES