Document ID: USCG-2011-0348-0013
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: SNPRM:  Anchorages: Change to Cottonwood Island Anchorage, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington (Federal Register Publication)
Posted Date: 2012-05-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30440-30443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0348]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage; Change to Cottonwood Island Anchorage, Columbia River, 
Oregon and Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its proposed rule to increase the 
availability of designated anchorages on the Columbia River. In 
response to comments on its prior proposal, the Coast Guard proposes a 
smaller extension of the Cottonwood Island Anchorage than that 
originally proposed, and the creation of a new anchorage area upriver 
from the center of the City of Prescott, OR.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0348 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 proposed 
rule, call or email ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Branch, 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland; telephone 503-240-9319, email 
Ian.P.McPhillips@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

[[Page 30441]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0348), 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 (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received 
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you 
fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered as 
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the 
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and 
a mailing address, an email 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, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert ``USCG-2011-0348'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter, 
and 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 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments 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 the rule 
based on your comments.

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, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0348'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit 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, 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.

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).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please 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.

Basis and Purpose

    The Captain of the Port Columbia River believes that the size of 
the Cottonwood Island Anchorage is insufficient as currently 
established based on both the current demand for anchorage grounds and 
the forecasted growth of vessel traffic on the Columbia River. 
Sufficient anchorage area, both in number and size, is especially 
important in this area because of the unpredictable hazardous 
conditions of the Columbia River Bar, which at times prevents vessels 
from safely navigating downriver. This rule would increase the size of 
the current Cottonwood Island Anchorage and create a new anchorage on 
the Columbia River.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    In June of 2011 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (NPRM) that proposed the expansion of the Cottonwood Island 
Anchorage to river mile 72-26. This NPRM received a total of eleven 
comments. Nine comments were made in support of the new change to the 
Cottonwood Island Anchorage area. Two comments, made by a consortium of 
local land owners, expressed concerns that vessels anchoring in the 
parts of the proposed anchorage near residential areas ashore could 
negatively impact air quality, noise levels, and property values. The 
distance between the shore-side boundary of the anchorage and the shore 
in this residential area is less than 70 feet.
    To address the stated issues the Coast Guard proposes a smaller 
extension of the Cottonwood Island Anchorage than that originally 
proposed and the creation of a new anchorage area upriver from the 
center of the City of Prescott, OR. The resulting anchorage grounds 
would not include the waters off of the residential areas that prompted 
the two comments by land owners.
    This revised proposed rule would extend the east side of the 
existing Cottonwood Island Anchorage to river mile 71-08. The newly 
created Prescott Anchorage would be located between the Oregon side of 
the Columbia River channel and the Oregon shore. It would extend 
approximately from river mile 72-05 to river mile 72-26.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The proposed rule is not 
significant because the modification of the existing anchorage and 
establishment of a new anchorage area should not have any significant 
costs or impacts on maritime activities associated with it.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small

[[Page 30442]]

entities because the modification of an existing anchorage and the 
creation of a new anchorage does not have any significant costs or 
impacts on maritime activities associated with it.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the Waterways Management Branch, 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland, Oregon, telephone 503-240-
9319. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 0023.1 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a 
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary 
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed 
rule involves increasing the size of an anchorage and creating a new 
anchorage area, which is categorically excluded, under Figure 2-1, 
paragraph 34(f) of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information 
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact 
from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 
33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  110.228(a)(10) and (11) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.228  Columbia River, Oregon and Washington.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Cottonwood Island Anchorage. The waters of the Columbia River 
bounded by a line connecting the following points:

46[deg]05'56.88'' N                  122[deg]56'53.19'' W
46[deg]05'14.06'' N                  122[deg]54'45.71'' W

[[Page 30443]]

 
46[deg]04'57.12'' N                  122[deg]54'12.41'' W
46[deg]04'37.55'' N                  122[deg]53'45.80'' W
46[deg]04'13.72'' N                  122[deg]53'23.66'' W
46[deg]03'54.94'' N                  122[deg]53'11.81'' W
46[deg]03'34.96'' N                  122[deg]53'03.17'' W
46[deg]03'11.61'' N                  122[deg]52'56.29'' W
46[deg]03'10.94'' N                  122[deg]53'10.55'' W
46[deg]03'32.06'' N                  122[deg]53'19.69'' W
46[deg]03'50.84'' N                  122[deg]53'27.81'' W
46[deg]04'08.10'' N                  122[deg]53'38.70'' W
46[deg]04'29.41'' N                  122[deg]53'58.17'' W
46[deg]04'49.89'' N                  122[deg]54'21.57'' W
46[deg]05'06.95'' N                  122[deg]54'50.65'' W
46[deg]05'49.77'' N                  122[deg]56'58.12'' W
 

    (11) Prescott Anchorage. The waters of the Columbia River bounded 
by a line connecting the following points:

46[deg]02'47.01'' N                  122[deg]52'53.90'' W
46[deg]02'26.32'' N                  122[deg]52'51.89'' W
46[deg]02'25.92'' N                  122[deg]53'00.38'' W
46[deg]02'46.54'' N                  122[deg]53'03.87'' W
 

* * * * *

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
 A.T. Ewalt,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2012-12456 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P