Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is enlarging the current anchorage area outside the Federal breakwater of the Ports of Los Angeles—Long Beach, CA. This rule is necessary in order to accommodate the ever-increasing number of larger vessels necessitating anchorage and will provide vessels an appropriate area to anchor.
This rule is effective February 21, 2006.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD11-04-007 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Peter Gooding, USCG, Chief of the Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On November 5, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Anchorage Regulations: San Pedro Bay, CA in the Federal Register (69 FR 64549). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
Ships of increasing size are calling on the Ports of Los Angeles—Long Beach. While in an anchorage area, these larger ships require watch circles of 1500 yards in diameter. Currently, the anchorage area outside the federal breakwater is made up of watch circles 1000 yards in diameter. An increase in the anchorage boundary will allow three additional anchorages for vessels with watch circles of 1500 yards in diameter.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no comments on this rule and has not changed the regulations from the published NPRM.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposal will impose no cost on vessel operators, and have minimal impact to vessel traffic.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will possibly affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected area. The impact to these entities would not, however, be significant since this zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and vessels can safely navigate around the anchored vessels. Additionally, large passenger vessels already routinely anchor within the anchorage areas.
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 the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. However, we received no requests for assistance from any small entities.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
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).
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.
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 Start Printed Page 3002$100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This 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 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.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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.
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.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it changes the size of an existing anchorage.
A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Amend § 110.214 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(b) * * *
(6) Commercial Anchorage F (outside of Long Beach Breakwater). The waters southeast of the Long Beach Breakwater bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates:
|Beginning point||33 deg.−43′−05.1″ N||118 deg.−07′−59.0″ W.|
|Thence west to||33 deg.−43′−05.1″ N||118 deg.−10′−36.5″ W.|
|Thence south/southeast to||33 deg.−38′−17.5″ N||118 deg.−07′−00.0″ W.|
|Thence north/northeast to||33 deg.−40′−23.0″ N||118 deg.−06′−03.0″ W.|
|And thence north/northwest to the beginning point|
Dated: January 9, 2006.
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 06-497 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P