( printed page 36535)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COTP Captain of the Port

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background and Authority

The Coast Guard is reducing the Longview anchorage to accommodate the Longview Channel realignment in the Columbia River, initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a thorough Longview Channel realignment assessment project. This project was initiated to realign the channel to allow commercial vessels to safely navigate under the Longview bridge at its maximum clearance. This realignment requires the Longview anchorage to be modified, reducing its total area. On January 26, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage Grounds; Columbia River, Longview, Oregon and Washington (91 FR 3094). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this anchorage ground.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rulemaking under authorities in 33 U.S.C. 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70006 and 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.

III. Discussion of Comments and the Rule

During the comment period that ended on February 25, 2026, we received three comments. The comments received were generally supportive of the rule change. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule reduces the Longview anchorage to accommodate the Longview Channel realignment in the Columbia River to allow commercial vessels to safely navigate under the Longview bridge at its maximum clearance.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 for the following reasons. Vessels will be able to safely navigate the channel while retaining the ability anchor in the modified anchorage ground.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

B. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

C. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

E. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is an anchorage ground. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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