Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the "Public Participation and Request for Comments" portion of the
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, 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 at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
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
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a request for a public meeting by November 13, 2012 using one of the methods specified under
The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds. The 1976 Puget Sound Area Anchorages rulemaking defined 11 general and explosive anchorages within greater Puget Sound area. These areas are described using geographic points of land and bearings and ranges as the boundaries. This rule proposes to update existing anchorages to describe areas using points of latitude and longitude, which, with the advent of Global Positioning System (GPS), is much more practical and accurate for the mariner. Additionally, changes to shore side infrastructure, safety and security zones, and environmentally sensitive areas have made some of the anchorage boundaries impractical, such that the listed boundaries no longer reflect the actual anchorages as used today. This rule addresses these changes by reducing the size of specified anchorages.
This proposed rule would change the descriptions of the following anchorages to points of latitude and longitude, but does not change their actual area and location:
In addition, we propose to update the following anchorages' datum from NAD 27 to NAD 83: Cherry Point General Anchorage, Bellingham Bay General and Explosives Anchorages, Port Townsend Explosives Anchorages, and Commencement Bay General Anchorage. The datum transposition was done using the National Geodetic Survey's NADCON Program Version 2.11 found at
Finally, the following anchorage areas would remain unchanged: Anacortes General Anchorages, Cap Sante Tug and Barge General Anchorage, and Hat Island Tug and Barge General Anchorage.
This proposed rule would reduce the size of the following anchorages.
The proposed rule would rename 33 CFR 110.230 to “Anchorages, Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA” to better describe the area which is incorporated by this regulation. Additionally, the proposed rule would incorporate into § 110.230 the non-anchorage area contained in 33 CFR 110.229, and update the coordinates to datum NAD 1983. Having two separate regulations for the same COTP zone creates unnecessary redundancy and confusion that can be eliminated by incorporating all anchorages into one regulation.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We do not expect this proposed rule to have significant impact because it is administrative in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterway.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and adjoining waters. Because the contemplated changes would be minimal in nature and would not alter current navigational practices on the affected waterway, the proposed rule will not have 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 would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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
This proposed rule would 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 involves administrative changes to an anchorage regulation that either do not change the size of existing anchorage areas, or make some anchorage areas smaller.
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Remove § 110.229.
3. Revise § 110.230 to read as follows:
(i) This anchorage may only be assigned to vessels experiencing an emergency that requires anchoring. Vessel emergencies include equipment failures, cargo securing, etc. Vessels requiring a customs inspection will not be allowed to anchor in this area.
(i) Smith Cove West General Anchorage. All waters inside the area beginning at latitude 47°38′20.44″ N, longitude 122°24′48.56″ W; thence 207°T to latitude 47°37′51.6″ N, longitude 122°25′10.5″ W; thence 124°T to latitude 47°36′56.2″ N, longitude 122°23′07″ W; thence 000°T to latitude 47°37′59.5″ N, longitude 122°23′07″ W; thence northwest along the shoreline to the point of origin.
(i) No vessel may anchor in this non-anchorage area at any time.
(ii) Dragging, seining, fishing, or other activities which may foul underwater installations within this non-anchorage area are prohibited.
(iii) Vessels may transit this non-anchorage area, but must proceed by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay.
The city of Port Angeles will mark this area with signs on the shoreline visible (during normal daylight) 1 mile to seaward reading, “Do not Anchor in This Area.″
(b) * * *