Anchorage Regulations; Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, CA

<RULE> DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY <SUBAGY>Coast Guard</SUBAGY> <CFR>33 CFR Part 110</CFR> <DEPDOC>[Docket Number USCG-2023-0868]</DEPDOC> <RIN>RIN 1625-AA01</RIN> <SUBJECT>Anchorage Regulations; Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, CA</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Coast Guard, DHS. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Coast Guard is amending the anchorage regulations for Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. This action would amend Anchorages F and G, and update anchorage usage and communication requirements. The purpose of this final rule is to improve navigation safety by modifying Anchorage F and G to accommodate an increased volume of vessel traffic and larger vessels calling on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and alleviate vessels anchoring near a subsea pipeline. </SUM> <DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> This rule is effective October 9, 2025. </DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov</E> , type USCG-2023-0868 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, in the Document Type column, select “Supporting & Related Material.” <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Rubymar Sebastian-Echevarria at Southwest District Waterways, Coast Guard; telephone (571) 613-2930 or (206) 820-5620, email <E T="03">D11waterways@uscg.mil.</E> </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Table of Abbreviations</HD> <EXTRACT> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">CFR Code of Federal Regulations</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">DHS Department of Homeland Security</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">FR Federal Register</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">OMB Office of Management and Budget</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">§ Section </FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">U.S.C. United States Code</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">VMRS Vessel Movement Reporting System</FP> </EXTRACT> <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Background Information and Regulatory History</HD> On April 23, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage Regulations; Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California (89 FR 30299). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this amendment. During the comment period that ended July 22, 2024, we received three (03) comments. <HD SOURCE="HD1">III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule</HD> The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70006 <E T="03"> and 70034,</E> 33 CFR 109.05, 33 CFR 1.05-1, and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1 Revision 01.3, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds. Under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) §§ 1.05-1 and 109.05, U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders are delegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard established Anchorage Grounds under Title 33 CFR CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGD11-04-005, 71 FR 15036, Mar. 27, 2006. The purpose of this rule is to improve navigational safety and update anchorage usage and communication requirements. <HD SOURCE="HD1">IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule</HD> As noted above, we received three comments on the NPRM published April 23, 2024. Two comments were submitted to the docket. One commenter supported with the NPRM and stated that this action would enhance the safety and usability of the anchorages. Another commenter stated that Anchorage F and G positions do not align with the initial submissions from the COTP and briefed to the Harbor Safety Committee. Additionally, the commenter suggested that in Table 11 to paragraph (c), Anchorage A should be deleted because Anchorage A was replaced with Pier 400. Lastly, the commenter suggested that Table 11 to paragraph (c), note “d”: 33 CFR 165.1109(e) should be replaced with 33 CFR 165.1152. As discussed below, the Coast Guard revised the regulatory text of this rule based on this feedback. The third commenter emailed us to provide the comment. The commenter mentioned they would “greatly appreciate it if the Coast Guard could confirm those updated coordinates with the Vessel Traffic Service LA-LB once finalized,” and that the “Coast Guard reconsider language that insinuates the rule would support “increased volume of vessel traffic.” We confirmed the coordinates for the location of these anchorages with the Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) prior to publishing this rule. However, we disagree with the assertion that the description of our proposed rule insinuates anything about vessel traffic volumes. This rule amends the boundaries and anchorage requirements for Anchorages F and G in Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. Changes in global demand patterns and supply chain disruptions have contributed to port congestion and increased usage of Anchorages F and G. Due to economies of scale, vessels calling on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have increased in size and require more surface area for anchoring and maneuvering. Additionally, a subsea pipeline is located less than one nautical mile from the anchorages. For these reasons, the Coast Guard is publishing this rule to expand the distance between anchorages and require vessels greater than 1600 gross tons to place their propulsion plants in standby and have a second anchor ready to let go when forecasted and/or observed wind speeds and gusts are 35 knots or greater. This rule requirement is needed to prevent vessels from dragging anchor and to prevent harm to vessels, the port, and the environment. The regulation would update port, pilot, and communication information to maintain proactive anchorage management. In response to comments, we removed the line in Table 11 to paragraph (c) to Anchorage A as suggested by the commenter. Anchorage A was removed on January 2, 2015 (79 FR 71654) and this line is no longer necessary. Additionally, we updated the formatting of the coordinates to match what is currently in other parts of the CFR. In addition to the changes made in response to public comments, we made two additional changes. First, we discovered that Note “d” to Table 11 to paragraph (c) contained an outdated cross-reference to § 165.1109(e). Section 165.1109 was redesignated as § 165.1152 on June 30, 2001 (66 FR 33637). We have corrected that reference here. Second, we changed the reference from Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) to VMRS to correctly refer to the system and align with 33 CFR 161.12. While technically a VMRS, it's common parlance to refer to them as “VTS LA-LB.” The specific anchorage boundaries and amendments are described in detail in the proposed regulatory text at the end of the document. <HD SOURCE="HD1">V. Regulatory Analyses</HD> We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Regulatory Planning and Review</HD> Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). <HD SOURCE="HD2">B. Impact on Small Entities</HD> 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. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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. <HD SOURCE="HD2">C. Collection of Information</HD> This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). <HD SOURCE="HD2">D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments</HD> A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. 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. <HD SOURCE="HD2">E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act</HD> 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 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 20k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━