Port Access Routes Study: In the Waters of Montauk Channel and Block Island Sound, 38061-38064 [05-13066]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State or local tribal governments or
communities. Therefore, a detailed costbenefit assessment of the regulation is
not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains no new
information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commission, in accordance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
606(b)), has reviewed this regulation
and by approving it certifies that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule will not result in
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1610
Freedom of information.
For the Commission.
Cari M. Dominguez,
Chair.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, EEOC proposes to
amend 29 CFR part 1610 as follows:
PART 1610—AVAILABILITY OF
RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 1610
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000e–12(a), 5 U.S.C.
552 as amended by Pub. L. 93–502, Pub. L.
99–570, and Pub. L. 105–231; for § 1610.15,
non-search or copy portions are issued under
31 U.S.C. 9701.
2. Section 1610.1 is amended by
adding paragraphs (e) through (i) as
follows:
§ 1610.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Direct costs refers to those
expenses that EEOC actually incurs in
searching for and duplicating (and, in
the case of commercial requesters,
reviewing) records to respond to a
request. Direct costs include, for
example, the salary of the employee
performing the work (the basic rate of
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:07 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
pay for the employee plus 16 percent of
that rate to cover benefits) and the cost
of operating duplicating machinery. Not
included in direct costs are overhead
expenses such as costs of space and
heating or lighting of the facility in
which the records are stored.
(f) Search refers to the time spent
looking for and retrieving material that
is responsive to a request. It includes
page-by-page or line-by-line
identification of information within
documents and also includes reasonable
efforts to locate and retrieve information
from records maintained in electronic
formats. EEOC employees should ensure
that searching for materials is done in
the most efficient and least expensive
manner reasonably possible. For
example, employees shall not search
line-by-line when merely duplicating a
document would be quicker and less
expensive.
(g) Duplication refers to the process of
making a copy of a record or document
necessary to respond to a FOIA request.
Such copies can take the form of paper
copy, microform, audio-visual materials,
electronic formats (for example
magnetic tape or disk), among others.
Employees shall honor a requester’s
specified preference of format of
disclosure if the record is readily
reproducible with reasonable efforts in
the requested form by the office
responding to the request.
(h) Attestation refers to the
authentication of copies of Commission
documents by an affidavit or unsworn
declaration from the records custodian
without the Commission Seal.
(i) Certification refers to the
authentication of copies of Commission
documents by an affidavit or unsworn
declaration from the records custodian
under the Commission Seal.
3. Revise § 1610.15(c) to read as
follows:
§ 1610.15 Schedule of fees and method of
payment for services rendered.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Except as otherwise provided, the
following specific fees for direct costs
shall be applicable with respect to
services rendered to members of the
public under this subpart:
(1) For manual search and review
time:
(i) By clerical personnel—at the rate
of $5.00 per quarter hour.
(ii) By paralegals—at the rate of $9.00
per quarter hour.
(iii) By professional personnel—at the
rate of $10.00 per quarter hour.
(iv) By managers—at the rate of
$17.50 per quarter hour.
(v) By SES employees—at the rate of
$20.00 per quarter hour.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38061
(2) For computer searches of records,
requesters will be charged at the actual
direct cost of providing the service. This
includes the operator/programmer
salary apportionable to the search based
on the rates listed in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section.
(3) For copies made by photocopy—
$0.15 per page (maximum of 10 copies).
For copies prepared by computer, such
as tapes or printouts, EEOC will charge
the direct cost incurred by the agency,
including operator time. For other forms
of duplication, EEOC will charge the
actual costs of that duplication.
(4) For attestation of documents—
$25.00 per authenticating affidavit or
declaration. Additionally, there may be
search and review charges assessed in
accordance with the rates listed in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(5) For certification of documents—
$50.00 per authenticating affidavit or
declaration. Additionally, there may be
search and review charges assessed in
accordance with the rates listed in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(6) For each signed statement of
negative result of search for record—
$10.00. Additionally, there may be
search charges assessed in accordance
with the rates listed in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section.
(7) For retrieval of records from a
Federal Records Center—the amount
charged to EEOC for retrieval of such
records.
(8) All other direct costs of search,
review, duplication or delivery (other
than normal mail), shall be charged to
the requester as appropriate in the same
amount as incurred by the agency.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–12979 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[USCG–2005–21650]
Port Access Routes Study: In the
Waters of Montauk Channel and Block
Island Sound
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of study; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
conducting a Port Access Route Study
(PARS) to evaluate the applicability of
and the need for modifications to
current vessel routing measures in the
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
38062
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
approaches to Block Island Sound,
between Montauk Channel and The
Race, and the area from the Point Judith
Pilot Boarding area to The Race. The
goal of the study is to help reduce the
risk of marine casualties and increase
the efficiency of vessel traffic
management in the study area. The
recommendations of the study may lead
to future rulemaking action or
appropriate international agreements.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before August 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2005–21650 to the
Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001.
(3) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the
Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is 202–366–
9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice of
study, call Lieutenant Junior Grade
Brian Jeffery, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District, telephone 617–223–
8348, or send email to
bjeffery@d1.uscg.mil; or call Lieutenant
Andrea Logman, Waterways
Management Branch Chief, Coast Guard
Group/MSO Long Island Sound,
telephone 203–468–4429, or send e-mail
to alogman@grumsolis.uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Andrea M.
Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this study by submitting comments and
related materials. All comments
received will be posted, without change,
to https://dms.dot.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to use the Docket Management Facility.
Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’
paragraph below.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:07 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this notice of study (USCG–2005–
21650), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit your comments and material by
only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them 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.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time and
conduct a simple search using the
docket number. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in room
PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all 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 the Department of
Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Definitions
The following definitions are from the
International Maritime Organization’s
(IMO’s) publication ‘‘Ships’ Routeing’’
(except those marked by an asterisk) and
should help you review this notice:
Area to be avoided or ATBA means a
routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits in which either
navigation is particularly hazardous or
it is exceptionally important to avoid
casualties and which should be avoided
by all ships, or certain classes of ships.
Deep-water route is a route within
defined limits, which has been
accurately surveyed for clearance of sea
bottom, and submerged obstacles as
indicated on nautical charts.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Inshore traffic zone is a routing
measure comprising a designated area
between the landward boundary of a
traffic separation scheme and the
adjacent coast, to be used in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 10(d), as
amended, of the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972 (COLREGS).
Precautionary area means a routing
measure comprising an area within
defined limits where ships must
navigate with particular caution and
within which the direction of traffic
flow may be recommended.
Recommended route means a route of
undefined width, for the convenience of
ships in transit, which is often marked
by centerline buoys.
Recommended track is a route which
has been specifically examined to
ensure so far as possible that it is free
of dangers and along which ships are
advised to navigate.
Regulated Navigation Area or RNA* is
a water area within a defined boundary
for which regulations for vessels
navigating within the area have been
established under 33 CFR part 165.
Roundabout means a routing measure
comprising a separation point or
circular separation zone and a circular
traffic lane within defined limits. Traffic
within the roundabout is separated by
moving in a counterclockwise direction
around the separation point or zone.
Separation Zone or Separation line
means a zone or line separating the
traffic lanes in which ships are
proceeding in opposite or nearly
opposite directions; or from the adjacent
sea area; or separating traffic lanes
designated for particular classes of ships
proceeding in the same direction.
Traffic lane means an area within
defined limit in which one-way traffic is
established. Natural obstacles, including
those forming separation zones, may
constitute a boundary.
Traffic Separation Scheme or TSS
means a routing measure aimed at the
separation of opposing streams of traffic
by appropriate means and by the
establishment of traffic lanes.
Two-way route means a route within
defined limits inside which two-way
traffic is established, aimed at providing
safe passage of ships through waters
where navigation is difficult or
dangerous.
Vessel routing system means any
system of one or more routes or routing
measures aimed at reducing the risk of
casualties; it includes traffic separation
schemes, two-way routes, recommended
tracks, areas to be avoided, inshore
traffic zones, roundabouts,
precautionary areas, and deep-water
routes.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Background and Purpose
Why are port access route studies
required? Under the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33
U.S.C. 1223(c)), the Commandant of the
Coast Guard may designate necessary
fairways and traffic separation schemes
(TSSs) to provide safe access routes for
vessels proceeding to and from U.S.
ports. The designation of fairways and
TSSs recognizes the paramount right of
navigation over all other uses in the
designated areas.
The PWSA requires the Coast Guard
to conduct a study of port access routes
before establishing or adjusting fairways
or TSSs. Through the study process, we
must coordinate with Federal, State, and
foreign state agencies (as appropriate)
and consider the views of maritime
community representatives,
environmental groups, and other
interested stakeholders. A primary
purpose of this coordination is, to the
extent practicable, to reconcile the need
for safe access routes with other
reasonable waterway uses.
Were there previous port access route
studies? The area (known as Area 5a of
the original PARS), which included
Long Island Sound, was last studied in
1980, and the final results of the study
were published in the Federal Register
on October 5, 1981 (46 FR 49035). The
study of area 5a concluded that no
routing measures were necessary within
the study area, including Long Island
Sound.
Why is a new port access route study
necessary? Subsequent to an oil spill in
Buzzards Bay in April 2003, the Coast
Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways
Safety Assessment (PAWSA). One
PAWSA recommendation was to
establish a recommended route to help
assist vessel traffic and provide safer
transit routes for commercial vessels. In
response to the PAWSA a domestic
recommended route from Cleveland
Ledge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts to
The Race was developed by the Coast
Guard and subsequently charted by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) as a
recommended vessel route. This
recommended vessel route has never
been submitted to the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) for
approval. Our own requirements
stipulate that prior to submitting vessel
routing measures to IMO for approval,
we conduct a PARS. Therefore, we
announced in the Federal Register that
we would conduct a PARS for the
Approaches to Narragansett Bay and
Buzzards Bay, Cleveland Ledge to The
Race, Narragansett Bay East Passage and
the Areas Offshore of Connecticut,
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:07 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (68 FR
74199, December 23, 2003). Final results
of the PARS are pending and will be
published in the Federal Register when
finalized.
In addition, the First Coast Guard
District published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on
October 26, 2004 (69 FR 62427) for
Navigation and Waterways Management
Improvements, Buzzards Bay, MA. The
ANPRM is seeking comments on the
merits of formally designating the
recommended vessel route within
Buzzards Bay, as well as amending a
First Coast Guard District regulated
navigation area to require tug escorts for
all tank barges transiting Buzzards Bay,
MA. The PARS and the ANPRM did not
include the waters of western Block
Island Sound extending from Montauk
Channel to The Race.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP) Long Island Sound was asked to
consider implementing recommended
vessel routes from Montauk Channel to
a point south of Watch Hill, Rhode
Island, then running westerly to The
Race. These proposed routes would
converge with the recommended vessel
route from Cleveland Ledge to The Race.
Vessels transiting to ports in Long
Island Sound or transiting Long Island
Sound on voyages to or from the Port of
New York utilize one of two routes
encompassed in this new study. The
first route runs from the Point Judith
Pilot Boarding area through Block Island
Sound to The Race; the second includes
the waters of Montauk Channel north
through Block Island Sound to a point
south of Watch Hill, Rhode Island, then
westerly to The Race.
The areas of study experience high
traffic density and multiple uses.
Montauk Channel is commonly used by
ocean-going vessels with drafts less than
38 feet, large numbers of commercial
fishing and recreational vessels, and
military vessels. Heavy recreational
traffic and commercial ferries that run
from New London, Connecticut, to
Block Island, Rhode Island, cross Block
Island Sound. Significant tug and barge
traffic carrying petroleum products and
deeper draft tank vessels heading for
ports within Long Island Sound or the
Port of New York also utilize this route,
presenting higher potential for adverse
impact to the marine environment due
to an oil spill.
The areas of study also correspond to
vessel routes utilized by vessels
embarking a pilot. Vessels transiting
Long Island Sound, irrespective of
destination, may utilize either a New
York or Connecticut-licensed pilot. Both
the New York Board of Commissioners
for Pilots and the Connecticut
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38063
Department of Transportation have
designated two pilot boarding areas
corresponding to the routes utilized by
vessels. Vessels entering Long Island
Sound must utilize one of two pilot
boarding areas to board or disembark a
pilot: the Point Judith Pilot Boarding
Area, located South of Point Judith,
Rhode Island, and the Montauk
Boarding area, located off of Montauk
Point, New York.
Long Island Sound receives
approximately 750 foreign flag vessel
arrivals per year. Of these, over 500 are
tank vessels carrying petroleum
products. In addition, there are
approximately 1500 tug and barge
transits through Long Island Sound per
year, all of which utilize one of the two
routes being examined in this study.
Vessels with a draft less than 38 feet
may utilize Montauk Channel or Block
Island Sound en route to Long Island
Sound via The Race.
This PARS is also significant due to
the potential increase in vessel traffic
due to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
vessels transiting the area for Long
Island Sound. Broadwater Energy, Inc.
recently notified the COTP Long Island
Sound of its intent to construct a
floating liquefied natural gas (LNG)
storage and regassification facility
within Long Island Sound. If permitted
for construction, the facility is expected
to be operational by 2010, and it is
projected it would receive between 110
and 160 LNG vessels per year. The
loaded draft of typical LNG vessels is
between 36 and 39 feet (11 to 12
meters). Under 33 CFR 127.009, the
Coast Guard is required to conduct an
analysis of the suitability of a waterway
for LNG marine traffic. The results of
this PARS will contribute to that
suitability analysis, which will occur
later in the LNG permitting process.
This study is also necessary due to
projected increases in vessel traffic and
to ensure any routing measures that may
be considered for the area from Montauk
Point through Block Island to The Race
are consistent with measures
implemented from Point Judith to The
Race. Although this study overlaps the
PARS for Narragansett Bay and the
ANPRM for Narragansett Bay, this
overlap is required due to the potential
for LNG vessel traffic through the study
area.
What are the timeline, study area, and
process of this PARS? The First Coast
Guard District will conduct this PARS.
The study will begin immediately and
we anticipate the study will take 6 to 12
months to complete.
The study area includes the
approaches to Block Island Sound,
between Montauk Channel and The
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
38064
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Race, and the area from Point Judith
Pilot Boarding area to The Race.
As part of this study, we will consider
previous studies, analyses of vessel
traffic density, and agency and
stakeholder experience in vessel traffic
management, navigation, vessel
handling, and effects of weather. We
encourage you to participate in the
study process by submitting comments
in response to this notice.
We will publish the results of the
PARS in the Federal Register. It is
possible that the study may validate
continued applicability of existing
vessel routing measures and conclude
that no changes are necessary. It is also
possible that the study may recommend
one or more changes to enhance
navigational safety and vessel traffic
management efficiency. Study
recommendations may lead to future
rulemakings or appropriate
international agreements.
3. Are modifications to existing vessel
routing measures needed to address
hazards and strains and to improve
traffic management efficiency in the
study area? If so, please describe.
4. What costs and benefits are
associated with the measures listed as
potential study recommendations? What
measures do you think are most costeffective?
5. What impacts, both positive and
negative, would changes to existing
routing measures or new routing
measures have on the study area?
6. What impacts would routing
measures implemented in the study area
have on vessels transiting in waters
adjacent to the study area, such as in
Long Island Sound?
Possible Scope of the Recommendations
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
We are attempting to determine the
scope of any safety problems associated
with vessel transits in the study area.
We expect that information gathered
during the study will identify any
problems and appropriate solutions.
The study may recommend that we—
• Maintain the current vessel routing
measures;
• Establish a deep-water route;
• Establish recommended routes;
• Create precautionary area(s);
• Create one or more inshore traffic
zone(s);
• Establish two-way routes;
• Establish an area to be avoided
(ATBA) in shallow areas where the risk
of grounding is present;
• Establish, disestablish, or modify
anchorage grounds; and
• Establish a Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA) with specific vessel
operating requirements to ensure safe
navigation near shallow water.
Questions
To help us conduct the port access
route study, we request comments on
the following questions, although
comments on other issues addressed in
this document are also welcome. In
responding to a question, please explain
your reasons for each answer, and
follow the instructions under ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ above.
1. What navigational hazards do
vessels operating in the study area face?
Please describe.
2. Are there strains on the current
vessel routing system (increasing traffic
density, for example)? If so, please
describe.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:07 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: June 23, 2005.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 05–13066 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ–092–132; FRL–7931–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans for Arizona;
Maricopa County PM–10
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan
for Attainment of the 24-Hour and
Annual PM–10 Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On July 25, 2002, EPA
approved under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) the serious area particulate
matter (PM–10) plan for the Maricopa
County portion of the metropolitan
Phoenix (Arizona) nonattainment area
(Maricopa County area). Among other
things, EPA approved the best available
control measure (BACM) and most
stringent measure (MSM)
demonstrations in the plan and granted
the State’s request for an attainment
date extension for the area. EPA’s
approval was challenged in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In response to the Court’s remand, EPA
has reassessed the BACM demonstration
for the significant source categories of
on-road motor vehicles and nonroad
engines and equipment exhaust,
specifically regarding whether or not
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
diesel is a BACM. EPA has also
reassessed the MSM demonstration. As
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a result of these reassessments, EPA is
again proposing to approve the BACM
and MSM demonstrations in the plan
and to grant the State’s request to extend
the attainment deadline from 2001 to
2006.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
August 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Carol
Weisner, Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901 or e-mail to
weisner.carol@epa.gov, or submit
comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
You can inspect copies of the
submitted state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions, EPA’s technical support
document (TSD), and public comments
at our Region IX office during normal
business hours by appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Weisner, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4107, weisner.carol@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Background
On July 25, 2002, EPA approved
multiple documents submitted to EPA
by Arizona for the Maricopa County
area as meeting the CAA requirements
for serious PM–10 nonattainment areas
for the 24-hour and annual PM–10
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Among these documents is
the ‘‘Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area
Particulate Plan for PM–10 for the
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,’’
February 2000 (MAG plan) that includes
the BACM demonstrations for all
significant source categories (except
agriculture) for both the 24-hour and
annual PM–10 standards and the State’s
request and supporting documentation,
including the most stringent measure
analysis (except for agriculture) for an
attainment date extension for both
standards. EPA’s July 25, 2002 final
action included approval of these
elements of the MAG plan.1
The Arizona Center for Law in the
Public Interest (ACLPI), on behalf of
Phoenix area residents, subsequently
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit a petition for review of
EPA’s approval of several elements in
the MAG plan. As relevant to this
proposed rule, ACLPI asserted that
EPA’s approval was arbitrary and
capricious because the plan did not
1 For a detailed discussion of the MAG plan and
the serious area PM–10 requirements, please see
EPA’s proposed and final approval actions at 65 FR
19964 (April 13, 2000), 66 FR 50252 (October 2,
2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38061-38064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13066]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[USCG-2005-21650]
Port Access Routes Study: In the Waters of Montauk Channel and
Block Island Sound
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to evaluate the applicability of and the need for modifications to
current vessel routing measures in the
[[Page 38062]]
approaches to Block Island Sound, between Montauk Channel and The Race,
and the area from the Point Judith Pilot Boarding area to The Race. The
goal of the study is to help reduce the risk of marine casualties and
increase the efficiency of vessel traffic management in the study area.
The recommendations of the study may lead to future rulemaking action
or appropriate international agreements.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before August 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2005-21650 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of study, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Brian Jeffery, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, telephone 617-223-8348, or send email to
bjeffery@d1.uscg.mil; or call Lieutenant Andrea Logman, Waterways
Management Branch Chief, Coast Guard Group/MSO Long Island Sound,
telephone 203-468-4429, or send e-mail to alogman@grumsolis.uscg.mil.
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please
see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your
name and address, identify the docket number for this notice of study
(USCG-2005-21650), indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You
may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax,
or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or 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 them 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.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using
the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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 the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Definitions
The following definitions are from the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO's) publication ``Ships' Routeing'' (except those
marked by an asterisk) and should help you review this notice:
Area to be avoided or ATBA means a routing measure comprising an
area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly
hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and
which should be avoided by all ships, or certain classes of ships.
Deep-water route is a route within defined limits, which has been
accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom, and submerged
obstacles as indicated on nautical charts.
Inshore traffic zone is a routing measure comprising a designated
area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation scheme and
the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS).
Precautionary area means a routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution
and within which the direction of traffic flow may be recommended.
Recommended route means a route of undefined width, for the
convenience of ships in transit, which is often marked by centerline
buoys.
Recommended track is a route which has been specifically examined
to ensure so far as possible that it is free of dangers and along which
ships are advised to navigate.
Regulated Navigation Area or RNA* is a water area within a defined
boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area
have been established under 33 CFR part 165.
Roundabout means a routing measure comprising a separation point or
circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined
limits. Traffic within the roundabout is separated by moving in a
counterclockwise direction around the separation point or zone.
Separation Zone or Separation line means a zone or line separating
the traffic lanes in which ships are proceeding in opposite or nearly
opposite directions; or from the adjacent sea area; or separating
traffic lanes designated for particular classes of ships proceeding in
the same direction.
Traffic lane means an area within defined limit in which one-way
traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming
separation zones, may constitute a boundary.
Traffic Separation Scheme or TSS means a routing measure aimed at
the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and
by the establishment of traffic lanes.
Two-way route means a route within defined limits inside which two-
way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships
through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous.
Vessel routing system means any system of one or more routes or
routing measures aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes
traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas
to be avoided, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts, precautionary areas,
and deep-water routes.
[[Page 38063]]
Background and Purpose
Why are port access route studies required? Under the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the Commandant of the
Coast Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation
schemes (TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to
and from U.S. ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs recognizes
the paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the designated
areas.
The PWSA requires the Coast Guard to conduct a study of port access
routes before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the
study process, we must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign
state agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime
community representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. A primary purpose of this coordination is, to the extent
practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with other
reasonable waterway uses.
Were there previous port access route studies? The area (known as
Area 5a of the original PARS), which included Long Island Sound, was
last studied in 1980, and the final results of the study were published
in the Federal Register on October 5, 1981 (46 FR 49035). The study of
area 5a concluded that no routing measures were necessary within the
study area, including Long Island Sound.
Why is a new port access route study necessary? Subsequent to an
oil spill in Buzzards Bay in April 2003, the Coast Guard sponsored a
Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA). One PAWSA recommendation
was to establish a recommended route to help assist vessel traffic and
provide safer transit routes for commercial vessels. In response to the
PAWSA a domestic recommended route from Cleveland Ledge, Buzzards Bay,
Massachusetts to The Race was developed by the Coast Guard and
subsequently charted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) as a recommended vessel route. This recommended vessel route has
never been submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
for approval. Our own requirements stipulate that prior to submitting
vessel routing measures to IMO for approval, we conduct a PARS.
Therefore, we announced in the Federal Register that we would conduct a
PARS for the Approaches to Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay, Cleveland
Ledge to The Race, Narragansett Bay East Passage and the Areas Offshore
of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (68 FR 74199, December
23, 2003). Final results of the PARS are pending and will be published
in the Federal Register when finalized.
In addition, the First Coast Guard District published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on October 26, 2004 (69 FR
62427) for Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Buzzards
Bay, MA. The ANPRM is seeking comments on the merits of formally
designating the recommended vessel route within Buzzards Bay, as well
as amending a First Coast Guard District regulated navigation area to
require tug escorts for all tank barges transiting Buzzards Bay, MA.
The PARS and the ANPRM did not include the waters of western Block
Island Sound extending from Montauk Channel to The Race.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Long Island Sound was
asked to consider implementing recommended vessel routes from Montauk
Channel to a point south of Watch Hill, Rhode Island, then running
westerly to The Race. These proposed routes would converge with the
recommended vessel route from Cleveland Ledge to The Race. Vessels
transiting to ports in Long Island Sound or transiting Long Island
Sound on voyages to or from the Port of New York utilize one of two
routes encompassed in this new study. The first route runs from the
Point Judith Pilot Boarding area through Block Island Sound to The
Race; the second includes the waters of Montauk Channel north through
Block Island Sound to a point south of Watch Hill, Rhode Island, then
westerly to The Race.
The areas of study experience high traffic density and multiple
uses. Montauk Channel is commonly used by ocean-going vessels with
drafts less than 38 feet, large numbers of commercial fishing and
recreational vessels, and military vessels. Heavy recreational traffic
and commercial ferries that run from New London, Connecticut, to Block
Island, Rhode Island, cross Block Island Sound. Significant tug and
barge traffic carrying petroleum products and deeper draft tank vessels
heading for ports within Long Island Sound or the Port of New York also
utilize this route, presenting higher potential for adverse impact to
the marine environment due to an oil spill.
The areas of study also correspond to vessel routes utilized by
vessels embarking a pilot. Vessels transiting Long Island Sound,
irrespective of destination, may utilize either a New York or
Connecticut-licensed pilot. Both the New York Board of Commissioners
for Pilots and the Connecticut Department of Transportation have
designated two pilot boarding areas corresponding to the routes
utilized by vessels. Vessels entering Long Island Sound must utilize
one of two pilot boarding areas to board or disembark a pilot: the
Point Judith Pilot Boarding Area, located South of Point Judith, Rhode
Island, and the Montauk Boarding area, located off of Montauk Point,
New York.
Long Island Sound receives approximately 750 foreign flag vessel
arrivals per year. Of these, over 500 are tank vessels carrying
petroleum products. In addition, there are approximately 1500 tug and
barge transits through Long Island Sound per year, all of which utilize
one of the two routes being examined in this study. Vessels with a
draft less than 38 feet may utilize Montauk Channel or Block Island
Sound en route to Long Island Sound via The Race.
This PARS is also significant due to the potential increase in
vessel traffic due to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) vessels transiting
the area for Long Island Sound. Broadwater Energy, Inc. recently
notified the COTP Long Island Sound of its intent to construct a
floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and regassification
facility within Long Island Sound. If permitted for construction, the
facility is expected to be operational by 2010, and it is projected it
would receive between 110 and 160 LNG vessels per year. The loaded
draft of typical LNG vessels is between 36 and 39 feet (11 to 12
meters). Under 33 CFR 127.009, the Coast Guard is required to conduct
an analysis of the suitability of a waterway for LNG marine traffic.
The results of this PARS will contribute to that suitability analysis,
which will occur later in the LNG permitting process.
This study is also necessary due to projected increases in vessel
traffic and to ensure any routing measures that may be considered for
the area from Montauk Point through Block Island to The Race are
consistent with measures implemented from Point Judith to The Race.
Although this study overlaps the PARS for Narragansett Bay and the
ANPRM for Narragansett Bay, this overlap is required due to the
potential for LNG vessel traffic through the study area.
What are the timeline, study area, and process of this PARS? The
First Coast Guard District will conduct this PARS. The study will begin
immediately and we anticipate the study will take 6 to 12 months to
complete.
The study area includes the approaches to Block Island Sound,
between Montauk Channel and The
[[Page 38064]]
Race, and the area from Point Judith Pilot Boarding area to The Race.
As part of this study, we will consider previous studies, analyses
of vessel traffic density, and agency and stakeholder experience in
vessel traffic management, navigation, vessel handling, and effects of
weather. We encourage you to participate in the study process by
submitting comments in response to this notice.
We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate continued applicability of
existing vessel routing measures and conclude that no changes are
necessary. It is also possible that the study may recommend one or more
changes to enhance navigational safety and vessel traffic management
efficiency. Study recommendations may lead to future rulemakings or
appropriate international agreements.
Possible Scope of the Recommendations
We are attempting to determine the scope of any safety problems
associated with vessel transits in the study area. We expect that
information gathered during the study will identify any problems and
appropriate solutions. The study may recommend that we--
Maintain the current vessel routing measures;
Establish a deep-water route;
Establish recommended routes;
Create precautionary area(s);
Create one or more inshore traffic zone(s);
Establish two-way routes;
Establish an area to be avoided (ATBA) in shallow areas
where the risk of grounding is present;
Establish, disestablish, or modify anchorage grounds; and
Establish a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) with specific
vessel operating requirements to ensure safe navigation near shallow
water.
Questions
To help us conduct the port access route study, we request comments
on the following questions, although comments on other issues addressed
in this document are also welcome. In responding to a question, please
explain your reasons for each answer, and follow the instructions under
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' above.
1. What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the study area
face? Please describe.
2. Are there strains on the current vessel routing system
(increasing traffic density, for example)? If so, please describe.
3. Are modifications to existing vessel routing measures needed to
address hazards and strains and to improve traffic management
efficiency in the study area? If so, please describe.
4. What costs and benefits are associated with the measures listed
as potential study recommendations? What measures do you think are most
cost-effective?
5. What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to
existing routing measures or new routing measures have on the study
area?
6. What impacts would routing measures implemented in the study
area have on vessels transiting in waters adjacent to the study area,
such as in Long Island Sound?
Dated: June 23, 2005.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety, Security and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 05-13066 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
