Anchorage Regulations; Falmouth, ME, Casco Bay, 46181-46183 [E6-13199]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules provide information considered essential to the Department in making the required determinations. (ii) From (e)(1) because in the collection of information for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the information is evaluated in light of other information that its relevance and necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more informed decision-making by the Department when making required suitability, eligibility, and qualification determinations. * * * * * Dated: August 7, 2006. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06–6848 Filed 8–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD01–06–026] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Falmouth, ME, Casco Bay Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the existing special anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on Casco Bay, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw) (CGD01–06–026), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to room 628 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL DATES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:01 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01–06–026), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by enlarging the current special anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, by an additional 206 acres. The proposed rule would expand the existing special anchorage, described in 33 CFR 110.5(d), to allow anchorage for approximately 150 additional vessels. When at anchor in any special anchorage, vessels not more than 65 feet in length need not carry or exhibit the white anchor lights required by the Navigation Rules. In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would amend the existing special anchorage located at the PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46181 Town of Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. The Mussel Cove and adjacent waters at Falmouth Foreside, Falmouth special anchorage would include all waters of Casco Bay enclosed by a line beginning at the Dock House (F.S.) located at latitude 43°44′22″ N, longitude 70°11′41″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′19″ N, longitude 70°11′33″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′00″ N, longitude 70°11′44″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′37″ N, longitude 70°11′37″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′04″ N, longitude 70°12′13″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′56″ N, longitude 70°12′53″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′49″ N, longitude 70°13′05″ W; thence to latitude 43°42′11″ N, longitude 70°13′30″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). This special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater than 65 feet in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet in length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C 2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners using the anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Falmouth, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This proposed special area, while in the interest of safe navigation and protection of the vessels moored at the Town of Falmouth, does not impede the passage of vessels intending to transit E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 46182 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Casco Bay in and around the anchorage area. However, this anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons: The proposed special area does not impede the passage of vessels intending to transit in and around Falmouth, which include both small recreational and large commercial vessels. Thus, the special anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient vessel transits on Casco Bay. 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 ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL within Casco Bay. Thus, the special anchorage area will have a minimal economic impact. This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). Collection of Information Assistance for Small Entities 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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, Waterways Management Branch, First Coast Guard District Boston at (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:01 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 Federalism 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. 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 $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect 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 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. Protection of Children 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. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. Energy Effects 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. Technical Standards 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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 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, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a special anchorage area. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:01 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.5, by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 110.5 Casco Bay, Maine. * * * * * (d) Mussel Cove and adjacent waters at Falmouth Foreside, Falmouth. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at the Dock House (F.S.) located at latitude 43°44′22″ N, longitude 70°11′41″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′19″ N, longitude 70°11′33″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′00″ N, longitude 70°11′44″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′37″ N, longitude 70°11′37″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′04″ N, longitude 70°12′13″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′56″ N, longitude 70°12′53″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′49″ N, longitude 70°13′05″ W; thence to latitude 43°42′11″ N, longitude 70°13′30″ W; PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46183 thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning. DATUM: NAD 83. Note to paragraph (d). The area designed by paragraph (g) of this section is reserved for yachts and other small recreational craft. Fore and aft moorings will be allowed in this area. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors or moorings in place will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. All moorings must be so placed so that no vessel when anchored is at any time extended into the thoroughfare. All anchoring in the area is under the supervision of the local harbor master or such other authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Falmouth, Maine. Dated: July 31, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–13199 Filed 8–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 155 (Friday, August 11, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46181-46183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13199]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD01-06-026]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Falmouth, ME, Casco Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the existing special 
anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. This proposed action 
is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide a safe and 
secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet in length. This 
action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on Casco 
Bay, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the 
overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before October 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpw) (CGD01-06-026), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., 
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to room 628 at the same 
address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments and material received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, 
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), 
First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, 
Telephone (617) 223-8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
026), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Branch at 
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If 
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a 
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by 
enlarging the current special anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, by an 
additional 206 acres. The proposed rule would expand the existing 
special anchorage, described in 33 CFR 110.5(d), to allow anchorage for 
approximately 150 additional vessels. When at anchor in any special 
anchorage, vessels not more than 65 feet in length need not carry or 
exhibit the white anchor lights required by the Navigation Rules.
    In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted 
with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia 
Rd., Concord, MA 01742.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would amend the existing special anchorage 
located at the Town of Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. The Mussel Cove 
and adjacent waters at Falmouth Foreside, Falmouth special anchorage 
would include all waters of Casco Bay enclosed by a line beginning at 
the Dock House (F.S.) located at latitude 43[deg]44'22'' N, longitude 
70[deg]11'41'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'19'' N, longitude 
70[deg]11'33'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'00'' N, longitude 
70[deg]11'44'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]43'37'' N, longitude 
70[deg]11'37'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]43'04'' N, longitude 
70[deg]12'13'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]41'56'' N, longitude 
70[deg]12'53'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]41'49'' N, longitude 
70[deg]13'05'' W; thence to latitude 43[deg]42'11'' N, longitude 
70[deg]13'30'' W; thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning. 
All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    This special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater 
than 65 feet in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet in length are not 
required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland 
Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes 
required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C 2030) when 
at anchor in a special anchorage area.
    Additionally, mariners using the anchorage areas are encouraged to 
contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to 
ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. 
Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the 
local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to 
the changing needs of the Town of Falmouth, the changing needs of 
recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of 
the available navigable water. This proposed special area, while in the 
interest of safe navigation and protection of the vessels moored at the 
Town of Falmouth, does not impede the passage of vessels intending to 
transit

[[Page 46182]]

within Casco Bay. Thus, the special anchorage area will have a minimal 
economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of 
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational 
or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Casco 
Bay in and around the anchorage area. However, this anchorage area 
would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the 
following reasons: The proposed special area does not impede the 
passage of vessels intending to transit in and around Falmouth, which 
include both small recreational and large commercial vessels. Thus, the 
special anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient vessel 
transits on Casco Bay.
    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 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, Waterways 
Management Branch, First Coast Guard District Boston at (617) 223-8355 
or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate 
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    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.

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 $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect 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 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.

Protection of Children

    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.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    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.

Technical Standards

    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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, 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 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, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule

[[Page 46183]]

fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a 
special anchorage area.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

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

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); and Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.5, by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.5  Casco Bay, Maine.

* * * * *
    (d) Mussel Cove and adjacent waters at Falmouth Foreside, Falmouth. 
All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at the Dock House (F.S.) 
located at latitude 43[deg]44[min]22[sec] N, longitude 
70[deg]11[min]41[sec] W; thence to latitude 43[deg]44[min]19[sec] N, 
longitude 70[deg]11[min]33[sec] W; thence to latitude 
43[deg]44[min]00[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]11[min]44[sec] W; thence to 
latitude 43[deg]43[min]37[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]11[min]37[sec] W; 
thence to latitude 43[deg]43[min]04[sec] N, longitude 
70[deg]12[min]13[sec] W; thence to latitude 43[deg]41[min]56[sec] N, 
longitude 70[deg]12[min]53[sec] W; thence to latitude 
43[deg]41[min]49[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]13[min]05[sec] W; thence to 
latitude 43[deg]42[min]11[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]13[min]30[sec] W; 
thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning. DATUM: NAD 83.
    Note to paragraph (d). The area designed by paragraph (g) of this 
section is reserved for yachts and other small recreational craft. Fore 
and aft moorings will be allowed in this area. Temporary floats or 
buoys for marking anchors or moorings in place will be allowed. Fixed 
mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. All moorings must be so placed 
so that no vessel when anchored is at any time extended into the 
thoroughfare. All anchoring in the area is under the supervision of the 
local harbor master or such other authority as may be designated by the 
authorities of the Town of Falmouth, Maine.

    Dated: July 31, 2006.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-13199 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P