Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York, 66708-66711 [E6-19314]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 66708 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules (i) A BE–185, Quarterly Survey of Financial Services Transactions Between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons, will be conducted covering the first quarter of the 2007 calendar year and every quarter thereafter. (A) Who must report—(1) Mandatory reporting. Reports are required from each U.S. person who is a financial services provider or intermediary, or whose consolidated U.S. enterprise includes a separately organized subsidiary or part that is a financial services provider or intermediary, and that had sales of covered services to foreign persons that exceeded $20 million for the previous fiscal year or expects sales to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or had purchases of covered services from foreign persons that exceeded $15 million for the previous fiscal year or expects purchases to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year These thresholds should be applied to financial services transactions with foreign persons by all parts of the consolidated U.S. enterprise combined that are financial services providers or intermediaries. Because the thresholds are applied separately to sales and purchases, the mandatory reporting requirement may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases. Quarterly reports for a year may be required retroactively when it is determined that the exemption level has been exceeded. (i) The determination of whether a U.S. financial services provider or intermediary is subject to this mandatory reporting requirement may be based on the judgement of knowledgeable persons in a company who can identify reportable transactions on a recall basis, with a reasonable degree of certainty, without conducting a detailed records search. (ii) Reporters who file pursuant to this mandatory reporting requirement must provide data on total sales and/or purchases of each of the covered types of financial services transactions and must disaggregate the totals by country. (2) Voluntary reporting. If a financial services provider or intermediary, or all of a firm’s subsidiaries or parts combined that are financial services providers or intermediaries, had covered sales of $20 million or less, or covered purchases of $15 million or less during the previous fiscal year, and if covered sales or purchases are not expected to exceed these amounts in the current fiscal year, a person is requested to provide an estimate of the total for each type of service for the most recent quarter. Provision of this information is VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:07 Nov 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 voluntary. The estimates may be based on the reasoned judgement of the reporting entity. Because these thresholds apply separately to sales and purchases, voluntary reporting may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both. (B) BE–185 definition of financial services provider. The definition of financial services provider used for this survey is identical in coverage to Sector 52 B Finance and Insurance, and holding companies that own or influence, and are principally engaged in making management decisions for these firms (part of Sector 55 B Management of Companies and Enterprises) of the North American Industry Classification System, United States, 2002. For example, companies and/or subsidiaries and other separable parts of companies in the following industries are defined as financial services providers: Depository credit intermediation and related activities (including commercial banking, savings institutions, credit unions, and other depository credit intermediation); nondepository credit intermediation (including credit card issuing, sales financing, and other nondepository credit intermediation); activities related to credit intermediation (including mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers, financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities, and other activities related to credit intermediation); securities and commodity contracts intermediation and brokerage (including investment banking and securities dealing, securities brokerage, commodity contracts dealing, and commodity contracts brokerage); securities and commodity exchanges; other financial investment activities (including miscellaneous intermediation, portfolio management, investment advice, and all other financial investment activities); insurance carriers; insurance agencies, brokerages, and other insurance related activities; insurance and employee benefit funds (including pension funds, health and welfare funds, and other insurance funds); other investment pools and funds (including open-end investment funds, trusts, estates, and agency accounts, real estate investment trusts, and other financial vehicles); and holding companies that own, or influence the management decisions of, firms principally engaged in the aforementioned activities. (C) Covered types of services. The BE– 185 survey covers the following types of financial services transactions (purchases and/or sales) between U.S. financial services providers and foreign persons: Brokerage services related to PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 equities transactions; other brokerage services; underwriting and private placement services; financial management services; credit-related services, except credit card services; credit card services; financial advisory and custody services; securities lending services; electronic funds transfer services; and other financial services. (ii) [Reserved] * * * * * [FR Doc. E6–19409 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–06–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD01–06–027] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration vessels are authorized to anchor in specific anchorage grounds within the Port of New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ). This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of waterborne commerce. This proposed action is intended to better facilitate the efficient use of the limited deep water anchorage grounds available in PONYNJ. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Management Division (CGD01–06–027), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, Room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 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 321, Coast Guard Sector New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast DATES: E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM 16NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules Guard Sector New York at (718) 354– 2353. 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 (CGD01–06–027), 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. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 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 Division 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 Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration that vessels are authorized to anchor in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21–A, 21–B, 21–C, and 25 in the PONYNJ. These proposed revisions are necessary due to the limited amount of deep water anchorage space available in the Hudson River, Upper and Lower Bay of New York Harbor. In recent years, as the number of ships in port has increased and their sizes have grown, the anchorage grounds have frequently been filled to capacity. According to the Harbor Safety, Operations, and Navigation Committee of the Port of New York and New Jersey (HAROPS), which represents a broad spectrum of the local maritime industry, having adequate anchorage space is critical to the overall safety and economic vitality of the port. The limited availability of anchorage space has caused undue economic burden for ships that are forced to anchor outside the port in the vicinity of Ambrose Tower, sometimes for days, while awaiting anchorage space. Vessels have been unable to complete their business, including re-supply, lightering, and bunkering, in a cost-efficient manner VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:07 Nov 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 and sometimes have forgone obtaining services in New York because of the delays. The unavailability of anchorage space also increases safety risks by forcing ships to take on provisions while underway and potentially preventing ships from anchoring in an emergency. The proposed revisions would increase the availability of anchorage space by reducing the amount of time that a vessel may remain at anchor. The revisions would also limit the number vessels from loitering in the lower Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and Gravesend Bay anchorages. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would establish a 96-hour limit on the duration of stay for vessels anchoring in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21–A, 21–B, 21–C, and 25. Currently, 33 CFR 110.155(k)(3) establishes an impractical anchorage duration of 30 days. We note that the 48-hour limit for anchoring in Stapleton Anchorage (Federal Anchorage Grounds 23–A, 23–B, and 24) and Federal Anchorage Ground 44 would remain the same and not be affected by this proposed rule. Implementing this time restriction for the lower Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and Gravesend Bay anchorage grounds will provide for the effective use of this valuable and limited port resource, thus, minimizing vessel delays. The affected Anchorage Grounds would continue to be managed by the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service New York (VTS). As part of their anchorage management function, VTS New York will make decisions on requests to extend a vessel’s stay at an anchorage beyond the prescribed duration limit. 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 following facts: This proposal would allow the Coast Guard to better manage the increasing and changing needs of commercial vessels and to make the best use of the limited available Anchorage Grounds. Vessels normally complete bunkering or lightering operations within the Anchorage Grounds within 48 hours. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66709 Additionally, due to security concerns at facilities, more vessels need to replenish supplies while at anchor, which normally takes no longer than 8 hours. This proposal would allow shipping lines, owners, agents, and others in the shipping industry to operate more efficiently in the Port of New York and New Jersey. The current 30-day limit for vessels to remain at anchor is an inefficient use of the limited, extremely busy Anchorage Grounds within the PONYNJ since vessels not conducting port related operations could easily anchor offshore while awaiting pier space, supply deliveries, sailing orders, etc. Additionally, this proposal would allow the commercial vessel industry to more efficiently conduct final preparations for sea in a protected Anchorage Ground, as opposed to conducting preparations during outbound transit in the vicinity of the six vessel traffic lanes that converge on Ambrose Light (LLNR 720). This proposed rule is in the interest of safe and efficient navigation. 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 commercial vessels intending to anchor in a portion of the Hudson River, Upper New York Bay, or Lower New York Bay. This proposal, however, would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the reasons stated above in the Regulatory Evaluation section. 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. E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM 16NOP1 66710 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 354–2353. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 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, VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:07 Nov 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would revise the duration a vessel could anchor in a Federal Anchorage Ground. 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 § 110.155 by adding paragraphs (c)(5)(vi), (d)(10)(ii), (d)(11)(iii), (d)(12)(iii), and (e)(1)(iii), to read as follows: § 110.155 Port of New York. * * * * * (c) * * * (5) * * * (vi) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port. * * * * * (d) * * * (10) * * * (ii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port. (11) * * * (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in excess E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM 16NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port. (12) * * * (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) * * * (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port. * * * * * Dated: October 30, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–19314 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08–06–037] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mississippi River, Iowa and Illinois Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the regulation governing the operation of the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 579.9, Upper Mississippi River at Dubuque, Iowa. Under the proposed rule, the drawbridge would open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given from 12:01 a.m., on December 15, 2006 until 8 a.m., on March 15, 2007. This would allow time for making upgrades to critical mechanical components and performing scheduled annual maintenance/repairs to the bridge and pier protection. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103–2832. Commander (dwb) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 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 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:07 Nov 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 available for inspection or copying at room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, (314) 269–2378. 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 (CGD08–06–037), 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 Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a meeting 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 On September 12, 2006, the Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad requested a temporary change to the operation of the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, Mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given to facilitate critical bridge repair and annual maintenance. The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge navigation span has a vertical clearance of 19.9 feet above normal pool in the closed to navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted due to the reduced navigation in winter months. Presently, the draw opens on signal for passage of river traffic. The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad requested the drawbridge be permitted to remain closed-to-navigation from 12:01 a.m., December 15, 2006 until 8 a.m., March PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66711 15, 2007 unless 24 hours advance notice is given of the need to open. Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the closure of Lock and Dam 11, Mile 583.0, Upper Mississippi River, at Dubuque, Iowa from January 2, 2007 until February 28, 2007 will preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening. The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 579.9, Upper Mississippi River, is located just downstream from Lock and Dam 11. Performing maintenance on the bridge and pier protection during the winter, when the number of vessels likely to be impacted is minimal, is preferred to the bridge closure or advance notification requirements during the navigation season. This temporary change to the drawbridge’s operation has been coordinated with the commercial waterway operators. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed temporary rule is to add a new paragraph to § 117.671. The drawbridge by regulation is to open on signal. This proposed rule would allow the drawbridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given from 12:01 a.m., on December 15, 2006 until 8 a.m., on March 15, 2007. This proposed rule will allow time for making upgrades to critical mechanical components and perform scheduled annual maintenance/repairs to the bridge and pier protection. Regulatory Evaluation The 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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects that this temporary change to operation of the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge will have minimal economic impact on commercial traffic operating on the Upper Mississippi River. This temporary change has been written in such a manner as to allow for minimal interruption of the drawbridge’s regular operation. 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 E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM 16NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66708-66711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD01-06-027]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration vessels are 
authorized to anchor in specific anchorage grounds within the Port of 
New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ). This proposed action is necessary to 
facilitate safe navigation and provide for the overall safe and 
efficient flow of waterborne commerce. This proposed action is intended 
to better facilitate the efficient use of the limited deep water 
anchorage grounds available in PONYNJ.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before December 18, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways 
Management Division (CGD01-06-027), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 
Coast Guard Drive, Room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The 
Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains 
the public docket for this rulemaking. 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 321, Coast Guard Sector 
New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast

[[Page 66709]]

Guard Sector New York at (718) 354-2353.

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-
027), 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 Division 
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 Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration that vessels are 
authorized to anchor in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21-A, 21-B, 21-C, 
and 25 in the PONYNJ. These proposed revisions are necessary due to the 
limited amount of deep water anchorage space available in the Hudson 
River, Upper and Lower Bay of New York Harbor.
    In recent years, as the number of ships in port has increased and 
their sizes have grown, the anchorage grounds have frequently been 
filled to capacity. According to the Harbor Safety, Operations, and 
Navigation Committee of the Port of New York and New Jersey (HAROPS), 
which represents a broad spectrum of the local maritime industry, 
having adequate anchorage space is critical to the overall safety and 
economic vitality of the port. The limited availability of anchorage 
space has caused undue economic burden for ships that are forced to 
anchor outside the port in the vicinity of Ambrose Tower, sometimes for 
days, while awaiting anchorage space. Vessels have been unable to 
complete their business, including re-supply, lightering, and 
bunkering, in a cost-efficient manner and sometimes have forgone 
obtaining services in New York because of the delays. The 
unavailability of anchorage space also increases safety risks by 
forcing ships to take on provisions while underway and potentially 
preventing ships from anchoring in an emergency.
    The proposed revisions would increase the availability of anchorage 
space by reducing the amount of time that a vessel may remain at 
anchor. The revisions would also limit the number vessels from 
loitering in the lower Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and Gravesend Bay 
anchorages.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would establish a 96-hour limit on the duration 
of stay for vessels anchoring in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21-A, 
21-B, 21-C, and 25. Currently, 33 CFR 110.155(k)(3) establishes an 
impractical anchorage duration of 30 days. We note that the 48-hour 
limit for anchoring in Stapleton Anchorage (Federal Anchorage Grounds 
23-A, 23-B, and 24) and Federal Anchorage Ground 44 would remain the 
same and not be affected by this proposed rule.
    Implementing this time restriction for the lower Hudson River, Bay 
Ridge, and Gravesend Bay anchorage grounds will provide for the 
effective use of this valuable and limited port resource, thus, 
minimizing vessel delays. The affected Anchorage Grounds would continue 
to be managed by the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service New York (VTS). 
As part of their anchorage management function, VTS New York will make 
decisions on requests to extend a vessel's stay at an anchorage beyond 
the prescribed duration limit.

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 following facts:
    This proposal would allow the Coast Guard to better manage the 
increasing and changing needs of commercial vessels and to make the 
best use of the limited available Anchorage Grounds. Vessels normally 
complete bunkering or lightering operations within the Anchorage 
Grounds within 48 hours. Additionally, due to security concerns at 
facilities, more vessels need to replenish supplies while at anchor, 
which normally takes no longer than 8 hours. This proposal would allow 
shipping lines, owners, agents, and others in the shipping industry to 
operate more efficiently in the Port of New York and New Jersey.
    The current 30-day limit for vessels to remain at anchor is an 
inefficient use of the limited, extremely busy Anchorage Grounds within 
the PONYNJ since vessels not conducting port related operations could 
easily anchor offshore while awaiting pier space, supply deliveries, 
sailing orders, etc. Additionally, this proposal would allow the 
commercial vessel industry to more efficiently conduct final 
preparations for sea in a protected Anchorage Ground, as opposed to 
conducting preparations during outbound transit in the vicinity of the 
six vessel traffic lanes that converge on Ambrose Light (LLNR 720). 
This proposed rule is in the interest of safe and efficient navigation.

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 commercial 
vessels intending to anchor in a portion of the Hudson River, Upper New 
York Bay, or Lower New York Bay. This proposal, however, would not have 
a significant economic impact on these entities for the reasons stated 
above in the Regulatory Evaluation section.
    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.

[[Page 66710]]

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 Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 
354-2353. 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 
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 fits 
the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would revise the 
duration a vessel could anchor in a Federal Anchorage Ground.
    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.  110.155 by adding paragraphs (c)(5)(vi), 
(d)(10)(ii), (d)(11)(iii), (d)(12)(iii), and (e)(1)(iii), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  110.155  Port of New York.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (11) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess

[[Page 66711]]

of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (12) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 30, 2006.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E6-19314 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P