Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York, 6690-6692 [E7-2454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6690
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate
the same as any other type aircraft. The
FAA is currently only issuing special
airworthiness certificates in the
experimental category. Experimental
certificates are issued with
accompanying operational limitations
(14 CFR 91.319) that are appropriate to
the applicant’s operation. The FAA has
issued five experimental certificates for
unmanned aircraft systems for the
purposes of research and development,
marketing surveys, or crew training.
UAS issued experimental certificates
may not be used for compensation or
hire.
The applicable regulations for an
experimental certificate are found in 14
CFR 21.191, 21.193, and 21.195. In
general, the applicant must state the
intended use for the UAS and provide
sufficient information to satisfy the FAA
that the aircraft can be operated safely.
The time or number of flights must be
specified along with a description of the
areas over which the aircraft would
operate. The application must also
include drawings or detailed
photographs of the aircraft. An on-site
review of the system and demonstration
of the area of operation may be required.
Additional information on how to apply
for an experimental airworthiness
certificate is available from Richard
Posey, AIR–200, (202) 267–9538; e-mail:
richard.posey@faa.gov.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Recreational/Sport Use of Model
Airplanes
In 1981, in recognition of the safety
issues raised by the operation of model
aircraft, the FAA published Advisory
Circular (AC) 91–57, Model Aircraft
Operating Standards for the purpose of
providing guidance to persons
interested in flying model aircraft as a
hobby or for recreational use. This
guidance encourages good judgment on
the part of operators so that persons on
the ground or other aircraft in flight will
not be endangered. The AC contains
among other things, guidance for site
selection. Users are advised to avoid
noise sensitive areas such as parks,
schools, hospitals, and churches.
Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the
vicinity of spectators until they are
confident that the model aircraft has
been flight tested and proven airworthy.
Model aircraft should be flown below
400 feet above the surface to avoid other
aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that
hobbyists will operate these recreational
model aircraft within visual line-ofsight. While the AC 91–57 was
developed for model aircraft, some
operators have used the AC as the basis
for commercial flight operations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:48 Feb 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS
operations is that no person may operate
a UAS in the National Airspace System
without specific authority. For UAS
operating as public aircraft the authority
is the COA, for UAS operating as civil
aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model
aircraft the authority is AC 91–57.
The FAA recognizes that people and
companies other than modelers might
be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding that they are legally
operating under the authority of AC 91–
57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers,
and thus specifically excludes its use by
persons or companies for business
purposes.
The FAA has undertaken a safety
review that will examine the feasibility
of creating a different category of
unmanned ‘‘vehicles’’ that may be
defined by the operator’s visual line of
sight and are also small and slow
enough to adequately mitigate hazards
to other aircraft and persons on the
ground. The end product of this analysis
may be a new flight authorization
instrument similar to AC 91–57, but
focused on operations which do not
qualify as sport and recreation, but also
may not require a certificate of
airworthiness. They will, however,
require compliance with applicable
FAA regulations and guidance
developed for this category.
Feedback regarding current FAA
policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems
can be submitted at https://www.faa.gov/
uas. (Scroll down to the bottom of the
page and find Contact UAPO. Click into
this link.)
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6,
2007.
Nicholas Sabatini,
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. E7–2402 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–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.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising
the duration vessels are authorized to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
anchor in specific anchorage grounds
within the Port of New York and New
Jersey (PONYNJ). This action is
necessary to facilitate safe navigation
and provide for the overall safe and
efficient flow of waterborne commerce.
This action is intended to better
facilitate the efficient use of the limited
deep water anchorage grounds available
in PONYNJ.
DATES: This rule is effective March 15,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket (CGD01–06–027) and are
available for inspection or copying at
Waterways Management Division, Coast
Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast
Guard Drive, Room 321, Staten Island,
New York 10305 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
Guard Sector New York at (718) 354–
2353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On November 16, 2006, we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Anchorage Regulations;
Port of New York in the Federal
Register (71 FR 66708). We received no
letters commenting on the proposed
rule. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is revising the
duration that vessels are authorized to
anchor in Federal Anchorage Grounds
19, 21–A, 21–B, 21–C, and 25 in the Port
of New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ),
33 CFR 110.155 (c)(5), (d)(10)–(12), and
(e)(1), respectively. These 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
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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 revisions increase the availability
of anchorage space by reducing the
amount of time that a vessel may remain
at anchor. The revisions also limit the
number vessels from loitering in the
lower Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and
Gravesend Bay anchorages.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no
comments on this rulemaking and no
changes from the proposed rule have
been made.
Regulatory Evaluation
This 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 rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on our
evaluation presented in the following
two paragraphs:
This rule allows 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 rule allows 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:48 Feb 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Additionally, this rule allows 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 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 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 rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule will 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 rule, however, will not have a
significant economic impact on these
entities for the reasons stated above in
the Regulatory Evaluation section.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offered to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking
process. The Coast Guard received no
requests for assistance.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6691
Collection of Information
This rule calls 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 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 rule will not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
6692
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Energy Effects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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, this rule is 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 revises the duration a vessel
can anchor in a Federal Anchorage
Ground.
A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are available
in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:48 Feb 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:
I
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07–06–041]
PART 110—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
RIN 1625–AA09
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 63rd
Street Bridge, Indian Creek, Miami,
Miami-Dade County, FL
I
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. In § 110.155, add paragraphs
(c)(5)(vi), (d)(10)(ii), (d)(11)(iii),
(d)(12)(iii), and (e)(1)(iii), to read as
follows:
I
§ 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
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: January 26, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–2454 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
temporarily changing the operating
regulations governing the 63rd Street
Drawbridge across Indian Creek, mile
4.0 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This
rule will allow the Drawbridge to open
a single-leaf on the top of the hour from
8 a.m. to 5:59 p.m. and a double-leaf on
the top of the hour between 6 p.m. and
12:10 a.m. At all other times this bridge
will be closed to navigation.
DATES: This rule is effective from March
15, 2007 until June 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket (CGD07–06–041) and are
available for inspection or copying at
Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard
District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432,
Miami, Florida 33131–3050 between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, telephone
number 305–415–6744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On April 3, 2006, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Drawbridge Operation
Regulations; 63rd Street Bridge, Indian
Creek, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL
in the Federal Register (71 FR 16529).
We received two comments on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
The NPRM proposed an effective
period of 8 a.m. on June 19, 2006
through 6 p.m. on February 5, 2007.
Thus, this temporary final rule is
effective from March 15, 2007 until June
19, 2007 because of contractor and the
City of Miami Beach requests to balance
the reasonable needs of vehicles and
vessels while the bridge undergoes
rehabilitation. Publishing another
NPRM before this temporary rule would
further delay meeting the immediate
E:\FR\FM\13FER1.SGM
13FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6690-6692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the duration vessels are
authorized to anchor in specific anchorage grounds within the Port of
New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ). This action is necessary to
facilitate safe navigation and provide for the overall safe and
efficient flow of waterborne commerce. This action is intended to
better facilitate the efficient use of the limited deep water anchorage
grounds available in PONYNJ.
DATES: This rule is effective March 15, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket (CGD01-06-027) and are available for inspection or
copying at Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York,
212 Coast Guard Drive, Room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305 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 Guard Sector New York at (718)
354-2353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On November 16, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York in the Federal
Register (71 FR 66708). We received no letters commenting on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is revising the duration that vessels are
authorized to anchor in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21-A, 21-B, 21-C,
and 25 in the Port of New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ), 33 CFR 110.155
(c)(5), (d)(10)-(12), and (e)(1), respectively. These 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
[[Page 6691]]
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 revisions increase the availability of anchorage space by
reducing the amount of time that a vessel may remain at anchor. The
revisions also limit the number vessels from loitering in the lower
Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and Gravesend Bay anchorages.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no comments on this rulemaking and no
changes from the proposed rule have been made.
Regulatory Evaluation
This 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 rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on our evaluation presented in the following
two paragraphs:
This rule allows 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 rule allows 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 rule allows 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 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 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will 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 rule, however, will not have a
significant economic impact on these entities for the reasons stated
above in the Regulatory Evaluation section.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. The
Coast Guard received no requests for assistance.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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 rule calls 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 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 rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
[[Page 6692]]
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded
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, this rule is 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 revises the duration a vessel can anchor in a Federal
Anchorage Ground.
A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 110.155, add 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 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: January 26, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-2454 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
