Anchorage Regulations; Edgecomb Maine, Sheepscot River, 29092-29095 [E7-9968]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29092
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
affect about 15 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take
about 36 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of
this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost between $7,900 and
$8,610 per product, depending on the
airplane configuration. Where the
service information lists required parts
costs that are covered under warranty,
we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not
control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs
higher than estimated here. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
between $161,700 and $172,350 for the
fleet, or between $10,780 and $11,490
per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Authority for This Rulemaking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA–2007–
28256; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–
041–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by June 25,
2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira
de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model
EMB–135BJ airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers 145412, 145462,
145484, 145495, 145505, 145516, 145528,
145540, 145549, 145555, 145586, 145625,
145637, 145642, 145644, and 145678.
Subject
(d) Equipment/Furnishings.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Within 48 months after the effective
date of this AD, unless already done, replace
the wiring of the valance panel lighting
system by another one that complies with the
current inverter specifications, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG–25–
0070, dated October 11, 2006.
FAA AD Differences
Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/
or service information as follows: No
differences.
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness
Directive 2007–01–03, effective January 22,
2007, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG–25–0070, dated October 11, 2006,
for related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15,
2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–10026 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
‘‘It has been found the occurrence of smoke
on the passenger cabin originated from the
valance panel lighting system wiring.’’
The corrective action is replacement of the
valance panel lighting system wiring.
PO 00000
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425)
227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01–07–011]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Edgecomb
Maine, Sheepscot River
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a general anchorage area in
Edgecomb, Maine, on the Sheepscot
River. This action is necessary to
facilitate safe navigation in that area and
to provide safe and secure anchorages
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for transient vessels visiting the area.
This proposal is intended to increase
the safety for life and property on the
Sheepscot River, improve the safety of
anchored vessels, provide for ample
anchorages for transient vessels, and
provide for the overall safe and efficient
flow of recreational vessels and
commerce.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts
02110, who 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 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, Massachusetts 02110,
Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
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 (CGD01–07–011),
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.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Background and Purpose
The proposed rule is the result of
colloboration with the Town of
Edgecomb’s Waterfront Committee to
accommodate transient vessels mooring
in the area. Currently, the Town of
Edgecomb has two large condominium/
marina complexes under construction in
the harbor. Due to this growth, the
Waterfront Committee wants to be
proactive and to insure that there will
always be suitable anchorages available
to vessels transiting the area. The
proposed rule would establish a general
anchorage area adjacent to the current
town mooring fields. These fields
currently accommodate approximately
40 moorings for vessels greater than 27
feet, and 35 moorings for vessels smaller
than 27 feet. The proposed rule is
designed to reserve approximately 15
anchorages for transient vessels visiting
the area from May through October each
year. The anchorage would
accommodate both sail and power
vessels with a 3-to-12-foot draft. Vessels
would use their own ground tackle.
In developing this proposed rule, the
Coast Guard has consulted with the
Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast,
located at 696 Virginia Road., Concord,
MA 01742.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would create a
general anchorage area located in
Edgecomb, Maine on the Sheepscot
River. The proposed rule conforms to
the changing needs of the Town of
Edgecomb in addition to the needs of
the recreational, fishing, and
commercial vessels. The rule provides
for the best use of the available
navigable water. This anchorage is in
the interest of safe navigation, and
would protect the vessels moored at the
Town of Edgecomb and marine
environment.
Mariners using the anchorage area
would be encouraged to contact local
and state authorities, such as the local
harbormaster, to ensure compliance
with any applicable state and local laws.
Such laws may involve, for example,
compliance with direction from the
local harbormaster when anchoring
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29093
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary.
The proposed anchorage area does not
impede the passage of recreational or
commercial vessels as it is not located
in the primary channel of the Sheepscot
River, and thus, 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 Sheepscot River 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 anchorage area is not located
near the primary channel of the river
and will not restrict vessel traffic
transiting up or down the Sheepscot
River. Thus, the anchorage area will not
impede safe and efficient vessel transits.
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 Mr. John J.
Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast
Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29094
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Boston, Massachusetts 02110,
Telephone (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 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.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 establish an
anchorage ground.
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are available
in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether this 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);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 110.131 to read as follows:
§ 110.131 Sheepscot River in vicinity of
Edgecomb, Maine.
(a) Anchorage grounds. All of the
waters enclosed by a line starting from
a point located at the southwestern end
of Davis Island at latitude 43°59.655′ N.,
longitude 69°39.617′ W.; thence to
latitude 43°59.687′ N., longitude
69°39.691′ W.; thence to latitude
43°59.847′ N., longitude 69°39.743′ W.;
thence to latitude 43°59.879′ N.,
longitude 69°39.559′ W.; thence to
latitude 43°59.856′ N., longitude
69°39.488′ W.; thence to latitude
43°59.771′ N., longitude 69°39.585′ W.;
thence to the point of beginning.
DATUM: NAD 83
(b) Regulations. (1) This anchorage is
reserved for vessels of all types, with
drafts of from 3 to 12 feet.
(2) These anchorage grounds are
authorized for use from May through
October.
(3) Vessels are limited to a maximum
stay of 1 week.
(4) Fixed moorings, piles or stakes are
prohibited.
(5) Vessels must not anchor so as to
obstruct the passage of other vessels
proceeding to or from other anchorage
spaces.
(6) Anchors must not be placed in the
channel and no portion of the hull or
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rigging of any anchored vessel shall
extend outside the limits of the
anchorage area.
(7) The anchorage of vessels is under
the coordination of the local
Harbormaster.
Dated: April 9, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–9968 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01–07–009]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth,
Maine, Casco Bay
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish three special anchorage areas
in Yarmouth, Maine on Casco Bay. This
action is necessary to facilitate safe
navigation in that area and to provide
safe and secure anchorages for vessels of
not more than 65 feet. This proposal is
intended to increase the safety for life
and property on Casco Bay, improve the
safety of anchored vessels, create
workable boundaries for future mooring
expansion, and provide for the overall
safe and efficient flow of recreational
vessels and commerce.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts
02110, who 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 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, Massachusetts 02110,
Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 (CGD01–07–009),
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 proposed rule is the result of
collaboration with the Town of
Yarmouth’s Harbor and Waterfront
Committee and Yarmouth town council
to accommodate vessels mooring in the
area. The proposed rule would establish
three separate special anchorage areas
organized from the current
accommodations of approximately 350
moorings. The proposed rule is
designed to aid the Town of Yarmouth
in enforcing its mooring and boating
regulations by clearly defining the
available mooring fields. In addition,
the proposed rule will provide finite
expansion boundaries of town mooring
fields, ensure that there are transient
anchorage areas available, and extend
the convenience of a special anchorage
to local vessel owners. The areas under
consideration are currently established
mooring areas.
In developing this proposed rule, the
Coast Guard has consulted with the
Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast,
located at 696 Virginia Road., Concord,
MA 01742.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would create three
special anchorage areas located in
Yarmouth, Maine on Casco Bay: (1)
Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point Cousins
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29095
Island Special Anchorage,(2) Madeleine
and Sandy Point Special Anchorage,
and (3) Drinkwater Point and Princes
Point Special Anchorage.
The Town of Yarmouth has
delineated transient anchorage areas in
each of the three special anchorage
areas. These transient anchorage areas
are located near or next to town-owned
property that has limited access to
parking and, in some cases, dock tie-up
space.
The special anchorage areas 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.
Mariners utilizing 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 Yarmouth, the
changing needs of recreational, fishing
and commercial vessels, and to make
the best use of the available navigable
water. The proposed special anchorage
areas do not impede the passage of
recreational or commercial vessels as
they are not located in the primary
entrance channel to Yarmouth Harbor.
The proposed special anchorage areas
are a consolidation and delineation of
existing mooring fields. Thus, the
special anchorage area will have a
minimal economic impact. This
proposed rule is in the interest of safe
navigation, protection of the vessels
moored at the Town of Yarmouth, and
protection of the marine environment.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29092-29095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9968]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01-07-011]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Edgecomb Maine, Sheepscot River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a general anchorage area
in Edgecomb, Maine, on the Sheepscot River. This action is necessary to
facilitate safe navigation in that area and to provide safe and secure
anchorages
[[Page 29093]]
for transient vessels visiting the area. This proposal is intended to
increase the safety for life and property on the Sheepscot River,
improve the safety of anchored vessels, provide for ample anchorages
for transient vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient
flow of recreational vessels and commerce.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, who 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 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, Massachusetts
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 (CGD01-07-
011), 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 proposed rule is the result of colloboration with the Town of
Edgecomb's Waterfront Committee to accommodate transient vessels
mooring in the area. Currently, the Town of Edgecomb has two large
condominium/marina complexes under construction in the harbor. Due to
this growth, the Waterfront Committee wants to be proactive and to
insure that there will always be suitable anchorages available to
vessels transiting the area. The proposed rule would establish a
general anchorage area adjacent to the current town mooring fields.
These fields currently accommodate approximately 40 moorings for
vessels greater than 27 feet, and 35 moorings for vessels smaller than
27 feet. The proposed rule is designed to reserve approximately 15
anchorages for transient vessels visiting the area from May through
October each year. The anchorage would accommodate both sail and power
vessels with a 3-to-12-foot draft. Vessels would use their own ground
tackle.
In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted
with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia
Road., Concord, MA 01742.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would create a general anchorage area located in
Edgecomb, Maine on the Sheepscot River. The proposed rule conforms to
the changing needs of the Town of Edgecomb in addition to the needs of
the recreational, fishing, and commercial vessels. The rule provides
for the best use of the available navigable water. This anchorage is in
the interest of safe navigation, and would protect the vessels moored
at the Town of Edgecomb and marine environment.
Mariners using the anchorage area would be encouraged to contact
local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure
compliance with any applicable state and local laws. Such laws may
involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local
harbormaster when anchoring 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.
The proposed anchorage area does not impede the passage of
recreational or commercial vessels as it is not located in the primary
channel of the Sheepscot River, and thus, 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 Sheepscot River 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
anchorage area is not located near the primary channel of the river and
will not restrict vessel traffic transiting up or down the Sheepscot
River. Thus, the anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient
vessel transits.
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 Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
[[Page 29094]]
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, Telephone (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
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 establish an
anchorage ground.
A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be
considered before we make the final decision on whether this 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); Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add Sec. 110.131 to read as follows:
Sec. 110.131 Sheepscot River in vicinity of Edgecomb, Maine.
(a) Anchorage grounds. All of the waters enclosed by a line
starting from a point located at the southwestern end of Davis Island
at latitude 43[deg]59.655' N., longitude 69[deg]39.617' W.; thence to
latitude 43[deg]59.687' N., longitude 69[deg]39.691' W.; thence to
latitude 43[deg]59.847' N., longitude 69[deg]39.743' W.; thence to
latitude 43[deg]59.879' N., longitude 69[deg]39.559' W.; thence to
latitude 43[deg]59.856' N., longitude 69[deg]39.488' W.; thence to
latitude 43[deg]59.771' N., longitude 69[deg]39.585' W.; thence to the
point of beginning.
DATUM: NAD 83
(b) Regulations. (1) This anchorage is reserved for vessels of all
types, with drafts of from 3 to 12 feet.
(2) These anchorage grounds are authorized for use from May through
October.
(3) Vessels are limited to a maximum stay of 1 week.
(4) Fixed moorings, piles or stakes are prohibited.
(5) Vessels must not anchor so as to obstruct the passage of other
vessels proceeding to or from other anchorage spaces.
(6) Anchors must not be placed in the channel and no portion of the
hull or
[[Page 29095]]
rigging of any anchored vessel shall extend outside the limits of the
anchorage area.
(7) The anchorage of vessels is under the coordination of the local
Harbormaster.
Dated: April 9, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-9968 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
