Anchorage Regulations; Boston Harbor, MA, Weymouth Fore River, 8635-8637 [E8-2692]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Feb 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
fits the category selected from paragraph
(34)(f) as it would establish a special
anchorage area.
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ is available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether this rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review and
documentation.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
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:
8635
AGENCY:
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;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 110.4 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 110.4
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Stonington Harbor, Deer Island
Thorofare—(1) Crotch Island. All of the
waters enclosed by a line beginning at
the northeast shore of Crotch Island
located at: latitude 44°08′51.0″ N,
longitude 068°40′06.0″ W; thence
southerly along the shoreline to latitude
44°08′36.0″ N, longitude 068°40′07.02″
W; thence to latitude 44°08′36.0″ N,
longitude 068°40′04.02″ W; thence to
latitude 44°08′46.98″ N, longitude
068°40′00.0″ W; thence to latitude
44°08′55.02″ N, longitude 068°39′49.02″
W; thence to latitude 44°08′54.0″ N,
longitude 068°40′06.0″ W thence back to
origin.
DATUM: NAD 83.
(2) [Reserved]
Note to § 110.4(e): An ordinance of the
Town of Stonington, Maine requires the
approval of the Stonington Harbor Master for
the location and type of moorings placed in
these special anchorage areas. All anchoring
in the areas are under the supervision of the
Stonington Harbor Master or other such
authority as may be designated by the
authorities of the Town of Stonington, Maine.
All moorings are to be so placed that no
moored vessel will extend beyond the limit
of the area.
Dated: January 17, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–2693 Filed 2–13–08; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG–2007–0199]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Boston
Harbor, MA, Weymouth Fore River
ACTION:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish Gull Point(PT) Special
Anchorage area in the Weymouth Fore
River, Weymouth, Massachusetts. This
proposed action is necessary to facilitate
safe navigation and provide a safe and
secure anchorage for vessels of not more
than 65 feet in length. This action is
intended to increase the safety of life
and property in the Weymouth Fore
River, improve the safety of anchored
vessels, and provide for the overall safe
and efficient flow of vessel traffic and
commerce.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpw) (USCG–2007–0199), First Coast
Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
Boston, MA 02110, or deliver them to
room 628 at the same address between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments and material received from
the public, as well as documents
indicated in this preamble as being
available in the docket, will become part
of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at room 628, First
Coast Guard District Boston, between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First
Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
Boston, MA 02110, Telephone (617)
223–8355 or e-mail at
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
DATES:
Penobscot Bay, Maine.
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Coast Guard
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 (USCG–2007–0199),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
8636
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
Additionally, mariners using the
anchorage areas are encouraged to
contact local and state authorities, such
as the local harbormaster, to ensure
compliance with any additional
applicable state and local laws. Such
laws may involve, for example,
compliance with direction from the
local harbormaster when placing or
using moorings within the anchorage.
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.
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 Weymouth, the
changing needs of recreational, fishing
and commercial vessels, and makes the
best use of the available navigable
water. This proposed special anchorage
area, while in the interest of safe
navigation and protection of the vessels
moored at the Town of Weymouth, does
not impede the passage of vessels
intending to transit Weymouth Fore
River. Thus, the special anchorage area
will have a minimal economic impact.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Background and Purpose
The rule is intended to reduce the risk
of vessel collisions by decreasing
activity in nearby over-crowded
mooring areas or anchorages in
Weymouth, Massachusetts. The
proposed rule would establish Gull
Point(PT) Special Anchorage, to allow
anchorage for approximately 40 vessels.
When at anchor in any special
anchorage, vessels not more than 65 feet
in length need not carry or exhibit the
white anchor lights required by the
Navigation Rules.
In developing this proposed rule, the
Coast Guard has consulted with the
Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast,
located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord,
MA 01742.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would establish
Gull Point (PT) Special Anchorage
located in the Weymouth Fore River,
Weymouth, Massachusetts. The special
anchorage for the Weymouth Fore River
is enclosed by a line beginning at
latitude 42°15′05″ N, longitude
70°57′26″ W; thence to latitude
42°15′00″ N, longitude 70°57′26″ W;
thence to latitude 42°15′15″ N,
longitude 70°56′50″ W; thence to
latitude 42°15′18″ N, longitude
70°56′50″ W; thence to the point of the
beginning. All proposed coordinates are
North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
This special anchorage area would be
limited to vessels no greater than 65 feet
in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet
in length are not required to sound
signals as required by rule 35 of the
Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C.
2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or
shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland
Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2030) when
at anchor in a special anchorage area.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Feb 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 Weymouth Fore River in and
around the special anchorage area.
However, this anchorage area would not
have a significant economic impact on
these entities for the following reasons:
The proposed special area does not
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impede the passage of vessels intending
to transit in and around Weymouth,
which include both small recreational
and large commercial vessels. Thus, the
special anchorage area will not impede
safe and efficient vessel transits in
Weymouth Fore River.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact John J.
Mauro, Waterways Management Branch,
First Coast Guard District Boston at
(617) 223–8355 or e-mail at
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:21 Feb 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 establishing a special
anchorage area.
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ is available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether the rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review and
documentation.
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;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 110.30, by redesignating
paragraph (k) as paragraph (k)(1) and
adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8637
§ 110.30 Boston Harbor, Mass., and
adjacent waters.
*
*
*
*
*
(k)(2) Weymouth Fore River, in the
vicinity of Gull Point (PT). All of the
waters enclosed by a line beginning at
latitude 42°15′05″ N, longitude
70°57′26″ W; thence to latitude
42°15′00″ N, longitude 70°57′26″ W;
thence to latitude 42°15′15″ N,
longitude 70°56′50″ W; thence to
latitude 42°15′18″ N, longitude
70°56′50″ W; thence to the point of the
beginning. DATUM: NAD 83.
Note to paragraph (k)(2): The area is
principally for use by recreational craft. All
anchoring in the area shall be under the
supervision of the local harbor master or
such other authority as may be designated by
the authorities of the Town of Weymouth,
Massachusetts. All moorings are to be so
placed that no moored vessel will extend
beyond the limit of the anchorage area.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 17, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–2692 Filed 2–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region 2 Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2008–
0078; FRL–8529–9]
Determinations of Attainment of the
Eight-Hour Ozone Standard for Various
Ozone Nonattainment Areas in Upstate
New York State
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to
determine that three ozone
nonattainment areas in New York, the
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Jefferson
County and Rochester areas, have
attained the eight-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for
ozone. New York State has requested
these determinations, which are based
upon three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air monitoring data for
the years 2004–2006. These data
demonstrate that the eight-hour ozone
standard has been attained in these
areas. In addition, data for 2007 show
that the areas continue to attain the
standard. If these proposed
determinations are made final, the
requirements for the State to submit
certain reasonable further progress
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8635-8637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2692]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0199]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Boston Harbor, MA, Weymouth Fore River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish Gull Point(PT) Special
Anchorage area in the Weymouth Fore River, Weymouth, Massachusetts.
This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and
provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65
feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life
and property in the Weymouth Fore River, improve the safety of anchored
vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel
traffic and commerce.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpw) (USCG-2007-0199), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
Boston, MA 02110, or deliver them to room 628 at the same address
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw),
First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110,
Telephone (617) 223-8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-
0199), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each
[[Page 8636]]
comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If
you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Branch at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by
decreasing activity in nearby over-crowded mooring areas or anchorages
in Weymouth, Massachusetts. The proposed rule would establish Gull
Point(PT) Special Anchorage, to allow anchorage for approximately 40
vessels. When at anchor in any special anchorage, vessels not more than
65 feet in length need not carry or exhibit the white anchor lights
required by the Navigation Rules.
In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted
with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia
Rd., Concord, MA 01742.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would establish Gull Point (PT) Special Anchorage
located in the Weymouth Fore River, Weymouth, Massachusetts. The
special anchorage for the Weymouth Fore River is enclosed by a line
beginning at latitude 42[deg]15[min]05[sec] N, longitude
70[deg]57[min]26[sec] W; thence to latitude 42[deg]15[min]00[sec] N,
longitude 70[deg]57[min]26[sec] W; thence to latitude
42[deg]15[min]15[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]56[min]50[sec] W; thence to
latitude 42[deg]15[min]18[sec] N, longitude 70[deg]56[min]50[sec] W;
thence to the point of the beginning. All proposed coordinates are
North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
This special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater
than 65 feet in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet in length are not
required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland
Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes
required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2030)
when at anchor in a special anchorage area.
Additionally, mariners using the anchorage areas are encouraged to
contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to
ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws.
Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the
local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to
the changing needs of the Town of Weymouth, the changing needs of
recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of
the available navigable water. This proposed special anchorage area,
while in the interest of safe navigation and protection of the vessels
moored at the Town of Weymouth, does not impede the passage of vessels
intending to transit Weymouth Fore River. Thus, the special anchorage
area will have a minimal economic impact.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational
or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Weymouth
Fore River in and around the special anchorage area. However, this
anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these
entities for the following reasons: The proposed special area does not
impede the passage of vessels intending to transit in and around
Weymouth, which include both small recreational and large commercial
vessels. Thus, the special anchorage area will not impede safe and
efficient vessel transits in Weymouth Fore River.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, Waterways
Management Branch, First Coast Guard District Boston at (617) 223-8355
or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do
[[Page 8637]]
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 establishing a
special anchorage area.
A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review
and documentation.
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; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Amend Sec. 110.30, by redesignating paragraph (k) as paragraph
(k)(1) and adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.30 Boston Harbor, Mass., and adjacent waters.
* * * * *
(k)(2) Weymouth Fore River, in the vicinity of Gull Point (PT). All
of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 42[deg]15'05''
N, longitude 70[deg]57'26'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]15'00'' N,
longitude 70[deg]57'26'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]15'15'' N,
longitude 70[deg]56'50'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]15'18'' N,
longitude 70[deg]56'50'' W; thence to the point of the beginning.
DATUM: NAD 83.
Note to paragraph (k)(2): The area is principally for use by
recreational craft. All anchoring in the area shall be under the
supervision of the local harbor master or such other authority as
may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Weymouth,
Massachusetts. All moorings are to be so placed that no moored
vessel will extend beyond the limit of the anchorage area.
* * * * *
Dated: January 17, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-2692 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P