Anchorage Regulations; Stonington, ME, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME, 8633-8635 [E8-2693]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Karla M. Meola, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 702 Campaign Funds. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations. Accordingly, 26 CFR part 702 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 702—PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING PAYMENT ACCOUNT Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 702 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Par. 2. Section 702.9037–1 is revised to read as follows: ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS § 702.9037–1 Transfer of amounts to the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. [The text of the proposed § 702.9037– 1 is the same as the text of § 702.9037– 1T(a) through (b)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.] Par. 3. Section 702.9037–2 is revised to read as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 § 702.9037–2 Payments from the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. [The text of proposed § 702.9037–2 is the same as the text of § 702.9037–2T(a) through (c)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.] Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. 08–675 Filed 2–11–08; 12:09 pm] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG–2007–0198] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Stonington, ME, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish Crotch Island Special Anchorage in Stonington, Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and to provide safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet. This proposal is intended to increase the safety for life and property on Deer Island Thorofare, 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 April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw) (USCG–2007–0198), 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., PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 8633 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 (USCG–2007–0198), 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 Stonington’s Harbor Committee and Town Council to accommodate vessels mooring in the area. The proposed rule would establish Crotch Island Special Anchorage area organized from the current accommodations of approximately 500 moorings. The proposed rule is designed to aid the Town of Stonington in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by clearly defining the available mooring fields. In addition, the proposed rule will 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 Crotch Island Special Anchorage area located at the town of Stonington, E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 8634 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay. All waters enclosed by a line beginning at a point on 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. 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. Mariners utilizing this anchorage area 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 Stonington, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and to make the best use of the available navigable water. The proposed special anchorage area does not impede the passage of recreational or commercial vessels as they are not located in the primary entrance channel to Stonington Harbor. The proposed special anchorage area is a consolidation and delineation of existing mooring fields. Thus, this special anchorage area will have a minimal economic impact. This VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:21 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 proposed rule is in the interest of safe navigation, protection of the vessels moored at the Town of Stonington, and protection of the marine environment. 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 Deer Island Thorofare in and around this special anchorage area. However, this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons: The proposed special anchorage area is not located near the primary entrance into Stonington Harbor nor will it impede safe and efficient vessel transit in the area. 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 (Public Law 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., 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 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132. Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 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

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8633-8635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0198]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Stonington, ME, Deer Island Thorofare, 
Penobscot Bay, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish Crotch Island Special 
Anchorage in Stonington, Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot 
Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that 
area and to provide safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more 
than 65 feet. This proposal is intended to increase the safety for life 
and property on Deer Island Thorofare, 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 April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpw) (USCG-2007-0198), 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 (USCG-2007-
0198), 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 collaboration with the Town of 
Stonington's Harbor Committee and Town Council to accommodate vessels 
mooring in the area. The proposed rule would establish Crotch Island 
Special Anchorage area organized from the current accommodations of 
approximately 500 moorings. The proposed rule is designed to aid the 
Town of Stonington in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by 
clearly defining the available mooring fields. In addition, the 
proposed rule will 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 Crotch Island Special Anchorage area 
located at the town of Stonington,

[[Page 8634]]

Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay.
    All waters enclosed by a line beginning at a point on the northeast 
shore of Crotch Island located at latitude 44[deg]08'51.0'' N, 
longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W; thence southerly along the shoreline to 
latitude 44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'07.02'' W; thence to 
latitude 44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'04.02'' W; thence to 
latitude 44[deg]08'46.98'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'00.0'' W; thence to 
latitude 44[deg]08'55.02'' N, longitude 068[deg]39'49.02'' W; thence to 
latitude 44[deg]08'54.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W thence back 
to origin.
    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. Mariners utilizing this 
anchorage area 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 Stonington, the changing needs of 
recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and to make the best use 
of the available navigable water. The proposed special anchorage area 
does not impede the passage of recreational or commercial vessels as 
they are not located in the primary entrance channel to Stonington 
Harbor. The proposed special anchorage area is a consolidation and 
delineation of existing mooring fields. Thus, this 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 Stonington, and protection of the marine environment.

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 Deer 
Island Thorofare in and around this special anchorage area. However, 
this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic 
impact on these entities for the following reasons: The proposed 
special anchorage area is not located near the primary entrance into 
Stonington Harbor nor will it impede safe and efficient vessel transit 
in the area.
    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 (Public Law 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., 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 an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

[[Page 8635]]

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 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.

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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.4 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.4  Penobscot Bay, Maine.

* * * * *
    (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[deg]08'51.0'' N, longitude 
068[deg]40'06.0'' W; thence southerly along the shoreline to latitude 
44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'07.02'' W; thence to latitude 
44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'04.02'' W; thence to latitude 
44[deg]08'46.98'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'00.0'' W; thence to latitude 
44[deg]08'55.02'' N, longitude 068[deg]39'49.02'' W; thence to latitude 
44[deg]08'54.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W thence back to 
origin.
    DATUM: NAD 83.
    (2) [Reserved]

    Note to Sec.  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]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P