Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, ME, Casco Bay, 13125-13126 [E8-4821]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
certain affiliated corporations), the
resulting loss is treated as a loss from
the sale or exchange, on the last day of
the taxable year, of a capital asset. See
section 165(g)(1) and paragraph (c) of
this section. To abandon a security, a
taxpayer must permanently surrender
and relinquish all rights in the security
and receive no consideration in
exchange for the security. For purposes
of this section, all the facts and
circumstances determine whether the
transaction is properly characterized as
an abandonment or other type of
transaction, such as an actual sale or
exchange, contribution to capital,
dividend, or gift.
(2) Effective/applicability date. This
paragraph (i) applies to any
abandonment of stock or other
securities after March 12, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
Linda E. Stiff,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: March 3, 2008.
Eric Solomon,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. E8–4862 Filed 3–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG–2008–0076]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth,
ME, Casco Bay
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby
establishes three special anchorage areas
in Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay. This
action is necessary to facilitate safe
navigation in that area and provide safe
and secure anchorages for vessels not
more than 65 feet in length. This action
is intended to increase the safety of life
and property in Yarmouth, improve the
safety of anchored vessels, and provide
for the overall safe and efficient flow of
vessel traffic and commerce.
DATES: This rule is effective April 11,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket (CGD01–07–009), and are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:40 Mar 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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, e-mail:
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
Regulatory Information
On May 24, 2007, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ‘‘Anchorage Regulations;
Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay’’ in the
Federal Register (72 FR 29095). We
received no letters commenting on the
proposed rule. No public hearing was
requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
This rule is intended to reduce the
risk of vessel collisions by creating three
special anchorage areas in Yarmouth,
Maine: (1) Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point
Cousins Island Special Anchorage, (2)
Madeleine and Sandy Point Special
Anchorage, and (3) Drinkwater Point
and Princes Point Special Anchorage,
creating anchorage for approximately
350 vessels.
The Coast Guard is designating the
special anchorage areas in accordance
with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute,
vessels will not be required to sound
signals or exhibit anchor lights or
shapes which are otherwise required by
rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation
Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and
2035.
The Coast Guard has defined the
anchorage areas contained herein with
the advice and consent of the Army
Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at
696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no
comments for the NPRM and no changes
were made to this final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order.
We expect the economic impact of
this rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on the fact that
this rule conforms to the changing needs
of the Town of Yarmouth, the changing
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13125
needs of recreational, fishing, and
commercial vessels, and makes the best
use of the available navigable water.
This rule is in the interest of safe
navigation and protection of Yarmouth
and the marine environment.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offered to assist small entities in
understanding this 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, at the address listed in
ADDRESSES above.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the
Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency’s responsiveness to
small business. If you wish to comment
on actions by employees of the Coast
Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–
734–3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
13126
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule would not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:40 Mar 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides 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 this action is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section of this
preamble. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to discovery
of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:
I
§ 110.5
*
*
*
*
(f) Yarmouth Harbor and adjacent
waters. (1) Anchorage A. All of the
waters enclosed by a line from a point
located at the northernmost point of
Littlejohn Island at latitude 43°45′86″
N., longitude 70°06′95″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°45′78″ N., longitude
70°06′89″ W.; thence to latitude
43°45′43″ N., longitude 70°07′38″ W.;
thence to latitude 43°45′28″ N.,
longitude 70°07′68″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°44′95″ N., longitude
70°08′45″ W.; thence to latitude
43°44′99″ N., longitude 70°08′50″ W.
DATUM: NAD 83.
(2) Anchorage B. All of the waters
enclosed by a line from a point located
Northeast of Birch Point on Cousins
Island at latitude 43°45′27″ N.,
longitude 70°09′32″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°45′35″ N., longitude
70°09′50″ W.; thence to latitude
43°45′63″ N., longitude 70°09′18″ W.;
thence to latitude 43°45′95″ N.,
longitude 70°08′98″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°45′99″ N., longitude
70°08′83″ W. DATUM: NAD 83.
(3) Anchorage C. All of the waters
enclosed by a line from a point located
South of Drinkwater Point in Yarmouth,
Maine at latitude 43°46′42″ N.,
longitude 70°09′25″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°46′35″ N., longitude
70°09′16″ W.; thence to latitude
43°46′07″ N., longitude 70°09′77″ W.;
thence to latitude 43°45′48″ N.,
longitude 70°10′40″ W.; thence to
latitude 43°45′65″ N., longitude
70°10′40″ W. DATUM: NAD 83.
Note to paragraph (f). An ordinance of the
Town of Yarmouth, Maine requires the
approval of the Yarmouth 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
Yarmouth Harbor Master or other such
authority as may be designated by the
authorities of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine.
All moorings are to be so placed that no
moored vessel will extend beyond the limit
of the anchorage area.
*
PART 110—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
Casco Bay, Maine.
*
*
*
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 110
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through
1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
Dated: February 21, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–4821 Filed 3–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
I
2. Amend § 110.5 by adding paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13125-13126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4821]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0076]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, ME, Casco Bay
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby establishes three special anchorage
areas in Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay. This action is necessary to
facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure
anchorages for vessels not more than 65 feet in length. This action is
intended to increase the safety of life and property in Yarmouth,
improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall
safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.
DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket (CGD01-07-009), and are 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, e-mail: John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.
Regulatory Information
On May 24, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay''
in the Federal Register (72 FR 29095). We received no letters
commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and
none was held.
Background and Purpose
This rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by
creating three special anchorage areas in Yarmouth, Maine: (1)
Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point Cousins Island Special Anchorage, (2)
Madeleine and Sandy Point Special Anchorage, and (3) Drinkwater Point
and Princes Point Special Anchorage, creating anchorage for
approximately 350 vessels.
The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage areas in
accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be
required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are
otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules,
codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035.
The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage areas contained herein
with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast,
located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no comments for the NPRM and no changes
were made to this final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the
changing needs of the Town of Yarmouth, the changing needs of
recreational, fishing, and commercial vessels, and makes the best use
of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe
navigation and protection of Yarmouth and the marine environment.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this 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, at
the address listed in ADDRESSES above.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have
[[Page 13126]]
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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 rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides 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 this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 110.5 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.5 Casco Bay, Maine.
* * * * *
(f) Yarmouth Harbor and adjacent waters. (1) Anchorage A. All of
the waters enclosed by a line from a point located at the northernmost
point of Littlejohn Island at latitude 43[deg]45'86'' N., longitude
70[deg]06'95'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'78'' N., longitude
70[deg]06'89'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'43'' N., longitude
70[deg]07'38'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'28'' N., longitude
70[deg]07'68'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'95'' N., longitude
70[deg]08'45'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'99'' N., longitude
70[deg]08'50'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.
(2) Anchorage B. All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point
located Northeast of Birch Point on Cousins Island at latitude
43[deg]45'27'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'32'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'35'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'50'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'63'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'18'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'95'' N., longitude 70[deg]08'98'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'99'' N., longitude 70[deg]08'83'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.
(3) Anchorage C. All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point
located South of Drinkwater Point in Yarmouth, Maine at latitude
43[deg]46'42'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'25'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]46'35'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'16'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]46'07'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'77'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'48'' N., longitude 70[deg]10'40'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'65'' N., longitude 70[deg]10'40'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.
Note to paragraph (f). An ordinance of the Town of Yarmouth,
Maine requires the approval of the Yarmouth 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
Yarmouth Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated
by the authorities of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine. All moorings are
to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit
of the anchorage area.
* * * * *
Dated: February 21, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-4821 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P