Anchorage Regulations; Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound, RI, 15246-15249 [2011-6498]
Download as PDF
15246
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, 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 this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This proposed
rule involves implementation of
regulations within 33 CFR part 100
applicable to organized marine events
on the navigable waters of the United
States that could negatively impact the
safety of waterway users and shore side
activities in the event area. The category
of water activities includes but is not
limited to sail boat regattas, boat
parades, power boat racing, swimming
events, crew racing, canoe and sail
board racing. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
latitude 39°12′16″ N, longitude
076°03′48″ W; thence to the point of
origin at latitude 39°12′27″ N, longitude
076°03′46″ W, located at Chestertown,
Maryland. All coordinates reference
Datum NAD 1983.
(b) Definitions.
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander
means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
who has been designated by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.
(c) Special local regulations.
(1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when
directed to do so by the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 5
p.m. on May 28, 2011.
(1) The Coast Guard will publish a
notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners and issue
marine information broadcast on VHF–
FM marine band radio announcing
specific event date and times.
(2) [Reserved]
Dated: March 4, 2011.
Mark P. O’Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2011–6588 Filed 3–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
2. Add a temporary section, § 100.35–
T05–0126 to read as follows:
Coast Guard
§ 100.35–T05–0126 Special Local
Regulations for Marine Events; Chester
River, Chestertown, MD.
33 CFR Part 110
(a) Regulated area. The following
locations are regulated areas: All waters
of the Chester River, within a line
connecting the following positions:
latitude 39°12′27″ N, longitude
076°03′46″ W; thence to latitude
39°12′19″ N, longitude 076°03′53″ W;
thence to latitude 39°12′25″ N,
longitude 076°03′41″ W; thence to
RIN 1625–AA01
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[Docket No. USCG–2009–1131]
Anchorage Regulations; Narragansett
Bay and Rhode Island Sound, RI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
remove an obsolete Naval explosives
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
anchorage in Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Island, and to add an offshore anchorage
in Rhode Island Sound south of Brenton
Point, Rhode Island, for use by vessels
waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2009–1131 using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these methods. For instructions
on submitting comments, see the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at
Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England, 401–435–2351. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, please call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
16:12 Mar 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert USCG–
2009–1131 in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the item in the
Docket ID column. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2009–1131),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG–
2009–1131’’ in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the balloon
shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8c by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your
comments.
Anyone can search the electronic
form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15247
Basis and Purpose
The Secretary of Homeland Security
has delegated to the Coast Guard the
authority to establish and regulate
anchorage grounds in accordance with
33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030,
2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. This proposed
rule would remove an obsolete and no
longer used anchorage in Narragansett
Bay from the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and formalize and
codify an area of Rhode Island Sound
that under current informal practice is
routinely used by mariners as an
anchorage while waiting to enter
Narragansett Bay.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would remove the
Naval explosives anchorage described in
33 CFR 110.145(a)(2)(ii). Naval Station
Newport, Rhode Island, had indicated to
the Coast Guard that this anchorage is
obsolete and no longer necessary for
naval purposes. Leaving this obsolete
anchorage in the CFR, and on navigation
charts, leaves mariners with the
mistaken impression that the area is
reserved for a special purpose (i.e.,
explosives vessel anchoring) when in
fact, it is no longer used or needed for
that purpose.
The proposed rule also would add a
new anchorage to formalize and codify
the current practice of commercial
vessels that anchor in an area south of
Brenton Point, Newport, Rhode Island,
while waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
Establishing this anchorage in the CFR,
and placing it on navigation charts, will
remove ambiguity and clarify for
mariners the preferred and safest area in
which to anchor offshore when waiting
to enter Narragansett Bay.
This proposed anchorage area would
encroach on a Navy Restricted Area (33
CFR 334.78) used as a naval practice
minefield. We asked the Navy if this
Restricted Area is still required and they
have advised us that it is now
considered obsolete and we can request
that it be removed from the CFR and the
charts. We have engaged the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requesting
that this Navy Restricted Area be
removed from the CFR as well as the
charts.
Prior to anchoring in the proposed
anchorage area all vessels would be
required to notify the COTP and unless
otherwise approved by the COTP, all
vessels must depart the anchorage area
within 96 hours. This is necessary to
ensure that an adequate anchorage area
remains available close to the entrance
to Narragansett Bay for vessels waiting
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
15248
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
to enter Narragansett Bay. This
anchorage is not intended to be a longer
term anchorage, but rather it is intended
to be a short term anchorage available
for vessels intending to enter
Narragansett Bay within 96 hours and to
facilitate their easy and safe entrance
into Narragansett Bay. All vessels
anchored in the proposed anchorage
must be within the anchorage area at all
times to ensure that they do not swing
out into the nearby Traffic Lanes
creating a high risk of collision with
commercial vessels that transit past this
Anchorage Area especially at night and
during times of inclement weather.
Additionally, to ensure completely open
entrance to Narragansett Bay when
necessary, as deemed by the COTP, all
vessels anchored in the proposed
anchorage must be able to get underway
within two hours.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Planning and Review
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 minimal additional cost
impacts to the industry because this rule
is not imposing fees, permits, or
specialized requirements for the
maritime industry to utilize this
anchorage area. The effect of this rule
would not be significant as it removes
one obsolete anchorage that is no longer
used by the U.S. Navy, and documents
and codifies another area that is
currently used by commercial vessels.
This would represent an improvement
on the safety of vessels using the
anchorage grounds and would facilitate
the transit of deep draft vessels through
the area.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule may affect the
following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels that have a need to
anchor in Narragansett Bay or Rhode
Island Sound at the entrance to
Narragansett Bay.
This proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons: this rule would
only codify current navigation practices
that are already in use by small entities
in this area. The anchorage would not
affect vessels’ schedules or their ability
to freely transit within these areas of
Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island
Sound. The anchorage would impose no
monetary expenses on small entities
because it does not require them to
purchase any new equipment, hire
additional crew, or make any other
expenditures.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES above) explaining why you
think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically
affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Mr. Edward
G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector
Southeastern New England, 401–435–
2351. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (adjusted for inflation) 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 cause 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may 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 does not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, 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 this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This rule
removes one anchorage area and
establishes one new anchorage area
where commercial vessels already
regularly anchor. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Remove and reserve
§ 110.145(a)(2)(ii), consisting of
introductory text and paragraphs (a)
through (e).
3. Add § 110.149 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 110.149
Narragansett Bay, RI
(a) Brenton Point anchorage
ground. An area bounded by the
following coordinates: 41°22′37.1″ N,
71°14′40.3″ W; thence to 41°20′42.8″ N,
71°14′40.3″ W; thence to 41°18′24.1″ N,
71°20′32.5″ W; thence to 41°20′22.6″ N,
71°20′32.5″ W; thence back to point of
origin.
(b) The following regulations apply in
the Brenton Point anchorage ground.
(1) Prior to anchoring within the
anchorage area, all vessels shall notify
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via
VHF–FM Channel 16.
(2) Except as otherwise provided, no
vessel may occupy this anchorage
ground for a period of time in excess of
96 hours without prior approval of the
Captain of the Port.
(3) If a request is made for the longterm layup of a vessel, the Captain of
the Port may establish special
conditions with which the vessel must
comply in order for such a request to be
approved.
(4) No vessel in such condition that it
is likely to sink or otherwise become a
menace or obstruction to navigation or
anchorage of other vessels shall occupy
an anchorage except in cases where
unforeseen circumstances create
conditions of imminent peril to
personnel and then only for such period
as may be authorized by the Captain of
the Port.
(5) Anchors shall be placed well
within the anchorage areas so that no
portion of the hull or rigging will at any
time extend outside of the anchorage
area.
(6) The Coast Guard Captain of the
Port may close the anchorage area and
direct vessels to depart the anchorage
during periods of adverse weather or at
other times as deemed necessary in the
interest of port safety and security.
(7) Any vessel anchored in these
grounds must be capable of getting
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15249
underway if ordered by the Captain of
the Port and must be able to do so
within two hours of notification by the
Captain of the Port. If a vessel will not
be able to get underway within two
hours of notification, permission must
be requested from the Captain of the
Port to remain in the anchorage. No
vessel shall anchor in a ‘‘dead ship’’
status (propulsion or control
unavailable for normal operations)
without prior approval of the Captain of
the Port.
(8) Brenton Point anchorage ground is
a general anchorage area reserved
primarily for commercial vessels
waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
(9) Temporary floats or buoys for
marking anchors or moorings in place
will be allowed in this area. Fixed
mooring piles or stakes will not be
allowed.
(10) All coordinates referenced use
datum: NAD 83.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011–6498 Filed 3–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 70, and 71
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0083; FRL–9283–8]
RIN 2060–AQ79
Deferral for CO2 Emissions From
Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs: Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This action proposes to defer
for a period of three (3) years the
application of the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title
V permitting requirements to biogenic
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources. This action is being taken as
part of the process of granting the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by the
National Alliance of Forest Owners
(NAFO) on August 3, 2010, related to
the PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before May 5, 2011.
Public Hearing. EPA will hold one
hearing on this action. The hearing will
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15246-15249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6498]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG-2009-1131]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound,
RI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove an obsolete Naval
explosives
[[Page 15247]]
anchorage in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, and to add an offshore
anchorage in Rhode Island Sound south of Brenton Point, Rhode Island,
for use by vessels waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-1131 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England, 401-435-2351. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, please call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-1131), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-1131'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-1131 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting 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.
Basis and Purpose
The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated to the Coast Guard
the authority to establish and regulate anchorage grounds in accordance
with 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. This
proposed rule would remove an obsolete and no longer used anchorage in
Narragansett Bay from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and
formalize and codify an area of Rhode Island Sound that under current
informal practice is routinely used by mariners as an anchorage while
waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would remove the Naval explosives anchorage
described in 33 CFR 110.145(a)(2)(ii). Naval Station Newport, Rhode
Island, had indicated to the Coast Guard that this anchorage is
obsolete and no longer necessary for naval purposes. Leaving this
obsolete anchorage in the CFR, and on navigation charts, leaves
mariners with the mistaken impression that the area is reserved for a
special purpose (i.e., explosives vessel anchoring) when in fact, it is
no longer used or needed for that purpose.
The proposed rule also would add a new anchorage to formalize and
codify the current practice of commercial vessels that anchor in an
area south of Brenton Point, Newport, Rhode Island, while waiting to
enter Narragansett Bay. Establishing this anchorage in the CFR, and
placing it on navigation charts, will remove ambiguity and clarify for
mariners the preferred and safest area in which to anchor offshore when
waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.
This proposed anchorage area would encroach on a Navy Restricted
Area (33 CFR 334.78) used as a naval practice minefield. We asked the
Navy if this Restricted Area is still required and they have advised us
that it is now considered obsolete and we can request that it be
removed from the CFR and the charts. We have engaged the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) requesting that this Navy Restricted Area be removed
from the CFR as well as the charts.
Prior to anchoring in the proposed anchorage area all vessels would
be required to notify the COTP and unless otherwise approved by the
COTP, all vessels must depart the anchorage area within 96 hours. This
is necessary to ensure that an adequate anchorage area remains
available close to the entrance to Narragansett Bay for vessels waiting
[[Page 15248]]
to enter Narragansett Bay. This anchorage is not intended to be a
longer term anchorage, but rather it is intended to be a short term
anchorage available for vessels intending to enter Narragansett Bay
within 96 hours and to facilitate their easy and safe entrance into
Narragansett Bay. All vessels anchored in the proposed anchorage must
be within the anchorage area at all times to ensure that they do not
swing out into the nearby Traffic Lanes creating a high risk of
collision with commercial vessels that transit past this Anchorage Area
especially at night and during times of inclement weather.
Additionally, to ensure completely open entrance to Narragansett Bay
when necessary, as deemed by the COTP, all vessels anchored in the
proposed anchorage must be able to get underway within two hours.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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 minimal additional cost impacts to the industry because
this rule is not imposing fees, permits, or specialized requirements
for the maritime industry to utilize this anchorage area. The effect of
this rule would not be significant as it removes one obsolete anchorage
that is no longer used by the U.S. Navy, and documents and codifies
another area that is currently used by commercial vessels. This would
represent an improvement on the safety of vessels using the anchorage
grounds and would facilitate the transit of deep draft vessels through
the area.
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 rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels that have a need to anchor in Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island
Sound at the entrance to Narragansett Bay.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this
rule would only codify current navigation practices that are already in
use by small entities in this area. The anchorage would not affect
vessels' schedules or their ability to freely transit within these
areas of Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island Sound. The anchorage would
impose no monetary expenses on small entities because it does not
require them to purchase any new equipment, hire additional crew, or
make any other expenditures.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES above) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and
to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast
Guard Sector Southeastern New England, 401-435-2351. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed 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 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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 cause 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 does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
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 does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
[[Page 15249]]
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, 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 this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule removes one anchorage area
and establishes one new anchorage area where commercial vessels already
regularly anchor. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 110.145(a)(2)(ii), consisting of
introductory text and paragraphs (a) through (e).
3. Add Sec. 110.149 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 110.149 Narragansett Bay, RI
(a) Brenton Point anchorage ground. An area bounded by the
following coordinates: 41[deg]22'37.1'' N, 71[deg]14'40.3'' W; thence
to 41[deg]20'42.8'' N, 71[deg]14'40.3'' W; thence to 41[deg]18'24.1''
N, 71[deg]20'32.5'' W; thence to 41[deg]20'22.6'' N, 71[deg]20'32.5''
W; thence back to point of origin.
(b) The following regulations apply in the Brenton Point anchorage
ground.
(1) Prior to anchoring within the anchorage area, all vessels shall
notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via VHF-FM Channel 16.
(2) Except as otherwise provided, no vessel may occupy this
anchorage ground for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without
prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
(3) If a request is made for the long-term layup of a vessel, the
Captain of the Port may establish special conditions with which the
vessel must comply in order for such a request to be approved.
(4) No vessel in such condition that it is likely to sink or
otherwise become a menace or obstruction to navigation or anchorage of
other vessels shall occupy an anchorage except in cases where
unforeseen circumstances create conditions of imminent peril to
personnel and then only for such period as may be authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
(5) Anchors shall be placed well within the anchorage areas so that
no portion of the hull or rigging will at any time extend outside of
the anchorage area.
(6) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage
area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest
of port safety and security.
(7) Any vessel anchored in these grounds must be capable of getting
underway if ordered by the Captain of the Port and must be able to do
so within two hours of notification by the Captain of the Port. If a
vessel will not be able to get underway within two hours of
notification, permission must be requested from the Captain of the Port
to remain in the anchorage. No vessel shall anchor in a ``dead ship''
status (propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations)
without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
(8) Brenton Point anchorage ground is a general anchorage area
reserved primarily for commercial vessels waiting to enter Narragansett
Bay.
(9) Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors or moorings in
place will be allowed in this area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes will
not be allowed.
(10) All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-6498 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P