Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford, MA: Anchorage Ground and Regulated Navigation Area, 20287-20290 [2011-8518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
actions listed below. We will consider
any additional evidence we receive
together with the evidence we already
have.
(1) We may recontact your treating
physician, psychologist, or other
medical source. We may choose not to
seek additional evidence or clarification
from a medical source if we know from
experience that the source either cannot
or will not provide the necessary
evidence. If we obtain medical evidence
over the telephone, we will send the
telephone report to the source for
review, signature, and return;
(2) We may request additional
existing records (see § 416.912);
(3) We may ask you to undergo a
consultative examination at our expense
(see §§ 416.917 through 416.919t); or
(4) We may ask you or others for more
information.
(d) When there are inconsistencies in
the evidence that we cannot resolve or
when, despite efforts to obtain
additional evidence, the evidence is
insufficient to determine whether you
are disabled, we will make a
determination or decision based on the
evidence we have.
13. Amend § 416.927 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (b);
b. Remove paragraph (c);
c. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through
(f) as (c) through (e);
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)
remove ‘‘(d)(2)’’ and add in its place
‘‘(c)(2)’’;
e. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c)(2) remove ‘‘(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)’’
and add in its place ‘‘(c)(2)(i) and
(c)(2)(ii)’’ and remove ‘‘(d)(3) through
(d)(6)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(c)(3)
through (c)(6)’’;
f. In newly redesignated paragraph
(d)(3) remove ‘‘(e)(1) and (e)(2)’’ and add
in its place ‘‘(d)(1) and (d)(2)’’;
g. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)
remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and add in its
place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’;
h. In newly redesignated paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and
add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; and
i. In newly redesignated paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and
add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’.
The revision reads as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 416.927
Evaluating opinion evidence.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) How we consider medical
opinions. In determining whether you
are disabled, we will always consider
the medical opinions in your case
record together with the rest of the
relevant evidence we receive. See
§ 416.920b.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
14. Amend § 416.945 by revising the
fifth sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
§ 416.945
capacity.
Your residual functional
(a) * * *
(3) * * * (See §§ 416.912(d) through
(e).) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–8388 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Chapter I
No Child Left Behind School Facilities
and Construction Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is announcing
that the No Child Left Behind School
Facilities and Construction Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee will hold its
sixth meeting in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is
to continue working on reports and
recommendations to Congress and the
Secretary as required under the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
DATES: The Committee’s sixth meeting
will begin at 8 a.m. on April 27, 2011,
and end at 12 p.m. on April 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the National Indian Program Training
Center, second floor, 1011 Indian
School Road, NW., Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87104.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Designated Federal Official, Michele F.
Singer, Director, Office of Regulatory
Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office
of the Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road, NW.,
Suite 312, Albuquerque, NM 87104;
telephone (505) 563–3805; fax (505)
563–3811.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The No
Child Left Behind School Facilities and
Construction Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee was established to prepare
and submit to the Secretary a catalog of
the conditions at Bureau-funded
schools, and to prepare reports covering:
The school replacement and new
construction needs at Bureau-funded
school facilities; a formula for the
equitable distribution of funds to
address those needs; a list of major and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20287
minor renovation needs at those
facilities; and a formula for equitable
distribution of funds to address those
needs. The reports are to be submitted
to Congress and to the Secretary. The
Committee also expects to draft
proposed regulations covering
construction standards for heating,
lighting, and cooling in home-living
(dormitory) situations.
The following items will be on the
agenda:
• Review and approve February 2011
meeting summary;
• Reach consensus on unresolved
issues in the draft report;
• Finalize draft report language and
prepare for tribal consultation;
• Agree on a schedule, standard
agenda and presentation material for
tribal consultation sessions;
• Discuss and clarify next steps for
synthesizing and sharing comments
received from tribal consultation and
highlighting key topics for final
committee meeting; and
• Public comments.
Written comments may be sent to the
Designated Federal Official listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above. All meetings are open to
the public; however, transportation,
lodging, and meals are the responsibility
of the participating public.
Dated: April 5, 2011.
Paul Tsosie,
Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011–8649 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 110 and 165
[Docket No. USCG–2010–1119]
RIN 1625–AA01; 1625–AA11
Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor,
New Bedford, MA: Anchorage Ground
and Regulated Navigation Area
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend an existing anchorage ground
which currently overlaps a pilot
underwater cap (‘‘pilot cap’’) in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) New Bedford Harbor Superfund
Site in New Bedford, MA. The Coast
Guard also proposes to establish a
regulated navigation area (RNA)
prohibiting activities that disturb the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
20288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
seabed around the site. The proposed
RNA would not affect transit or
navigation of the area.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before May 12, 2011. Requests for
public meetings must be received by the
Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2010–1119 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 four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior
Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways
Management Branch, First Coast Guard
District; telephone 617–223–8385,
e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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–2010–1119),
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 (via https://
www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an e-mail
address, or a telephone 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, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2010–1119’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ 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 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments 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, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010–
1119’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 on or before April 27, 2011 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 legal basis for the proposed rule
is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221–1236, 2030, 2035,
and 2071; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g),
6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to define regulatory anchorage grounds
and RNAs.
The purpose of the proposed rule is
to minimize the potential for human
exposure to contamination and to help
protect the integrity of the EPA’s
remedy at a portion of the New Bedford
Harbor Superfund Site by reducing an
existing anchorage ground so that it no
longer overlaps the pilot cap, and by
placing the pilot cap in a RNA that
would protect the site from damage by
mariners, and protect mariners and the
general public from contaminants in the
site.
The New Bedford Superfund cleanup
site is an urban tidal estuary with
sediments contaminated by
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals. An extensive history and
background of the cleanup project can
be found on the EPA’s Web site, at
https://www.epa.gov/nbh/.
The specific cleanup project and
surrounding area addressed by this
regulation is the pilot cap, which is
located south of the New Bedford
Harbor hurricane barrier in the outer
harbor. The pilot cap consists of sand
and gravel covering approximately 20
acres of contaminated sediments. Based
on data collected in 2010, the thickness
of the cap is predominantly one to two
feet (98% of the cap area has a thickness
greater than one foot; 68% greater than
two feet; and in a few isolated areas, the
thickness is up to 6.4 feet). A copy of
the latest data for the pilot cap area can
be found on EPA’s Web site for New
Bedford Harbor. While the pilot cap is
protective of human health and the
environment, it remains vulnerable to
human actions that tend to disturb the
seabed.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Several maritime practices that
involve physical contact with the
seabed (e.g., anchoring, dragging,
trawling, and spudding) pose a specific
threat to the pilot cap. It is also
conceivable that PCBs or heavy metals
could stick to gear penetrating the
seabed; any contaminants that come up
with gear could create a threat to human
health and the environment. The
proposed RNA would prohibit these
specific activities without in any way
inhibiting surface navigation.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Presently, anchorage ground ‘‘B’’
designated in 33 CFR 110.140 directly
overlaps the pilot cap, which is
particularly susceptible to damage by
anchoring. To avoid that damage we
propose amending anchorage ground
‘‘B’’ by moving its northern boundary
sufficiently southward such that it no
longer overlaps with the pilot cap.
Although this would reduce the
anchorage ground’s area by roughly half,
we do not expect this to pose a
significant inconvenience to mariners
because anchorage ‘‘A’’ is located nearby
and is much larger.
Additionally, we propose establishing
a RNA around the pilot cap. Anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding, or any
other action making contact with the
seabed would be prohibited without the
express permission of the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Coast Guard Sector
Southeastern New England, in
consultation with the EPA; waivers
could be requested in writing. Transit or
navigation activities that do not make
contact with the seabed would not be
affected.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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.
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
This proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, 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 industry because this rule
would not affect normal surface
navigation. Although this regulation
may have some impact on the public,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
the potential impact will be minimized
for the following reasons: normal
surface navigation will not be affected;
approximately half of the existing
anchorage area will still be available for
use; the number of vessels using the
anchorage is limited due to depth (less
than or equal to 18 feet); and anchoring
over the pilot cap could pose a risk to
human health and the environment,
making it an already unattractive
option.
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 and small
fishing vessels intending to anchor in
New Bedford’s outer harbor.
The proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons: Normal surface
navigation will not be affected;
approximately half of the existing
anchorage area will still be available for
use, and there is another, much larger
anchorage nearby; the number of vessels
using the anchorage is limited due to
draft (less than or equal to 18 feet); and
anchoring over the pilot cap could pose
a risk to human health and the
environment, making it an already
unattractive option.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20289
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 Lieutenant
Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways
Management Branch, First Coast Guard
District; telephone 617–223–8385,
e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. 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 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 (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
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
20290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
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. Preliminary
NEPA documentation is available in the
docket for this proposed rule. We
believe the proposed rule would be
categorically excluded, under figure
2–1, paragraphs (34)(f) and (34)(g) of the
Instruction because it involves
shrinking an existing anchorage ground,
and establishing an RNA prohibiting
activities that disturb the seabed. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR parts 110 and 165 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. Amend § 110.140, by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 110.140 Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound,
and adjacent waters, Mass.
(a) * * *
(2) Anchorage B. All waters bounded
by a line beginning at 41°36′42.3″ N,
070°54′24.9″ W; thence to 41°36′55.5″ N,
070°54′06.6″ W; thence to 41°36′13.6″ N,
070°53′40.2″ W; thence to 41°36′11.1″ N,
070°54′07.6″ W; thence along the
shoreline to the beginning point.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
4. Add § 165.125 to read as follows:
§ 165.125 Regulated Navigation Area; EPA
Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor,
Massachusetts.
(a) Location. The regulated navigation
area encompasses all waters bounded by
a line beginning at 41°37′22.5″ N,
070°54′34.1″ W; thence to 41°37′14.4″ N,
070°54′19.6″ W; thence to 41°36′58.5″ N,
070°54′08.1″ W; thence to 41°36′45.0″ N,
070°54′26.9″ W; thence along the
shoreline and south side of the
hurricane barrier to the beginning point.
(b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and
persons are prohibited from activities
that would disturb the seabed within
the regulated navigation area, including
but not limited to, anchoring, dragging,
trawling, and spudding. Vessels may
otherwise transit or navigate within this
area without reservation.
(2) The prohibition described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not
apply to vessels or persons engaged in
activities associated with remediation
efforts in the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, provided that the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port Southeastern
New England (COTP) is given advance
notice of those activities by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
(c) Waivers. The COTP may, in
consultation with the U.S. EPA,
authorize a waiver from this section if
he or she determines that the proposed
activity can be performed without
undue risk to environmental
remediation efforts. Requests for
waivers should be submitted in writing
to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Southeastern New England, 1 Little
Harbor Road, Woods Hole, MA, 02543,
with a copy to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, New
Bedford Harbor Remedial Project
Manager, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
(OSRR07), Boston, MA 02109, to
facilitate review by the EPA and
U.S. Coast Guard.
Dated: March 24, 2011.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011–8518 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
3. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20287-20290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8518]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 110 and 165
[Docket No. USCG-2010-1119]
RIN 1625-AA01; 1625-AA11
Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford, MA: Anchorage
Ground and Regulated Navigation Area
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend an existing anchorage ground
which currently overlaps a pilot underwater cap (``pilot cap'') in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site in New Bedford, MA. The Coast Guard also proposes to
establish a regulated navigation area (RNA) prohibiting activities that
disturb the
[[Page 20288]]
seabed around the site. The proposed RNA would not affect transit or
navigation of the area.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 12, 2011. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-1119 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 four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways
Management Branch, First Coast Guard District; telephone 617-223-8385,
e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, 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-2010-1119), 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 (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-1119'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' 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\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments 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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-1119'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' 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 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 on or before April 27, 2011 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 legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221-1236,
2030, 2035, and 2071; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define regulatory anchorage grounds and RNAs.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and to help protect the integrity of
the EPA's remedy at a portion of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
by reducing an existing anchorage ground so that it no longer overlaps
the pilot cap, and by placing the pilot cap in a RNA that would protect
the site from damage by mariners, and protect mariners and the general
public from contaminants in the site.
The New Bedford Superfund cleanup site is an urban tidal estuary
with sediments contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals. An extensive history and background of the cleanup
project can be found on the EPA's Web site, at https://www.epa.gov/nbh/.
The specific cleanup project and surrounding area addressed by this
regulation is the pilot cap, which is located south of the New Bedford
Harbor hurricane barrier in the outer harbor. The pilot cap consists of
sand and gravel covering approximately 20 acres of contaminated
sediments. Based on data collected in 2010, the thickness of the cap is
predominantly one to two feet (98% of the cap area has a thickness
greater than one foot; 68% greater than two feet; and in a few isolated
areas, the thickness is up to 6.4 feet). A copy of the latest data for
the pilot cap area can be found on EPA's Web site for New Bedford
Harbor. While the pilot cap is protective of human health and the
environment, it remains vulnerable to human actions that tend to
disturb the seabed.
[[Page 20289]]
Several maritime practices that involve physical contact with the
seabed (e.g., anchoring, dragging, trawling, and spudding) pose a
specific threat to the pilot cap. It is also conceivable that PCBs or
heavy metals could stick to gear penetrating the seabed; any
contaminants that come up with gear could create a threat to human
health and the environment. The proposed RNA would prohibit these
specific activities without in any way inhibiting surface navigation.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Presently, anchorage ground ``B'' designated in 33 CFR 110.140
directly overlaps the pilot cap, which is particularly susceptible to
damage by anchoring. To avoid that damage we propose amending anchorage
ground ``B'' by moving its northern boundary sufficiently southward
such that it no longer overlaps with the pilot cap. Although this would
reduce the anchorage ground's area by roughly half, we do not expect
this to pose a significant inconvenience to mariners because anchorage
``A'' is located nearby and is much larger.
Additionally, we propose establishing a RNA around the pilot cap.
Anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or any other action making
contact with the seabed would be prohibited without the express
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Coast Guard Sector
Southeastern New England, in consultation with the EPA; waivers could
be requested in writing. Transit or navigation activities that do not
make contact with the seabed would not be affected.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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.
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 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 industry because this
rule would not affect normal surface navigation. Although this
regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact
will be minimized for the following reasons: normal surface navigation
will not be affected; approximately half of the existing anchorage area
will still be available for use; the number of vessels using the
anchorage is limited due to depth (less than or equal to 18 feet); and
anchoring over the pilot cap could pose a risk to human health and the
environment, making it an already unattractive option.
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 and small fishing vessels intending to anchor
in New Bedford's outer harbor.
The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Normal
surface navigation will not be affected; approximately half of the
existing anchorage area will still be available for use, and there is
another, much larger anchorage nearby; the number of vessels using the
anchorage is limited due to draft (less than or equal to 18 feet); and
anchoring over the pilot cap could pose a risk to human health and the
environment, making it an already unattractive option.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Isaac
Slavitt, Waterways Management Branch, First Coast Guard District;
telephone 617-223-8385, e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. 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 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 (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
[[Page 20290]]
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an
economically significant rule and would not create an environmental
risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect
children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under 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. Preliminary NEPA
documentation is available in the docket for this proposed rule. We
believe the proposed rule would be categorically excluded, under figure
2-1, paragraphs (34)(f) and (34)(g) of the Instruction because it
involves shrinking an existing anchorage ground, and establishing an
RNA prohibiting activities that disturb the seabed. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 110 and 165 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. Amend Sec. 110.140, by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 110.140 Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, and adjacent waters,
Mass.
(a) * * *
(2) Anchorage B. All waters bounded by a line beginning at
41[deg]36'42.3'' N, 070[deg]54'24.9'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'55.5'' N,
070[deg]54'06.6'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'13.6'' N, 070[deg]53'40.2'' W;
thence to 41[deg]36'11.1'' N, 070[deg]54'07.6'' W; thence along the
shoreline to the beginning point.
* * * * *
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
4. Add Sec. 165.125 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.125 Regulated Navigation Area; EPA Superfund Site, New
Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts.
(a) Location. The regulated navigation area encompasses all waters
bounded by a line beginning at 41[deg]37'22.5'' N, 070[deg]54'34.1'' W;
thence to 41[deg]37'14.4'' N, 070[deg]54'19.6'' W; thence to
41[deg]36'58.5'' N, 070[deg]54'08.1'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'45.0'' N,
070[deg]54'26.9'' W; thence along the shoreline and south side of the
hurricane barrier to the beginning point.
(b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from
activities that would disturb the seabed within the regulated
navigation area, including but not limited to, anchoring, dragging,
trawling, and spudding. Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate
within this area without reservation.
(2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
shall not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
provided that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Southeastern New
England (COTP) is given advance notice of those activities by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
(c) Waivers. The COTP may, in consultation with the U.S. EPA,
authorize a waiver from this section if he or she determines that the
proposed activity can be performed without undue risk to environmental
remediation efforts. Requests for waivers should be submitted in
writing to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England,
1 Little Harbor Road, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, with a copy to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, New Bedford Harbor Remedial
Project Manager, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR07), Boston, MA
02109, to facilitate review by the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard.
Dated: March 24, 2011.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-8518 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
