Traffic Separation Schemes: In the Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston, MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, VA, and Cape Fear River, NC, 23193-23196 [2011-9892]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The individual States of the United
States are not represented at the IMO as
that is the role of the Federal
Government. The U.S. Coast Guard is
the principal agency responsible for
advancing the interests of the United
States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit
comments from the stakeholders
through public meetings and develop a
unified U.S. position prior to attending
sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on
Safety of Navigation and the Maritime
Safety Committee where TSSs are
discussed.
F. 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 rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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.
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
We have reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. Rulemakings that are
determined to have ‘‘tribal implications’’
under that Order (i.e., those that 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)
require the preparation of a tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
summary impact statement. This rule
will not have implications of the kind
envisioned under the Order because it
will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
preempt tribal law, or substantially
affect lands or rights held exclusively
by, or on behalf of, those governments.
Whether or not the Executive Order
applies in this case, it is the policy of
the Department of Homeland Security
and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal officials in
policy decisions that have tribal
implications under the Presidential
Memorandum of November 5, 2009,
(74 FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and
to seek out and consult with Native
Americans on all of its rulemakings that
may affect them. We regularly consulted
and collaborated with the Tribes
throughout the PARS and this
rulemaking. For a complete discussion
of these consultations see the interim
rule (75 FR 70818, 70825).
In the IR, the Coast Guard invited
comments on how the codification of
the existing TSSs might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may
not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’
under the Order. We received no
comments to our request.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23193
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards, nor is the Coast Guard aware
of the existence of any standards that
address these TSSs. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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 rule is categorically
excluded under section 2.B.2, figure
2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction.
This rule involves navigational aids,
which include TSSs. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Waterways.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B,
which was published at 75 FR 70818 on
November 19, 2010, is adopted as a final
rule.
Dated: April 11, 2011.
Dana A. Goward,
U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine
Transportation Systems Management.
[FR Doc. 2011–9895 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0718]
RIN 1625–AB55
Traffic Separation Schemes: In the
Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston,
MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and
Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay,
VA, and Cape Fear River, NC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM
26APR1
23194
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The Coast Guard is finalizing
without change its December 13, 2010,
interim rule codifying traffic separation
schemes in the approaches to Portland,
ME; in the approaches to Boston, MA;
in the approaches to Narragansett Bay,
RI and Buzzards Bay, MA; and in the
approaches to the Cape Fear River, NC,
and updating the then-current
regulations for the traffic separation
scheme in the approaches to
Chesapeake Bay, VA. The Coast Guard
established these traffic separation
schemes under authority of the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective May
26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, are part
of docket USCG–2010–0718 and are
available for inspection or copying at
the 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, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also
find this docket on the Internet by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2010–0718 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search’’.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, contact
Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Systems, telephone
202–372–1566, or e-mail
George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Abbreviations
2004 Act Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004
ATBA Area to be Avoided
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
PARS Port Access Route Study
PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
U.S.C. United States Code
V. Regulatory Analyses
II. Regulatory History
This 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.
As previously discussed, the TSSs
finalized by this final rule were codified
by the interim rule, implemented by
IMO, and are reflected on current
nautical charts and in nautical
publications. We anticipate no
increased costs for vessels traveling
within the aforementioned areas. These
internationally recognized traffic
separation schemes provide better
routing order and predictability,
increase maritime safety, and reduce the
potential for collisions, groundings, and
hazardous cargo spills.
By finalizing the interim rule we
complete the process of recording the
latitudes and longitudes of the TSSs’
coordinates in the CFR tables and make
it easier for the public to reference our
regulations when recommending
modifications or other operational
considerations. This rule finalizes
incorporation of the TSSs in the CFR
and does not impact mariner actions or
expectations.
On December 13, 2010, the Coast
Guard published an interim rule (75 FR
77529) that codified existing Traffic
Separation Schemes (TSSs) in the
Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston,
MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and Buzzards
Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, VA; and
Cape Fear River, NC. The Coast Guard
did not publish a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule under
the Administrative Procedure Act ‘‘good
cause’’ exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
The interim rule sought comments on
the enumerated TSSs. The comment
period closed December 28, 2010, and
we received no public comments on the
interim rule. No public meeting was
requested and none was held.
The interim rule became effective on
January 12, 2011. There are no changes
from the interim rule to this final rule.
III. Background
With this rule, the Coast Guard
finalizes without change the
codification of the traffic separation
schemes (TSSs) identified above. The
Coast Guard created each of these TSSs
after conducting a Port Access Route
Study (PARS) in accordance with the
Ports and Waterways Safety Act
(PAWSA) 33 U.S.C. 1221–1232. Each
TSS that is part of this rulemaking is
shown on nautical charts, is described
in the United States Coast Pilot, was
implemented by the International
Maritime Organization, and is described
in ‘‘Ships Routeing,’’ Tenth Edition,
2010. Each TSS has also been codified
in the CFR since January 12, 2011, when
the interim rule became effective. For a
full discussion of the basis and purpose
of this rulemaking see the interim rule
(75 FR 77529, 77530).
IV. Discussion of Comments and
Changes
We received no public comments in
response to our interim rule.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard has made
no changes in this final rule. A full
discussion of the provisions of this rule
may be found in the ‘‘Discussion of
Interim Rule’’ section of the interim rule.
(75 FR 77529, at 77531).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
We developed this final rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
We summarize our analyses based on 13
of these statutes or executive orders in
the paragraphs that follow.
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this final rule has 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.
As this rule serves to finalize in the
CFR TSSs that have already been
implemented, we estimate that there
will be no increased costs due to this
rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies,
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final
rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM
26APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule will have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a
comment to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES.
In your comment, explain why you
think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically
affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offer to assist small entities in
understanding this rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking. If you
believe this rule affects your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult Mr. George
Detweiler, Office of Navigation Systems,
telephone 202–372–1566. The U.S.
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the U.S. Coast Guard.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them.
We have analyzed this rule under that
Order and have determined that it has
federalism implications. Conflict
preemption principles apply to PWSA
Title I, and the TSSs in this rule are
issued under the authority of PWSA
Title I. These TSSs are specifically
intended to have preemptive impact
over State law covering the same subject
matter in the same geographic area.
Title I of PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221 et
seq.) authorizes the Secretary to issue
regulations to designate TSSs to provide
safe access routes for the movement of
vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports
or places subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States. In enacting the PWSA
in 1972, Congress found that advance
planning and consultation with the
affected States and other stakeholders
was necessary in the development and
implementation of a TSS. Throughout
the history of the development of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
TSSs that are the subject of this rule, we
have sought input from the public and
consulted with the affected State and
Federal pilots’ associations, vessel
operators, users, environmental
advocacy groups, and all affected
stakeholders.
Presently, there are no state laws or
regulations in the States affected by this
rule concerning the same subjects as
those contained in this rule. We
understand that the affected States do
not contemplate issuing any such
regulations. It should be noted that, by
virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSSs
in this rule preempt any State rule on
the same subject.
Foreign vessel owners and operators
usually become aware of TSSs when the
TSSs are added to the United States
Coast Pilot and the nautical charts that
are required by 33 CFR 164.33 to be on
each ship operating in U.S. waters.
Foreign vessel owners and operators
also become aware of TSSs through
their national IMO delegation and IMO
publications.
The individual States of the United
States are not represented at the IMO as
that is the role of the Federal
Government. The U.S. Coast Guard is
the principal agency responsible for
advancing the interests of the United
States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit
comments from the stakeholders
through public meetings and develop a
unified U.S. position prior to attending
sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on
Safety of Navigation and the Maritime
Safety Committee where TSSs are
discussed.
F. 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 rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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.
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23195
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
We have reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. Rulemakings that are
determined to have ‘‘tribal implications’’
under that Order (i.e., those that 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)
require the preparation of a tribal
summary impact statement. This rule
will not have implications of the kind
envisioned under the Order because it
will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
preempt tribal law, or substantially
affect lands or rights held exclusively
by, or on behalf of, those governments.
Whether or not the Executive Order
applies in this case, it is the policy of
the Department of Homeland Security
and the U.S. Coast Guard to engage in
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal officials in
policy decisions that have tribal
implications under the Presidential
Memorandum of November 5, 2009,
(74 FR 57881, November 9, 2009), and
to seek out and consult with Native
Americans on all of its rulemakings that
may affect them.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM
26APR1
23196
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in their regulatory
activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards, nor is the Coast Guard aware
of the existence of any standards that
address these TSSs. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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 is categorically
excluded under section 2.B.2, figure
2–1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction.
This rule involves navigational aids,
which include TSSs. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Waterways.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B,
which was published at 75 FR 77529 on
December 13, 2010, is adopted as a final
rule.
Dated: April 4, 2011.
Dana A. Goward,
U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine
Transportation Systems Management.
[FR Doc. 2011–9892 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0946; FRL–9294–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; IL
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a revision to
the Illinois State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone. The State is revising its
definition of volatile organic compound
(VOC) to add two chemical compounds
to the list of compounds that are exempt
from being considered a VOC. This
revision is based on EPA’s 2009
determination that these two
compounds do not significantly
contribute to ozone formation.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective June 27, 2011, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 26,
2011. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0946, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408–2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–
0946. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Charles
Hatten, Environmental Engineer, (312)
886–6031 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM
26APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23193-23196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9892]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[Docket No. USCG-2010-0718]
RIN 1625-AB55
Traffic Separation Schemes: In the Approaches to Portland, ME;
Boston, MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay,
VA, and Cape Fear River, NC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23194]]
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing without change its December 13,
2010, interim rule codifying traffic separation schemes in the
approaches to Portland, ME; in the approaches to Boston, MA; in the
approaches to Narragansett Bay, RI and Buzzards Bay, MA; and in the
approaches to the Cape Fear River, NC, and updating the then-current
regulations for the traffic separation scheme in the approaches to
Chesapeake Bay, VA. The Coast Guard established these traffic
separation schemes under authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0718 and are available for inspection or
copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to https://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0718 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search''.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Mr. George Detweiler, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Navigation
Systems, telephone 202-372-1566, or e-mail George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil.
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Abbreviations
2004 Act Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004
ATBA Area to be Avoided
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PARS Port Access Route Study
PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Regulatory History
On December 13, 2010, the Coast Guard published an interim rule (75
FR 77529) that codified existing Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs) in
the Approaches to Portland, ME; Boston, MA; Narragansett Bay, RI and
Buzzards Bay, MA; Chesapeake Bay, VA; and Cape Fear River, NC. The
Coast Guard did not publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for
this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act ``good cause''
exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The interim rule sought comments on
the enumerated TSSs. The comment period closed December 28, 2010, and
we received no public comments on the interim rule. No public meeting
was requested and none was held.
The interim rule became effective on January 12, 2011. There are no
changes from the interim rule to this final rule.
III. Background
With this rule, the Coast Guard finalizes without change the
codification of the traffic separation schemes (TSSs) identified above.
The Coast Guard created each of these TSSs after conducting a Port
Access Route Study (PARS) in accordance with the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act (PAWSA) 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232. Each TSS that is part of this
rulemaking is shown on nautical charts, is described in the United
States Coast Pilot, was implemented by the International Maritime
Organization, and is described in ``Ships Routeing,'' Tenth Edition,
2010. Each TSS has also been codified in the CFR since January 12,
2011, when the interim rule became effective. For a full discussion of
the basis and purpose of this rulemaking see the interim rule (75 FR
77529, 77530).
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
We received no public comments in response to our interim rule.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard has made no changes in this final rule. A
full discussion of the provisions of this rule may be found in the
``Discussion of Interim Rule'' section of the interim rule. (75 FR
77529, at 77531).
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. We summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders in the paragraphs
that follow.
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
This 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.
As previously discussed, the TSSs finalized by this final rule were
codified by the interim rule, implemented by IMO, and are reflected on
current nautical charts and in nautical publications. We anticipate no
increased costs for vessels traveling within the aforementioned areas.
These internationally recognized traffic separation schemes provide
better routing order and predictability, increase maritime safety, and
reduce the potential for collisions, groundings, and hazardous cargo
spills.
By finalizing the interim rule we complete the process of recording
the latitudes and longitudes of the TSSs' coordinates in the CFR tables
and make it easier for the public to reference our regulations when
recommending modifications or other operational considerations. This
rule finalizes incorporation of the TSSs in the CFR and does not impact
mariner actions or expectations.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this final rule has 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.
As this rule serves to finalize in the CFR TSSs that have already
been implemented, we estimate that there will be no increased costs due
to this rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that
this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 23195]]
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you believe
this rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult Mr. George Detweiler, Office of
Navigation Systems, telephone 202-372-1566. The U.S. Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the U.S. Coast Guard.
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined
that it has federalism implications. Conflict preemption principles
apply to PWSA Title I, and the TSSs in this rule are issued under the
authority of PWSA Title I. These TSSs are specifically intended to have
preemptive impact over State law covering the same subject matter in
the same geographic area.
Title I of PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary
to issue regulations to designate TSSs to provide safe access routes
for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or
places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In enacting
the PWSA in 1972, Congress found that advance planning and consultation
with the affected States and other stakeholders was necessary in the
development and implementation of a TSS. Throughout the history of the
development of the TSSs that are the subject of this rule, we have
sought input from the public and consulted with the affected State and
Federal pilots' associations, vessel operators, users, environmental
advocacy groups, and all affected stakeholders.
Presently, there are no state laws or regulations in the States
affected by this rule concerning the same subjects as those contained
in this rule. We understand that the affected States do not contemplate
issuing any such regulations. It should be noted that, by virtue of the
PWSA authority, the TSSs in this rule preempt any State rule on the
same subject.
Foreign vessel owners and operators usually become aware of TSSs
when the TSSs are added to the United States Coast Pilot and the
nautical charts that are required by 33 CFR 164.33 to be on each ship
operating in U.S. waters. Foreign vessel owners and operators also
become aware of TSSs through their national IMO delegation and IMO
publications.
The individual States of the United States are not represented at
the IMO as that is the role of the Federal Government. The U.S. Coast
Guard is the principal agency responsible for advancing the interests
of the United States at the IMO. In this role, we solicit comments from
the stakeholders through public meetings and develop a unified U.S.
position prior to attending sessions of the IMO Subcommittee on Safety
of Navigation and the Maritime Safety Committee where TSSs are
discussed.
F. 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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.
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
We have reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
Rulemakings that are determined to have ``tribal implications'' under
that Order (i.e., those that 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) require the
preparation of a tribal summary impact statement. This rule will not
have implications of the kind envisioned under the Order because it
will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, preempt tribal law, or substantially affect lands or
rights held exclusively by, or on behalf of, those governments.
Whether or not the Executive Order applies in this case, it is the
policy of the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard
to engage in meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal
officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications under the
Presidential Memorandum of November 5, 2009, (74 FR 57881, November 9,
2009), and to seek out and consult with Native Americans on all of its
rulemakings that may affect them.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
[[Page 23196]]
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards, nor is the Coast Guard
aware of the existence of any standards that address these TSSs.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded
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 is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2,
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction. This rule involves
navigational aids, which include TSSs. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 167
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 167, subpart B,
which was published at 75 FR 77529 on December 13, 2010, is adopted as
a final rule.
Dated: April 4, 2011.
Dana A. Goward,
U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Marine Transportation Systems Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-9892 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
