Safety Zone; Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA, 58882-58884 [2013-23272]
Download as PDF
58882
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
14. 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 determined 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 involves the
establishment of safety zone less than a
week in duration. Therefore, it is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure
2–1 of the Commandant Instruction and
a CED and checklist are not required.
We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
(2) The safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit or his designated onscene representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer or a Federal, State, or
local law enforcement officer designated
by or assisting the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit or his on-scene representative to
obtain permission to do so. The Captain
of the Port, Sector Detroit or his onscene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at 313–568–
9464. Vessel operators given permission
to enter or operate in the safety zone
must comply with all directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit, or his on-scene representative.
Dated: September 13, 2013.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
[FR Doc. 2013–23278 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
■
33 CFR Part 165
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 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.
[Docket No. USCG–2012–1069]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Chelsea River, Boston
Inner Harbor, Boston, MA
2. Add § 165.T09–0840 to read as
follows:
AGENCY:
§ 165.T09–0840 Safety Zone; Catawba
Island Club Wedding Event, Catawba Island
Club, Catawba Island, OH.
SUMMARY:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
ACTION:
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: All U.S.
navigable waters of Lake Erie within a
250-yard radius of the fireworks launch
site located at position 41°34′18.10″ N,
082°51′18.70″ W, North American
Datum 1983 (NAD83).
(b) Effective and enforcement period.
The safety zone will be effective and
enforced from 7:50 p.m. until 8:30 p.m.
on October 5, 2013.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within these safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is
disestablishing the existing regulation
for the Safety Zone: Chelsea River,
Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA. Since
the implementation of the regulation,
physical changes have occurred within
the confines of the safety zone, making
the safety zone unnecessary.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in
this preamble are part of docket USCG–
2012–1069. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ Box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with the
rulemaking. You may also visit the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard
Sector Boston Waterways Management
Division, telephone 617–223–4000,
email Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Regulatory History and Information
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 the
Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (78 FR 48085). We
received one comment on the NPRM
supporting the proposed action.
Previously, on Thursday, January 31,
2013 the Coast Guard published an
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) in the Federal Register (78 FR
6782). There were 3 formal written
comments received. There were two
public meetings held in which verbal
comments were received. The minutes
of these public meetings are available in
the docket.
B. Basis and Purpose
The legal bases for this rule are 33
U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05–1, and 160.5; Public Law 107–
295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1, which collectively authorize the
Coast Guard to define regulatory safety
zones.
The original Chelsea Street Bridge
was a bascule-type bridge owned by the
City of Boston and constructed in 1939.
It spanned the Chelsea River providing
a means for vehicles to travel between
Chelsea, MA and East Boston, MA.
Several petroleum-product transfer
facilities are located on the Chelsea
River, upstream and downstream of the
Chelsea Street Bridge. Transit of tank
vessels through the bridge is necessary
to access the petroleum facilities
upstream of the bridge. The narrow,
ninety-six foot horizontal span created a
narrow passage through the bridge for
larger vessels. Adding to the difficulty is
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the close proximity of neighboring shore
structures and, at times, vessels moored
at the Sunoco Logistics facility
downstream of the bridge on the East
Boston side. These factors led to the
establishment of the present safety zone
regulation which restricts certain vessel
passage through the Chelsea Street
Bridge based on vessel dimensional
criteria, assist tug support, and daylight
restrictions.
Since the implementation of the
regulations, physical changes have
occurred within the confines of the
safety zone. A new vertical lift span
bridge with a 175 foot vertical clearance
and a 175 foot horizontal navigable
channel span has been constructed in
place of the old Chelsea Street Bridge.
The federal navigational channel has
been expanded to a width of 175 feet.
Six new permanent fixed lighted aids to
navigation structures have been
installed in the immediate area of the
bridge to best mark the new channel.
The three written comments received
in the docket were all in favor of
disestablishing the safety zone. Two of
those written comments were from the
Boston Harbor Pilots Association and
one joint comment from the three oil
terminals up river of the safety zone;
Global Partners LP, Gulf Oil Limited
Partnership, and Irving Oil Terminals
Inc. All the verbal comments received in
the public meetings were in favor of
disestablishing the safety zone. These
comments can be seen in the docket
under meeting minutes.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Discussion of the Final Rule
This final rule was based on
comments received on the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking;
recommending the Coast Guard remove
the existing safety zone and no
comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking. We received one comment
on the NPRM supporting the Coast
Guard’s proposal to disestablish the
safety zone. The commenter agreed that
the zone is now unnecessary to promote
navigational safety.
This rulemaking will disestablish the
existing safety zone codified at 33 CFR
165.120, Safety Zone: Chelsea River,
Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA. This
safety zone is being disestablished
because physical changes within the
confines of the safety zone now make
the safety zone unnecessary.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive
orders.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
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, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order
13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order. We expect the economic impact
of this rule to be minimal because
removing this safety zone would lessen
the restriction on vessels transiting this
area.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entitles during rulemaking. The Coast
Guard received three written comments
and multiple other comments from
professional mariners, oil terminals and
the general public. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
3. 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 rule. 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 the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
4. 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).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58883
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
7. 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 expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks
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.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
58884
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘Significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0271; FRL–9901–23–
Region 4]
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Stage II Requirements for Enterprise
Holdings, Inc. at Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International Airport in
Boone County
14. Environment
AGENCY:
13. Technical Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
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 involves the
disestablishment of an existing safety
zone. This action is categorically
excluded from further review under,
paragraph 34(g) of figure 2–1 of the
Commandant Instruction.
EPA is taking final action to
approve a source-specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted to EPA by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ) on April 25, 2013, for the
purpose of exempting an Enterprise
Holdings, Inc., facility from the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) Stage II vapor
control requirements. The subject
Enterprise Holdings, Inc., facility is
currently being constructed at the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport in Boone County,
Kentucky. EPA’s approval of this
revision to Kentucky’s SIP is based on
the December 12, 2006, EPA policy
memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
entitled ‘‘Removal of Stage II Vapor
Recovery in Situations Where
Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling
Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated.’’ This
action is being taken pursuant to the
CAA.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 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 amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 33 CFR 1.05–1, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
§ 165.120
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
[Removed]
2. Remove § 165.120.
Dated: September 11, 2013.
J.C. O’Connor III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2013–23272 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Effective Date: This rule will be
effective October 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2013–0271. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding this source
specific SIP revision, contact Ms. Kelly
Sheckler, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Sheckler’s telephone number is (404)
562–9222; email address:
sheckler.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990,
EPA designated and classified three
Kentucky Counties (Boone, Campbell
and Kenton) and four Ohio Counties
(Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and
Warren) as a ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
as part of the Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky Area. See 56 FR 56694,
effective January 6, 1992. The
designation was based on the Area’s 1hour ozone design value of 0.157 parts
per million for the three year period of
1988–1990.
Pursuant to the requirements of
section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, KDAQ
developed the Kentucky Administrative
Regulation (KAR) 401 KAR 59:174 Stage
II controls at gasoline dispensing
facilities, and submitted the rule to EPA
for approval as part of Kentucky’s ozone
SIP. The rule was adopted by Kentucky
on January 12, 1998, and approved by
EPA into the SIP on December 8, 1998.
See 63 FR 67586. Under this regulation,
gasoline dispensing facilities with a
monthly throughput of 25,000 gallons or
more located in a Kentucky County in
which the entire County is classified as
severe, serious, or moderate
nonattainment for ozone are required to
install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
On October 29, 1999, KDAQ
submitted to EPA an ozone maintenance
plan and request for redesignation of the
Kentucky portion of Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky area to attainment.
At that time the area had three years of
attaining data (1996–1998) and
Kentucky had implemented all
measures then required by the CAA for
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58882-58884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2012-1069]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is disestablishing the existing regulation for
the Safety Zone: Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA. Since
the implementation of the regulation, physical changes have occurred
within the confines of the safety zone, making the safety zone
unnecessary.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-1069. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' Box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with the rulemaking. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways
Management Division, telephone 617-223-4000, email
Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Regulatory History and Information
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (78 FR 48085). We
received one comment on the NPRM supporting the proposed action.
Previously, on Thursday, January 31, 2013 the Coast Guard published an
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register
(78 FR 6782). There were 3 formal written comments received. There were
two public meetings held in which verbal comments were received. The
minutes of these public meetings are available in the docket.
B. Basis and Purpose
The legal bases for this rule are 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, and 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
define regulatory safety zones.
The original Chelsea Street Bridge was a bascule-type bridge owned
by the City of Boston and constructed in 1939. It spanned the Chelsea
River providing a means for vehicles to travel between Chelsea, MA and
East Boston, MA. Several petroleum-product transfer facilities are
located on the Chelsea River, upstream and downstream of the Chelsea
Street Bridge. Transit of tank vessels through the bridge is necessary
to access the petroleum facilities upstream of the bridge. The narrow,
ninety-six foot horizontal span created a narrow passage through the
bridge for larger vessels. Adding to the difficulty is
[[Page 58883]]
the close proximity of neighboring shore structures and, at times,
vessels moored at the Sunoco Logistics facility downstream of the
bridge on the East Boston side. These factors led to the establishment
of the present safety zone regulation which restricts certain vessel
passage through the Chelsea Street Bridge based on vessel dimensional
criteria, assist tug support, and daylight restrictions.
Since the implementation of the regulations, physical changes have
occurred within the confines of the safety zone. A new vertical lift
span bridge with a 175 foot vertical clearance and a 175 foot
horizontal navigable channel span has been constructed in place of the
old Chelsea Street Bridge. The federal navigational channel has been
expanded to a width of 175 feet. Six new permanent fixed lighted aids
to navigation structures have been installed in the immediate area of
the bridge to best mark the new channel.
The three written comments received in the docket were all in favor
of disestablishing the safety zone. Two of those written comments were
from the Boston Harbor Pilots Association and one joint comment from
the three oil terminals up river of the safety zone; Global Partners
LP, Gulf Oil Limited Partnership, and Irving Oil Terminals Inc. All the
verbal comments received in the public meetings were in favor of
disestablishing the safety zone. These comments can be seen in the
docket under meeting minutes.
C. Discussion of the Final Rule
This final rule was based on comments received on the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking; recommending the Coast Guard remove the
existing safety zone and no comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking. We received one comment on the NPRM supporting the Coast
Guard's proposal to disestablish the safety zone. The commenter agreed
that the zone is now unnecessary to promote navigational safety.
This rulemaking will disestablish the existing safety zone codified
at 33 CFR 165.120, Safety Zone: Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor,
Boston, MA. This safety zone is being disestablished because physical
changes within the confines of the safety zone now make the safety zone
unnecessary.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
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, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) Executive Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of
this rule to be minimal because removing this safety zone would lessen
the restriction on vessels transiting this area.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entitles during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received three written comments and multiple other comments from
professional mariners, oil terminals and the general public. The Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
3. 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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
4. 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).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that it does not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
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.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
[[Page 58884]]
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ``Significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. 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 involves the disestablishment of an existing
safety zone. This action is categorically excluded from further review
under, paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.
List of Subjects in 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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 33
CFR 1.05-1, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sec. 165.120 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 165.120.
Dated: September 11, 2013.
J.C. O'Connor III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2013-23272 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P