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 http:// 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 http://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