Anchorage Regulations; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA, 27015-27017 [2016-10577]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to these regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. chapter 6) requires an agency
to consider whether the rules it
proposes will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In this case,
the IRS and the Treasury Department
believe that the regulations likely would
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605. This certification
is based on the fact that the number of
small entities affected by this rule is
unlikely to be substantial because it is
unlikely that a substantial number of
small multiemployer plans in critical
and declining status are subject to the
limitation contained in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii). Pursuant to section
7805(f) of the Code, the notice of
proposed rulemaking preceding these
regulations was submitted to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for comment
on its impact on small business.
Contact Information
For general questions regarding these
regulations, please contact the
Department of the Treasury MPRA
guidance information line at (202) 622–
1559 (not a toll-free number). For
information regarding a specific
application for a suspension of benefits,
please contact the Treasury Department
at (202) 622–1534 (not a toll-free
number).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1 is
amended by revising paragraph (d)(8) to
read as follows:
■
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1.432(e)(9)–1 Benefit suspensions for
multiemployer plans in critical and
declining status.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(8) Additional rules for plans
described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)—
(i) In general. In the case of a plan that
includes the benefits described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:35 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
suspension of benefits under this
section shall—
(A) First, be applied to the maximum
extent permissible to benefits
attributable to a participant’s service for
an employer that withdrew from the
plan and failed to pay (or is delinquent
with respect to paying) the full amount
of its withdrawal liability under section
4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement
with the plan;
(B) Second, except as provided by
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, be
applied to all other benefits that may be
suspended under this section; and
(C) Third, be applied to benefits under
a plan that are directly attributable to a
participant’s service with any employer
that has, prior to December 16, 2014—
(1) Withdrawn from the plan in a
complete withdrawal under section
4203 of ERISA and paid the full amount
of the employer’s withdrawal liability
under section 4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an
agreement with the plan; and
(2) Pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement, assumed liability for
providing benefits to participants and
beneficiaries of the plan under a
separate, single-employer plan
sponsored by the employer, in an
amount equal to any amount of benefits
for such participants and beneficiaries
reduced as a result of the financial
status of the plan.
(ii) Application of suspensions to
benefits that are directly attributable to
a participant’s service with certain
employers—(A) Greater reduction in
certain benefits not permitted. A
suspension of benefits under this
section must not be applied to provide
for a greater reduction in benefits
described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of
this section than the reduction that is
applied to benefits described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(B) of this section.
The requirement in the preceding
sentence is satisfied if no individual’s
benefits that are directly attributable to
service with an employer described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section are
reduced more than that individual’s
benefits would have been reduced if,
holding the benefit formula, work
history, and all other relevant factors
used to compute benefits constant, those
benefits were attributable to service
with an employer that is not described
in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section.
(B) Application of limitation to
benefits of participants with respect to
which the employer has not assumed
liability. Benefits described in paragraph
(d)(8)(i)(C) of this section include all
benefits of a participant or beneficiary
that are directly attributable to service
with an employer described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27015
without regard to whether the employer
has assumed liability for providing
benefits to that participant or
beneficiary that are reduced as a result
of the financial status of the plan as
described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of
this section. Thus, the rule of paragraph
(d)(8)(ii)(A) of this section limits the
amount by which a suspension of
benefits is permitted to reduce benefits
under a plan that are directly
attributable to a participant’s service
with such an employer, even if the
employer has not, pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement that
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of this section, assumed
liability with respect to that
participant’s benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: April 29, 2016.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016–10560 Filed 5–3–16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0825]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Delaware
River, Philadelphia, PA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is amending
the geographic coordinates and
modifying the regulated use of
anchorage ‘‘10’’ in the Delaware River in
the vicinity of the Navy Yard in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The change
alters the size and use of the anchorage,
reducing the anchorage in size and
allowing the anchorage to be used as a
general anchorage ground in the
Delaware River.
DATES: This rule is effective June 6,
2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015–
0825 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
27016
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
If
you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant
Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways
Management Division; telephone (215)
271–4851, email Brennan.P.Dougherty@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
On December 12, 1967, the Coast
Guard published a final rule (32 FR
17726, 17749) establishing an anchorage
ground on the Delaware River in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 33 CFR
part 110. The anchorage ground
established is contained in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(11). The anchorage currently
remains unused by the Navy Yard.
Removing the restrictions on anchorage
‘‘10’’ will alleviate congestion within
the port, allowing the anchorage to be
used as a general anchorage for
commercial traffic.
On January 5, 2016, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage
Regulations, Delaware River;
Philadelphia, PA (81 FR 194). It
proposed to change the shape and the
dimensions of anchorage ‘‘10’’, and to
remove the ‘‘restricted naval anchorage’’
verbiage from § 110.157(a)(11). We
invited comments on this proposed
change. During the comment period that
ended February 4, 2016, we received no
public comments, but we did receive a
comment from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
which we discuss below.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221
through 1236, and 2071; and in 33 CFR
1.05–1.
This rule changes the shape and the
dimensions of anchorage ‘‘10.’’ The
anchorage currently remains unused by
the Navy Yard. Removing the
restrictions on anchorage ‘‘10’’ will
alleviate congestion within the port by
allowing the anchorage to be used as a
general anchorage ground for
commercial traffic.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:35 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes,
and the Rule
As noted above, we received no
public comments on our NPRM
published January 5, 2016. Based on
comments from NOAA, however, we
make two changes in the regulatory text
of this rule from our proposed.
The first change identifies the
horizontal reference datum for the
latitudes and longitudes of the
boundaries of the anchorage grounds as
the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS
84). The second change replaces the
verbiage ‘‘West Horseshoe Range’’ with
‘‘Eagle Point Range’’ within the
anchorage rule text. The original
anchorage regulation, 33 CFR
110.157(a)(11) Anchorage 10, uses
‘‘West Horseshoe Range’’ as a boundary
reference, however, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts
identifies the range as ‘‘Eagle Point
Range’’. Therefore, we changed the
boundary reference in our rule from
‘‘West Horseshoe Range’’ to ‘‘Eagle Point
Range.’’
The revised anchorage ground runs
parallel to the north side of the channel
along Eagle Point range, is narrower
north to south, and is slightly longer
east to west than the existing anchorage
ground. Additionally, as proposed, we
removed the ‘‘restricted naval
anchorage’’ verbiage from the
regulation. This permits commercial
and other vessels to anchor within its
bounds. The regulatory text appears at
the end of this document.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action because it will not
interfere with existing maritime activity
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
on the Delaware River. Moreover, it
enhances navigational safety along the
Delaware River by providing an
additional anchorage for commercial
and recreational vessels. The anchorage
maintains the same parallel distance
along the channel boundaries as the
existing anchorage. The impacts to
navigational safety are expected to be
minimal because the anchorage area
will not unnecessarily restrict traffic, as
it is located outside of the established
navigation channel. Vessels may
navigate in, around, and through the
anchorage.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard received no comments
from the Small Business Administration
on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit or use the
anchorage may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
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 does
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
section.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the 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
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order13132.
Also, 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. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
E. 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.
F. 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 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:35 May 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
27017
environment. This rule involves the
alteration of the size and use of
anchorage ‘‘10,’’ restricted Naval
Anchorage. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph
34(f) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. An
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a submittal by the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(Idaho DEQ) demonstrating that the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010.
Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed
monitoring and modeling data to show
that sources within Idaho do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: This action is effective on June
6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0855. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and is publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. The EPA requests
that you contact the person listed in the
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through
1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 110.157(a)(11) to read as
follows:
■
§ 110.157
Delaware Bay and River.
(a) * * *
(11) Anchorage 10 at Naval Base,
Philadelphia. On the north side of the
channel along Eagle Point Range,
bounded as follows: Beginning off of the
southeasterly corner of Pier 1 at
39°53′07″ N., 075°10′30″ W., thence
south to the to the north edge of the
channel along Eagle Point Range to
39°52′58″ N., 075°10′29″ W., thence east
along the edge of the channel to
39°52′56″ N., 075°09′53″ W., thence
north to 39°53′07″ N., 075°09′54″ W.,
thence continuing west to the beginning
point at 39°53′07″ N., 075°10′30″ W.
These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 22, 2016.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–10577 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0855; FRL–9946–00–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
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 please contact John Chi at
(206) 553–1185, or chi.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27015-27017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10577]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2015-0825]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Regulations; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the geographic coordinates and
modifying the regulated use of anchorage ``10'' in the Delaware River
in the vicinity of the Navy Yard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
change alters the size and use of the anchorage, reducing the anchorage
in size and allowing the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage
ground in the Delaware River.
DATES: This rule is effective June 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0825 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
[[Page 27016]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division;
telephone (215) 271-4851, email Brennan.P.Dougherty@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
On December 12, 1967, the Coast Guard published a final rule (32 FR
17726, 17749) establishing an anchorage ground on the Delaware River in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 33 CFR part 110. The anchorage ground
established is contained in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(11). The anchorage
currently remains unused by the Navy Yard. Removing the restrictions on
anchorage ``10'' will alleviate congestion within the port, allowing
the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage for commercial traffic.
On January 5, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Anchorage Regulations, Delaware River;
Philadelphia, PA (81 FR 194). It proposed to change the shape and the
dimensions of anchorage ``10'', and to remove the ``restricted naval
anchorage'' verbiage from Sec. 110.157(a)(11). We invited comments on
this proposed change. During the comment period that ended February 4,
2016, we received no public comments, but we did receive a comment from
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which we discuss
below.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
471, 1221 through 1236, and 2071; and in 33 CFR 1.05-1.
This rule changes the shape and the dimensions of anchorage ``10.''
The anchorage currently remains unused by the Navy Yard. Removing the
restrictions on anchorage ``10'' will alleviate congestion within the
port by allowing the anchorage to be used as a general anchorage ground
for commercial traffic.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule
As noted above, we received no public comments on our NPRM
published January 5, 2016. Based on comments from NOAA, however, we
make two changes in the regulatory text of this rule from our proposed.
The first change identifies the horizontal reference datum for the
latitudes and longitudes of the boundaries of the anchorage grounds as
the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84). The second change replaces the
verbiage ``West Horseshoe Range'' with ``Eagle Point Range'' within the
anchorage rule text. The original anchorage regulation, 33 CFR
110.157(a)(11) Anchorage 10, uses ``West Horseshoe Range'' as a
boundary reference, however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts identifies the range as ``Eagle
Point Range''. Therefore, we changed the boundary reference in our rule
from ``West Horseshoe Range'' to ``Eagle Point Range.''
The revised anchorage ground runs parallel to the north side of the
channel along Eagle Point range, is narrower north to south, and is
slightly longer east to west than the existing anchorage ground.
Additionally, as proposed, we removed the ``restricted naval
anchorage'' verbiage from the regulation. This permits commercial and
other vessels to anchor within its bounds. The regulatory text appears
at the end of this document.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it will
not interfere with existing maritime activity on the Delaware River.
Moreover, it enhances navigational safety along the Delaware River by
providing an additional anchorage for commercial and recreational
vessels. The anchorage maintains the same parallel distance along the
channel boundaries as the existing anchorage. The impacts to
navigational safety are expected to be minimal because the anchorage
area will not unnecessarily restrict traffic, as it is located outside
of the established navigation channel. Vessels may navigate in, around,
and through the anchorage.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or
use the anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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 does 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
section.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
[[Page 27017]]
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the 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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive
Order13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
E. 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.
F. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the alteration of the size and use of
anchorage ``10,'' restricted Naval Anchorage. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 110.157(a)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.157 Delaware Bay and River.
(a) * * *
(11) Anchorage 10 at Naval Base, Philadelphia. On the north side of
the channel along Eagle Point Range, bounded as follows: Beginning off
of the southeasterly corner of Pier 1 at 39[deg]53'07'' N.,
075[deg]10'30'' W., thence south to the to the north edge of the
channel along Eagle Point Range to 39[deg]52'58'' N., 075[deg]10'29''
W., thence east along the edge of the channel to 39[deg]52'56'' N.,
075[deg]09'53'' W., thence north to 39[deg]53'07'' N., 075[deg]09'54''
W., thence continuing west to the beginning point at 39[deg]53'07'' N.,
075[deg]10'30'' W. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
* * * * *
Dated: April 22, 2016.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-10577 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
