[Federal Register: April 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20568-20570]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap04-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD01-04-004]
1625-AA01
Anchorage Grounds; Buzzards Bay, MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations
for Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, and adjacent waters of Massachusetts
by relocating anchorage ground ``L'' in Buzzards Bay to an area near
Naushon Island, MA. This action is intended to increase the safety of
life and property on Buzzards Bay, improve the safety of anchored
vessels in anchorage ``L'', and provide for the overall safe and
efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce via the proposed
Recommended Traffic Route for Deep Draft Vessels. The proposed
regulation would maintain the shape and dimension of anchorage ``L''
but move the anchorage within Buzzards Bay.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 15, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to: Commander (oan) (CGD01-04-
004), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to room 628 at the same address
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Office of Aids to Navigation Branch, First Coast Guard
District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments, and
documents as indicated in this preamble, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 628,
First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. J. Mauro, Commander (oan),
First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, at
(617) 223-8355.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. Persons
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify
the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-04-004), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and
related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt
of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
[[Page 20569]]
We may change this proposed rule in view of the comments received.
Public Meeting
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Office of Aids to Navigation Branch at
the Address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why
a hearing would be beneficial. If we determine that the opportunity for
oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, we will hold a public
hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
In light of significant oil spills in Rhode Island Sound in 1996
and Buzzards Bay in 2003, specific recommendations from a navigation
risk assessment conducted by a formal Ports and Waterways Safety
Assessment (PAWSA) for Buzzards Bay in North Falmouth, Massachusetts,
on 9-10 September 2003, and a letter to the Coast Guard First District
Commander signed by members of the Massachusetts Congressional
delegation, it appears that measures should be taken to enhance the
safety of navigation within Buzzards Bay. A Recommended Traffic Route
for vessels may be needed to improve navigation safety in this area.
The Recommended Route, to be implemented on April 27, 2004, was
presented to the Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island Port
Safety and Security Committees, the stakeholder participants at the
Buzzards Bay Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA), and to many
commercial tug and vessel masters, with no objections. Additionally,
the route has been presented to the American Waterways Operators (AWO)
organization for its review. AWO generally supports the establishment
of recommended traffic routes, provided that vessel masters are
afforded latitude to deviate from the routes as circumstances, such as
weather or vessel traffic, might dictate. As contemplated, vessel
masters would indeed have such latitude. A Buzzards Bay Traffic Route
would not preclude vessel masters from using their best judgment
navigating their vessels to ensure safety.
Presently, there are two designated anchorage grounds in Buzzards
Bay; anchorage ``L'' and anchorage ``M'', located at 33 CFR
110.140(b)(3) and 33 CFR 110.140(b)(4), respectively. The present
location of anchorage ``L'' puts it directly in the proposed path of
the Recommended Route for Deep Draft vessels entering or leaving the
Cape Cod Canal via Cleveland Ledge Channel. The proposed size and shape
of the new anchorage ground, similarly called anchorage ``L'', would
remain the same.
In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted
with and has the approval of the Chief of Engineers the Army Corps of
Engineers, Northeast. This proposed rule would not exclude fishing
activity or the transit of vessels in the anchorage grounds. The Coast
Guard anticipates the proposed new location of anchorage ground ``L''
would cause minimal transit interference with the new route.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would move Anchorage ``L'' from one area of
Buzzard's Bay to another. The anchorage is currently in the center of
Buzzards Bay and would move approximately 4 nm to the southwest part of
the Bay. This proposal would enhance safety of navigation and
efficiency for deep draft vessels transiting Buzzards Bay.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed regulation is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that there are no fees,
permits, or specialized requirements for the maritime industry to
utilize this anchorage area. The regulation is solely for the purpose
of advancing the safety of maritime commerce.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would have minimal
economic impact on lobster fishing vessels and recreational boaters.
This conclusion is based upon the fact that there are no restrictions
for entry or use of the proposed anchorage targeting small entities.
The proposed regulation relocates one existing anchorage area.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro at
the address listed in ADDRESSES above.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule does not
have implications for federalism under that Order.
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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise
[[Page 20570]]
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes,
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11,
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f)
of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
This rule proposes relocating one existing anchorage area to the
East of the Recommend Route. This designated anchorage would enhance
the safety in the waters of Buzzards Bay, MA by relieving vessel
congestion within the bay. Thus, relocating this designated anchorage
would provide a safer approach to the Cape Cod Canal by deep draft
vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1(g) and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
2. In Sec. 110.140 paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.140 Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, and adjacent waters,
Mass.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Anchorage L-. The waters bounded by a rhumb line connecting the
following points:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41[deg]030'011'' N..................... 070[deg]048'010'' W; thence to
41[deg]030'046'' N..................... 070[deg]048'045'' W; thence to
41[deg]032'024'' N..................... 070[deg]045'050'' W; thence to
41[deg]031'048'' N..................... 070[deg]045'015'' W; returning
to start
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: March 9, 2004.
Vivien S. Crea,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-8498 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P