[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75951-75953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de08-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG-2008-0497]
RIN 1625-AA01
Special Anchorage Area ``A'', Boston Harbor, MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby amends the Boston Inner Harbor Special
Anchorage Area ``A'' at the entrance to Fort Point Channel in Boston
Harbor, Boston, MA at the request of the Boston Harbormaster and the
Boston Harbor Yacht Club. This action will provide additional anchorage
space and provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more
than 65 feet in length.
DATES: This rule is effective January 14, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0497 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0497 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; and the Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District,
408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone (617) 223-8355 or e-mail
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 75952]]
Regulatory Information
On August 20, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Special Anchorage ``A'', Boston Harbor, MA in the
Federal Register (73 FR 49131). We received no letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
In 1982, three anchorages were established in response to a request
by the Boston Harbormaster. These three anchorages were designated
Boston Inner Harbor A, Boston Inner Harbor B, and Boston Inner Harbor
C. When they were created, 39 of 43 comments were in favor of the
anchorage establishments. Many of the initial commenters identified
themselves as members of the Boston Harbor Sailing Club, a sailing club
located in close proximity to the proposed anchorage area at that time.
Of the disfavoring groups, the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers expressed some concern about Anchorage Area ``C'' encroaching
on the Fort Point Channel approach. Another commenter complained that
Anchorage Area ``A'', extended southward, interfering with the approach
to Rowes Wharf. The two remaining commenters represented commercial
interests opposed to the Anchorage Areas, especially Anchorage Area
``C''.
A public hearing was held thereafter in which six commenters voiced
their support for the Anchorage Area. One commenter, however, expressed
concern about the proximity of Anchorage Area ``C'' to the main
shipping channel for Boston Harbor. With an average speed of six (6)
knots, a large vessel transiting the area could damage closely anchored
sailboats. The same commenter also disapproved of the way Anchorage
Area ``C'' encroached on the Fort Point Channel. Another commenter
complained about Anchorage Area ``A'' and the difficult approach that
would be required by a vessel attempting to moor on Rowes Wharf. The
final commenter was concerned about the navigational safety of the Fort
Point Channel approach, which was reduced by Anchorage Area ``C'', and
also agreed with the concerns about the approach to Rowes Wharf.
At that time, in response to the comments received, the Anchorage
Areas ``A'' and ``C'' were modified in response to reasonable
complaints that were raised by commercial parties. Each of the areas
were plotted on a large scale chart providing for greater accuracy. The
southern boundary of Anchorage Area ``A'' was moved northward to allow
a more favorable approach to Rowes Wharf and the southern boundary of
Anchorage Area ``C'' was relocated northward to open up the approach to
Fort Point Channel. The eastern boundary of Anchorage Area ``C'' was
moved away from the main shipping channel.
At the same time, administration of the anchorage area was given to
the Harbormaster of the City of Boston pursuant to local ordinances.
The City of Boston was also given charge of installing and maintaining
suitable navigational aids to mark the limits of the anchorage area.
In 1985, in response to a request by the Boston Harbormaster,
Boston Police Department and the developer of the Rowes Wharf
reconstruction project, a modification to the anchorages was deemed to
be required because redevelopment of the Rowes Wharf area in Boston
would change recreational and commercial vessel traffic patterns in the
Rowes Wharf waterfront area. The presence of the existing Anchorage
Area B would impede the passage of vessels in and out of Rowes Wharf
and would create a navigation safety hazard if vessels were anchored
there. Therefore, this modification removed Anchorages A, B and C and
established Boston Inner Harbor Anchorage Area ``A''.
Since this time, Boston Harbormasters have permitted the Boston
Harbor Sailing Club to establish moorings in Anchorage Area A. The
Boston Harbor Sailing Club rents the moorings to customers who then
apply to the City of Boston for a permit allowing the mooring. Although
the moorings are relatively small, the associated anchoring systems
range from 1000 to 4000 pounds.
In addition, when the anchorage was established, the Coast Guard
used the North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) as a plotting system. Since
then, however, the Coast Guard adopted the North American Datum 1983
(NAD83) for its plotting system. This new system changed the coordinate
positions of the anchorages on the charts. In this rulemaking, the
Coast Guard intends to update the position of this anchorage using
NAD83 coordinates.
When Rowes Wharf was finished, the new wharf had a set of docks
attached to it. The current placement of these docks does not allow
enough of a fairway for vessels to transit between the anchorage area
and the pier facings. Changing the size of the anchorage area will
allow this to occur by changing the positions of the buoys.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
No comments or changes were suggested to the proposed rule. None
have been made.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule 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.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, as the creation of the
anchorage will align more efficiently with current traffic patterns.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels
transiting in the vicinity of the anchorage, the Boston Aquarium,
Boston Harbor ferry vessels and water taxis transiting the local area
as well as those vessels transiting into Anchorage Area ``A''.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine
[[Page 75953]]
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 small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
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.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
0
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, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Amend Sec. 110.30 by revising paragraph(m) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.30 Boston Harbor, Mass., and adjacent waters.
* * * * *
(m) Boston Inner Harbor A. (1) The waters of the western side of
Boston Inner Harbor north of the entrance to the Fort point Channel
bound by the following points beginning at latitude 42[deg]21'32'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'50'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'33'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'44'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'26'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'36'' W; thence to latitude 42[deg]21'26'' N,
longitude 071[deg]02'53'' W; thence to point of origin. Datum NAD83.
(2) The area is principally for use by yachts and other
recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will
be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring
of vessels and placing of temporary moorings will be under the
jurisdiction, and at the discretion of the Harbormaster, City of
Boston. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when moored,
will at any time extend beyond the limits of the area.
Dated: November 25, 2008.
Dale G. Gabel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-29365 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P