Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard hereby establishes Crotch Island Special Anchorage in Stonington, Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on Deer Island Thorofare, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.
This rule is effective August 7, 2008.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (USCG-2007-0198), and are 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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (DPW), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110, Telephone (617) 223-8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On February 14, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Anchorage Regulations; Stonington Maine, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME” in the Federal Register (73 FR 8633). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by creating Crotch Island Special Anchorage area to aid the Town of Stonington in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations.
The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035.
The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage area contained herein with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742.
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.
This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Stonington, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe navigation, protection of moored vessels, protection of the Town of Stonington and the marine environment.
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.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
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 John J. Mauro, at the address listed in ADDRESSES above.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Start Printed Page 38923Regional 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).
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).
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 would 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 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.
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.
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.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(f), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” and a final “Environmental Analysis Check List” are available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would establish one special anchorage area.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Amend § 110.4 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) Stonington Harbor, Deer Island Thorofare. (1) Crotch Island. All of the waters bound by the following points beginning at the northeast shore of Crotch Island located at: latitude 44°08′51.0″ N, longitude 068°40′06.0″ W; thence southerly along the shoreline to latitude 44°08′36.0″ N, longitude 068°40′07.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′36.0″ N, longitude 068°40′04.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′46.98″ N, longitude 068°40′00.0″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′55.02″ N, longitude 068°39′49.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′54.0″ N, longitude 068°40′06.0″ W thence back to origin.
DATUM: NAD 83.
Note to § 110.4(c):
An ordinance of the Town of Stonington, Maine requires the approval of the Stonington Harbor Master for the location and type of moorings placed in these special anchorage areas. All anchoring in the areas are under the supervision of the Stonington Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Stonington, Maine. All moorings are to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit of the area.
Dated: June 23, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-15311 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P