Coast Guard, DHS.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard removes a note which states from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor, NY.
This rule is effective on September 29, 2009.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0854 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0854 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at 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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Michael C. Petta, Ninth District Legal Office, Coast Guard, telephone 216-902-6010, e-mail email@example.com. If you have questions on obtaining permission to moor or anchor in the special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor, NY, call the Town Board, telephone 315-938-5542. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Start Printed Page 49814
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because this amendment is minor and merely technical in nature in that it simply removes the note which states one must obtain permission from the Town of Henderson Harbormaster to moor or anchor in the special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor, NY. Notice and comment is unnecessary because, as discussed below, the local ordinance has changed such that the Harbormaster no longer receives requests to moor or anchor.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Good cause exists because the local ordinance has changed such that the Harbormaster no longer receives requests to moor or anchor, and leaving the note in place would provide inaccurate information.
Background and Purpose
On June 11, 2009, the Town of Henderson Harbor revised its boating ordinance. One result of that revision is that the town's harbormaster is no longer the party from whom one obtains permission to moor or anchor in the Henderson Harbor special anchorage areas. This rule responds to the town's request to remove from 33 CFR 110.87 the note which states that the town's harbormaster is the party from whom one must obtain permission.
Discussion of Rule
This rule contains no new provisions. Neither does it amend or remove any substantive provisions. Instead, this rule merely removes from 33 CFR 110.87 the note which states that the town's harbormaster is the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the Henderson Harbor, NY special anchorage areas. This change is necessary because the town of Henderson Harbor recently revised its boating laws to include removing its harbormaster as the permit granting party.
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. This rule is not considered a significant regulatory action because the removal of the town's harbormaster as the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the Henderson Harbor special anchorage areas is a minor, non-substantive, and administrative change.
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 will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to moor or anchor in either of the special anchorage areas in Henderson Harbor, NY.
The removal of the town's harbormaster as the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the Henderson Harbor special anchorage areas will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule is a minor, technical change to the regulation. It does not alter the size or character of the special anchorage areas.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
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 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
The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined Start Printed Page 49815that this rule and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this proposed 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. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 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 this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction. This rule involves the promulgation of a procedural regulation, in that it merely removes the Henderson Harbor's harbormaster as the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the harbor's special anchorage areas. This rule does not alter the size or character of the special anchorage areas. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.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
2. In § 110.87, remove the Note.End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: September 17, 2009.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-23390 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P