[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66708-66711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19314]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD01-06-027]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration vessels are 
authorized to anchor in specific anchorage grounds within the Port of 
New York and New Jersey (PONYNJ). This proposed action is necessary to 
facilitate safe navigation and provide for the overall safe and 
efficient flow of waterborne commerce. This proposed action is intended 
to better facilitate the efficient use of the limited deep water 
anchorage grounds available in PONYNJ.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before December 18, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways 
Management Division (CGD01-06-027), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 
Coast Guard Drive, Room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The 
Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains 
the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received 
from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as 
being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will 
be available for inspection or copying at room 321, Coast Guard Sector 
New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast

[[Page 66709]]

Guard Sector New York at (718) 354-2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
027), 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. If you would like to know 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Division 
at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. 
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at 
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise the duration that vessels are 
authorized to anchor in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21-A, 21-B, 21-C, 
and 25 in the PONYNJ. These proposed revisions are necessary due to the 
limited amount of deep water anchorage space available in the Hudson 
River, Upper and Lower Bay of New York Harbor.
    In recent years, as the number of ships in port has increased and 
their sizes have grown, the anchorage grounds have frequently been 
filled to capacity. According to the Harbor Safety, Operations, and 
Navigation Committee of the Port of New York and New Jersey (HAROPS), 
which represents a broad spectrum of the local maritime industry, 
having adequate anchorage space is critical to the overall safety and 
economic vitality of the port. The limited availability of anchorage 
space has caused undue economic burden for ships that are forced to 
anchor outside the port in the vicinity of Ambrose Tower, sometimes for 
days, while awaiting anchorage space. Vessels have been unable to 
complete their business, including re-supply, lightering, and 
bunkering, in a cost-efficient manner and sometimes have forgone 
obtaining services in New York because of the delays. The 
unavailability of anchorage space also increases safety risks by 
forcing ships to take on provisions while underway and potentially 
preventing ships from anchoring in an emergency.
    The proposed revisions would increase the availability of anchorage 
space by reducing the amount of time that a vessel may remain at 
anchor. The revisions would also limit the number vessels from 
loitering in the lower Hudson River, Bay Ridge, and Gravesend Bay 
anchorages.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would establish a 96-hour limit on the duration 
of stay for vessels anchoring in Federal Anchorage Grounds 19, 21-A, 
21-B, 21-C, and 25. Currently, 33 CFR 110.155(k)(3) establishes an 
impractical anchorage duration of 30 days. We note that the 48-hour 
limit for anchoring in Stapleton Anchorage (Federal Anchorage Grounds 
23-A, 23-B, and 24) and Federal Anchorage Ground 44 would remain the 
same and not be affected by this proposed rule.
    Implementing this time restriction for the lower Hudson River, Bay 
Ridge, and Gravesend Bay anchorage grounds will provide for the 
effective use of this valuable and limited port resource, thus, 
minimizing vessel delays. The affected Anchorage Grounds would continue 
to be managed by the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service New York (VTS). 
As part of their anchorage management function, VTS New York will make 
decisions on requests to extend a vessel's stay at an anchorage beyond 
the prescribed duration limit.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding 
is based on the following facts:
    This proposal would allow the Coast Guard to better manage the 
increasing and changing needs of commercial vessels and to make the 
best use of the limited available Anchorage Grounds. Vessels normally 
complete bunkering or lightering operations within the Anchorage 
Grounds within 48 hours. Additionally, due to security concerns at 
facilities, more vessels need to replenish supplies while at anchor, 
which normally takes no longer than 8 hours. This proposal would allow 
shipping lines, owners, agents, and others in the shipping industry to 
operate more efficiently in the Port of New York and New Jersey.
    The current 30-day limit for vessels to remain at anchor is an 
inefficient use of the limited, extremely busy Anchorage Grounds within 
the PONYNJ since vessels not conducting port related operations could 
easily anchor offshore while awaiting pier space, supply deliveries, 
sailing orders, etc. Additionally, this proposal would allow the 
commercial vessel industry to more efficiently conduct final 
preparations for sea in a protected Anchorage Ground, as opposed to 
conducting preparations during outbound transit in the vicinity of the 
six vessel traffic lanes that converge on Ambrose Light (LLNR 720). 
This proposed rule is in the interest of safe and efficient navigation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of 
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial 
vessels intending to anchor in a portion of the Hudson River, Upper New 
York Bay, or Lower New York Bay. This proposal, however, would not have 
a significant economic impact on these entities for the reasons stated 
above in the Regulatory Evaluation section.
    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.

[[Page 66710]]

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed 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 Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at (718) 
354-2353. 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect 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 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

    We have 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.

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. 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits 
the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would revise the 
duration a vessel could anchor in a Federal Anchorage Ground.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed 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 and 
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); and Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.155 by adding paragraphs (c)(5)(vi), 
(d)(10)(ii), (d)(11)(iii), (d)(12)(iii), and (e)(1)(iii), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  110.155  Port of New York.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (11) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess

[[Page 66711]]

of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (12) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) No vessel may occupy this anchorage for a period of time in 
excess of 96 hours without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 30, 2006.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E6-19314 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P