[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49131-49133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19267]


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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to increase the size of 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: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before October 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2008-0497 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
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 [email protected].
    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the 
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 
telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management 
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0497), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, 
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so 
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. 
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, 
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one 
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, 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.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0497) 
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays; or, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic 
Ave., Boston, MA 02110, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of 
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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

    In 1982, three anchorages were established in response to a request 
by the Boston Harbormaster. These three anchorages were designated 
Boston

[[Page 49132]]

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 
was 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 Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to increase the size of the Boston 
Inner Harbor Anchorage Area ``A''. By enlarging Anchorage Area ``A'' 
and shifting the positions of the buoys, it will correct what is 
currently an unsafe condition, and allow for the safe passage of 
vessels between the wharf and the anchorage. This regulation will also 
allow for the creation of a slightly larger anchorage area. By 
enlarging the anchorage area, the current problem with boats 
maintaining a mooring and swinging out into the channel will be 
alleviated.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 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, as the 
creation of the anchorage modifies the buoys which 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 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 recreational vessels transiting in the vicinity of the 
anchorage, the Boston Aquarium, Boston Harbor ferry vessels transiting 
the local area as well as those vessels transiting into Anchorage Area 
``A''.
    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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on

[[Page 49133]]

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 Chief Petty Officer Eldridge McFadden by mail at United States 
Coast Guard Sector Boston, 47 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109. 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 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 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 Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD which guides 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 under the instruction that this 
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human 
environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' 
supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information 
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact 
from this proposed rule.

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, 2071; 
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.30 by revising (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.30  Boston Harbor, Mass., and adjacent waters.

* * * * *
    (m) Boston Inner Harbor A. The waters of the western side of Boston 
Inner Harbor north of the entrance to the Fort Point Channel bounded 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.

    Note: 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: August 5, 2008.
Dale G. Gabel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-19267 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P