Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to establish a Special Anchorage Area in Haverstraw Bay on the Hudson River adjacent to Haverstraw, NY. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 20 meters in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on the Hudson River, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of recreational vessel traffic and commerce.

DATES:

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Management Division (CGD01-05-101), 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 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 (CGD01-05-101), 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 81/2 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

As part of a waterfront revitalization effort the Village of Haverstraw is encouraging waterfront use by the general public. This proposed rule is in response to a request made by the Village of Haverstraw to ensure the safe navigation of increased vessel traffic expected to arrive along the village waterfront due to this revitalization effort.

The Coast Guard is designating the area as a special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In accordance with 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 proposed special anchorage area will be located on the west side of the Hudson River about 1,800 yards south of Bowline Point, well removed from the channel and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. Providing anchorage well removed from the channel and general navigation would greatly increase navigational safety.

This special anchorage area is part of a waterfront revitalization project authorized under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit number 2004-00596-YR.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The proposed rule would create a new special anchorage area located on the Hudson River at the Village of Haverstraw, New York, on Haverstraw Bay. It would include all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 41°11′25.2″ N, 073°57′19.9″ W; thence to 41°11′34.2″ N, 073°57′00.8″ W; thence to 41°11′41.9″ N, 073°57′07.5″ W; thence to 41°11′31.8″ N, 073°57′26.5″ W; thence to 41°11′30.8″ N, 073°57′24.9″ W; thence to the point of origin (NAD 1983).

All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

The special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length. Vessels not more than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C 2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners utilizing the anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to the changing needs of the Village of Haverstraw and the changing needs of recreational vessels along the Hudson River. This proposed rule is in the interest of safe navigation and property protection.

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 or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Hudson River near the special anchorage area. However, this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons. The proposed special anchorage area does not extend past the 18-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River. This leaves approximately 1,680 yards of safe water before reaching the 18-foot contour on the east side of the Hudson River. It is also about 800 yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson River Federal Project Channel. This is more than enough room for the types of vessels currently operating on the river, which include both small and large commercial vessels. Thus this special anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient vessel transits on the Hudson River.

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 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 an 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, 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 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 establish a special anchorage area.

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. In § 110.60 add new paragraph (p-3) to read as follows: