
[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 75951-75953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de08-11]                         

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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby amends 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: This rule is effective January 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2008-0497 and are available online by going to 
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option 
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0497 in the Docket 
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID 
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at 
two locations: 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; and the Commander 
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110 
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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 
John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 75952]]

Regulatory Information

    On August 20, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Special Anchorage ``A'', Boston Harbor, MA in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 49131). We received no letters commenting on 
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

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

    No comments or changes were suggested to the proposed rule. None 
have been made.

Regulatory Analyses

    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, as the creation of the 
anchorage 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 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 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 and water taxis transiting the local area 
as well as those vessels transiting into Anchorage Area ``A''.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to 
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could 
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking 
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine

[[Page 75953]]

compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional 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). 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 rule calls 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 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

    This 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.

Energy Effects

    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.

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 5100.1 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 
under the Instruction 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, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation. An environmental analysis checklist and a 
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
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. 
0170.1.


0
2. Amend Sec.  110.30 by revising paragraph(m) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (m) Boston Inner Harbor A. (1) The waters of the western side of 
Boston Inner Harbor north of the entrance to the Fort point Channel 
bound 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.
    (2) 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: November 25, 2008.
Dale G. Gabel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-29365 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
