Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20287 

actions listed below. We will consider 

any additional evidence we receive 

together with the evidence we already 

have. 

(1) We may recontact your treating 

physician, psychologist, or other 

medical source. We may choose not to 

seek additional evidence or clarification 

from a medical source if we know from 

experience that the source either cannot 

or will not provide the necessary 

evidence. If we obtain medical evidence 

over the telephone, we will send the 

telephone report to the source for 

review, signature, and return; 

(2) We may request additional 

existing records (see § 416.912); 

(3) We may ask you to undergo a 

consultative examination at our expense 

(see §§ 416.917 through 416.919t); or 

(4) We may ask you or others for more 

information. 

(d) When there are inconsistencies in 

the evidence that we cannot resolve or 

when, despite efforts to obtain 

additional evidence, the evidence is 

insufficient to determine whether you 

are disabled, we will make a 

determination or decision based on the 

evidence we have. 

13. Amend § 416.927 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraph (b); 

b. Remove paragraph (c); 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through 

(f) as (c) through (e); 

d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) 

remove ‘‘(d)(2)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘(c)(2)’’; 

e. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(2) remove ‘‘(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘(c)(2)(i) and 

(c)(2)(ii)’’ and remove ‘‘(d)(3) through 

(d)(6)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(c)(3) 

through (c)(6)’’; 

f. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(d)(3) remove ‘‘(e)(1) and (e)(2)’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘(d)(1) and (d)(2)’’; 

g. In newly redesignated paragraph (e) 

remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; 

h. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; and 

i. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 416.927 Evaluating opinion evidence. 

* * * * * 

(b) How we consider medical 

opinions. In determining whether you 

are disabled, we will always consider 

the medical opinions in your case 

record together with the rest of the 

relevant evidence we receive. See 

§ 416.920b. 

* * * * * 

14. Amend § 416.945 by revising the 

fifth sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 416.945 Your residual functional 

capacity. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * (See §§ 416.912(d) through 

(e).) * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8388 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Chapter I 

No Child Left Behind School Facilities 

and Construction Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is announcing 

that the No Child Left Behind School 

Facilities and Construction Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee will hold its 

sixth meeting in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is 

to continue working on reports and 

recommendations to Congress and the 

Secretary as required under the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

DATES: The Committee’s sixth meeting 

will begin at 8 a.m. on April 27, 2011, 

and end at 12 p.m. on April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the National Indian Program Training 

Center, second floor, 1011 Indian 

School Road, NW., Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 87104. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Designated Federal Official, Michele F. 

Singer, Director, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road, NW., 

Suite 312, Albuquerque, NM 87104; 

telephone (505) 563–3805; fax (505) 

563–3811. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The No 

Child Left Behind School Facilities and 

Construction Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee was established to prepare 

and submit to the Secretary a catalog of 

the conditions at Bureau-funded 

schools, and to prepare reports covering: 

The school replacement and new 

construction needs at Bureau-funded 

school facilities; a formula for the 

equitable distribution of funds to 

address those needs; a list of major and 

minor renovation needs at those 

facilities; and a formula for equitable 

distribution of funds to address those 

needs. The reports are to be submitted 

to Congress and to the Secretary. The 

Committee also expects to draft 

proposed regulations covering 

construction standards for heating, 

lighting, and cooling in home-living 

(dormitory) situations. 

The following items will be on the 

agenda: 

• Review and approve February 2011 

meeting summary; 

• Reach consensus on unresolved 

issues in the draft report; 

• Finalize draft report language and 

prepare for tribal consultation; 

• Agree on a schedule, standard 

agenda and presentation material for 

tribal consultation sessions; 

• Discuss and clarify next steps for 

synthesizing and sharing comments 

received from tribal consultation and 

highlighting key topics for final 

committee meeting; and 

• Public comments. 

Written comments may be sent to the 

Designated Federal Official listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above. All meetings are open to 

the public; however, transportation, 

lodging, and meals are the responsibility 

of the participating public. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Paul Tsosie, 

Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8649 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 110 and 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1119] 

RIN 1625–AA01; 1625–AA11 

Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, 

New Bedford, MA: Anchorage Ground 

and Regulated Navigation Area 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend an existing anchorage ground 

which currently overlaps a pilot 

underwater cap (‘‘pilot cap’’) in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) New Bedford Harbor Superfund 

Site in New Bedford, MA. The Coast 

Guard also proposes to establish a 

regulated navigation area (RNA) 

prohibiting activities that disturb the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

seabed around the site. The proposed 

RNA would not affect transit or 

navigation of the area. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 12, 2011. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before April 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–1119 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) 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. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior 

Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways 

Management Branch, First Coast Guard 

District; telephone 617–223–8385, 

e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. 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. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–1119), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–1119’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments 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 and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

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, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

1119’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of 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 a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one on or before April 27, 2011 using 

one of the four methods specified under 

ADDRESSES. Please explain why you 

believe a public meeting 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. 

Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis for the proposed rule 

is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221–1236, 2030, 2035, 

and 2071; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 

50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to define regulatory anchorage grounds 

and RNAs. 

The purpose of the proposed rule is 

to minimize the potential for human 

exposure to contamination and to help 

protect the integrity of the EPA’s 

remedy at a portion of the New Bedford 

Harbor Superfund Site by reducing an 

existing anchorage ground so that it no 

longer overlaps the pilot cap, and by 

placing the pilot cap in a RNA that 

would protect the site from damage by 

mariners, and protect mariners and the 

general public from contaminants in the 

site. 

The New Bedford Superfund cleanup 

site is an urban tidal estuary with 

sediments contaminated by 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 

heavy metals. An extensive history and 

background of the cleanup project can 

be found on the EPA’s Web site, at 

http://www.epa.gov/nbh/. 

The specific cleanup project and 

surrounding area addressed by this 

regulation is the pilot cap, which is 

located south of the New Bedford 

Harbor hurricane barrier in the outer 

harbor. The pilot cap consists of sand 

and gravel covering approximately 20 

acres of contaminated sediments. Based 

on data collected in 2010, the thickness 

of the cap is predominantly one to two 

feet (98% of the cap area has a thickness 

greater than one foot; 68% greater than 

two feet; and in a few isolated areas, the 

thickness is up to 6.4 feet). A copy of 

the latest data for the pilot cap area can 

be found on EPA’s Web site for New 

Bedford Harbor. While the pilot cap is 

protective of human health and the 

environment, it remains vulnerable to 

human actions that tend to disturb the 

seabed. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20289 

Several maritime practices that 

involve physical contact with the 

seabed (e.g., anchoring, dragging, 

trawling, and spudding) pose a specific 

threat to the pilot cap. It is also 

conceivable that PCBs or heavy metals 

could stick to gear penetrating the 

seabed; any contaminants that come up 

with gear could create a threat to human 

health and the environment. The 

proposed RNA would prohibit these 

specific activities without in any way 

inhibiting surface navigation. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Presently, anchorage ground ‘‘B’’ 

designated in 33 CFR 110.140 directly 

overlaps the pilot cap, which is 

particularly susceptible to damage by 

anchoring. To avoid that damage we 

propose amending anchorage ground 

‘‘B’’ by moving its northern boundary 

sufficiently southward such that it no 

longer overlaps with the pilot cap. 

Although this would reduce the 

anchorage ground’s area by roughly half, 

we do not expect this to pose a 

significant inconvenience to mariners 

because anchorage ‘‘A’’ is located nearby 

and is much larger. 

Additionally, we propose establishing 

a RNA around the pilot cap. Anchoring, 

dragging, trawling, spudding, or any 

other action making contact with the 

seabed would be prohibited without the 

express permission of the Captain of the 

Port (COTP) Coast Guard Sector 

Southeastern New England, in 

consultation with the EPA; waivers 

could be requested in writing. Transit or 

navigation activities that do not make 

contact with the seabed would not be 

affected. 

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. 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, 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 minimal additional cost 

impacts to industry because this rule 

would not affect normal surface 

navigation. Although this regulation 

may have some impact on the public, 

the potential impact will be minimized 

for the following reasons: normal 

surface navigation will not be affected; 

approximately half of the existing 

anchorage area will still be available for 

use; the number of vessels using the 

anchorage is limited due to depth (less 

than or equal to 18 feet); and anchoring 

over the pilot cap could pose a risk to 

human health and the environment, 

making it an already unattractive 

option. 

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 and small 

fishing vessels intending to anchor in 

New Bedford’s outer harbor. 

The proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: Normal surface 

navigation will not be affected; 

approximately half of the existing 

anchorage area will still be available for 

use, and there is another, much larger 

anchorage nearby; the number of vessels 

using the anchorage is limited due to 

draft (less than or equal to 18 feet); and 

anchoring over the pilot cap could pose 

a risk to human health and the 

environment, making it an already 

unattractive option. 

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 

Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways 

Management Branch, First Coast Guard 

District; telephone 617–223–8385, 

e-mail Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this proposed 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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 cause 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Preliminary 

NEPA documentation is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. We 

believe the proposed rule would be 

categorically excluded, under figure 

2–1, paragraphs (34)(f) and (34)(g) of the 

Instruction because it involves 

shrinking an existing anchorage ground, 

and establishing an RNA prohibiting 

activities that disturb the seabed. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR parts 110 and 165 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. 0170.1. 

2. Amend § 110.140, by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 110.140 Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, 

and adjacent waters, Mass. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Anchorage B. All waters bounded 

by a line beginning at 41°36′42.3′′ N, 

070°54′24.9′′ W; thence to 41°36′55.5′′ N, 

070°54′06.6′′ W; thence to 41°36′13.6′′ N, 

070°53′40.2′′ W; thence to 41°36′11.1′′ N, 

070°54′07.6′′ W; thence along the 

shoreline to the beginning point. 

* * * * * 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

3. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

4. Add § 165.125 to read as follows: 

§ 165.125 Regulated Navigation Area; EPA 

Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, 

Massachusetts. 

(a) Location. The regulated navigation 

area encompasses all waters bounded by 

a line beginning at 41°37′22.5′′ N, 

070°54′34.1′′ W; thence to 41°37′14.4′′ N, 

070°54′19.6′′ W; thence to 41°36′58.5′′ N, 

070°54′08.1′′ W; thence to 41°36′45.0′′ N, 

070°54′26.9′′ W; thence along the 

shoreline and south side of the 

hurricane barrier to the beginning point. 

(b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and 

persons are prohibited from activities 

that would disturb the seabed within 

the regulated navigation area, including 

but not limited to, anchoring, dragging, 

trawling, and spudding. Vessels may 

otherwise transit or navigate within this 

area without reservation. 

(2) The prohibition described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not 

apply to vessels or persons engaged in 

activities associated with remediation 

efforts in the New Bedford Harbor 

Superfund Site, provided that the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port Southeastern 

New England (COTP) is given advance 

notice of those activities by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

(c) Waivers. The COTP may, in 

consultation with the U.S. EPA, 

authorize a waiver from this section if 

he or she determines that the proposed 

activity can be performed without 

undue risk to environmental 

remediation efforts. Requests for 

waivers should be submitted in writing 

to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Southeastern New England, 1 Little 

Harbor Road, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, 

with a copy to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 1, New 

Bedford Harbor Remedial Project 

Manager, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

(OSRR07), Boston, MA 02109, to 

facilitate review by the EPA and 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

Dated: March 24, 2011. 

J.A. Servidio, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8518 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1