Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75009

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 04–27406 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 110 and 165 

[CGD05–04–035] 

RIN 1625–AA00, 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Grounds and Safety Zone; 

Delaware River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a permanent safety zone and to 

modify Anchorage 6 off Deepwater 

Point, Anchorage 7, off Marcus Hook, 

and Anchorage 9, near the entrance to 

Mantua Creek on the Delaware River in 

the area of the Marcus Hook Range 

Channel. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) conducts annual 

dredging operations between September 

1 and December 31, which is necessary 

to maintain congressionally authorized 

project depths. The safety zone and 

anchorage modifications are necessary 

to ensure safe vessel transits during the 

dredging operations. These regulations 

will temporarily alter the route of 

vessels transiting the channel and 

requirements for those vessels wishing 

to anchor during the dredging 

operations.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Philadelphia, One 

Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, 19147. The Marine Safety 

Office Philadelphia Waterways 

Management Branch 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 Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Philadelphia 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Junior Grade Kevin Sligh or 

Ensign Jill Munsch, Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office/Group Philadelphia, at 

(215) 271–4889.

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 (CGD05–04–035), 

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 Marine 

Safety Office Philadelphia, Waterways 

Management Branch to 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 

USACE conducts annual dredging 

operations on the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of the Marcus Hook Range 

Channel to maintain the authorized 

forty-foot Federal navigation project 

depth. The dredging occurs between 

September 1 and December 31 of each 

year. 

To reduce the hazards associated with 

dredging the channel, vessel traffic that 

would normally transit through the 

Marcus Hook Range Channel will be 

diverted through part of Anchorage 7 

during the dredging operations. 

Therefore, additional requirements and 

restrictions on the use of Anchorage 7 

are necessary.

For the protection of mariners 

transiting in the vicinity of dredging 

operations, the Coast Guard also 

proposes to establish a safety zone in all 

waters within a 150-yard radius around 

the dredging vessels. The safety zone is 

intended to protect mariners from the 

potential hazards associated with 

dredging operations and equipment, and 

to protect vessels engaged in dredging 

operations. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to place a 

permanent safety zone in waters within 

a 150-yard radius around vessels 

engaged in dredging operations in the 

Marcus Hook Range Channel and to 

place additional requirements and 

restrictions at Anchorage 6 and 

Anchorage 7. 

The safety zone will protect mariners 

transiting the area from the potential 

hazards associated with dredging 

operations. Vessels transiting the 

Marcus Hook Range Channel will need 

to divert from the main ship channel 

through Anchorage 7 and must operate 

at the minimum safe speed necessary to 

maintain steerage and reduce wake. No 

vessel would be allowed to enter the 

safety zone unless it received 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or his designated representative. 

The Coast Guard is proposing the 

placement of additional requirements 

on vessels in the affected anchorages. 

Pursuant to 33 CFR Section 

110.157(b)(2) vessels are allowed to 

anchor for up to 48 hours in the 

anchorage grounds listed in 

§ 110.157(a), which includes Anchorage 

7. However, because of the limited 

anchorage space available in Anchorage 

7, the Coast Guard is adding a paragraph 

in 33 CFR 110.157(b) to provide 

additional requirements and restrictions 

on vessels utilizing Anchorage 7 during 

the USACE dredging of Marcus Hook 

Reach Channel. During the enforcement 

period, vessels desiring to use 

Anchorage 7 must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port 

Philadelphia at least 24 hours in 

advance. The Captain of the Port would 

permit only one vessel at a time to 

anchor in Anchorage 7 and would grant 

permission on a ‘‘first come, first serve’’

basis. A vessel would be directed to a 

location within Anchorage 7 where it 

may anchor, and would not be 

permitted to remain in Anchorage 7 for 

more than 12 hours. 

The Coast Guard expects that vessels 

normally permitted to anchor in 

Anchorage 7 would use Anchorage 6 or 

Anchorage 9, because they are the next 

closest anchorage grounds. To control 

access to Anchorage 7, the Coast Guard 

proposes to require a vessel desiring to 

anchor in Anchorage 7 to obtain 

advance permission from the Captain of 

the Port. To control access to 

Anchorages 6 and 9, the Coast Guard 

would require any vessel 700 feet or 

greater in length to obtain advance 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

before anchoring. Anchorages 6 and 9 

are not as large as Anchorage 7; 

therefore the need exists to have one or 

two tugs on scene while a vessel is 

anchored in those anchorages. The 

purpose of this is to prohibit vessels 

from swinging into the channel or going 

75010 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

aground. A vessel 700 to 750 feet in 

length would be required to have one 

tug standing alongside while at anchor 

and a vessel over 750 feet in length 

would require two tugs standing 

alongside. The tug(s) would be required 

to have sufficient horsepower to prevent 

the vessel they are attending from 

swinging into the channel. 

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. Although this 

proposed regulation would require 

certain vessels to have one or two tugs 

alongside while at anchor, the 

requirement only applies to vessels 700 

feet or greater in length that choose to 

anchor in Anchorages 6 and 9. Alternate 

anchorage grounds such as Anchorage A 

off the entrance to Mispillion River 

(Breakwater & Big Stone Beach) and 

Anchorage 1 off Bombay Hook Point 

(Bombay Hook) in Delaware Bay, are 

reasonably close and generally 

available. Vessels anchoring in 

Breakwater and Big Stone Beach are not 

required to have tugs alongside, except 

when specifically directed to do so by 

the Captain of the Port because of a 

specific hazardous condition. The 

majority of vessels expected during the 

enforcement period are less than 700 

feet and thus will not be required to 

have tugs alongside. 

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 greatest impact of this proposed 

rule would be on vessels larger than 700 

feet in length that choose to anchor in 

Anchorages 6 and 9. This proposed rule 

would have no impact on any small 

entities. Therefore, 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.

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 could better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking 

process. 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 Kevin Sligh or 

Ensign Jill Munsch, Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office/Group Philadelphia, at 

(215) 271–4889. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed 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 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 will 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 

Security Risks. This rule is not an 

economically significant rule and does 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to security 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. 

We invite your comments on how this 

proposed rule might impact tribal 

governments, even if that impact may 

not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’

under the Order. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75011

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 rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded 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, paragraphs 34(f) and (34)(g), 

of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether to 

categorically exclude this rule from 

further environmental review.

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

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, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–

1(g). Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Amend § 110.157 by adding 

paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:

§ 110.157 Delaware Bay and River.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(11) From September 1 through 

December 31 each year, the following 

requirements and restrictions apply: 

(i) Before anchoring in Anchorage 7 

off Marcus Hook, as described in 

paragraph (a)(8) of this section, a vessel 

must first obtain permission from the 

Captain of the Port, Philadelphia, at 

least 24 hours in advance of arrival. 

Permission to anchor will be granted on 

a ‘‘first-come, first-serve’’ basis. The 

Captain of the Port, Philadelphia will 

allow only one vessel at a time to be at 

anchor in Anchorage 7, and no vessel 

may remain within Anchorage 7 for 

more than 12 hours. Any vessel arriving 

from or departing to sea that requires an 

examination by the public health 

service, customs or immigration 

authorities will be directed to an 

anchorage for the required inspection by 

the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case 

basis.

(ii) For Anchorage 6 off Deepwater 

Point, as described in paragraph (a)(7) of 

this section, and Anchorage 9 near 

entrance to Mantua Creek, as described 

in paragraph (a)(10) of this section. 

(A) Any vessel 700 feet or greater in 

length requesting anchorage shall obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at least 24 

hours in advance. 

(B) Any vessel from 700 to 750 feet in 

length shall have one tug alongside at 

all times while the vessel is at anchor. 

(C) Any vessel greater than 750 feet in 

length shall have two tugs alongside at 

all times while the vessel is at anchor. 

(D) The Master, owner or operator of 

a vessel at anchor shall ensure that any 

tug required by this section is of 

sufficient horsepower to assist with 

necessary maneuvers to keep the vessel 

clear of the navigation channel. 

(iii) As used in this section, Captain 

of the Port means the Captain of the 

Port, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer authorized to act on his 

behalf. The Captain of the Port may be 

contacted by telephone at (215) 271–

4807 or via VHF marine band radio, 

channels 13 and 16.

* * * * *

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; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(G), 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 § 165.509 to read as follows:

§ 165.509 Safety Zone; Delaware River 

(a) Definition. As used in this section, 

Captain of the Port means the 

Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office/Group 

Philadelphia or any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port to act on his behalf. The 

Captain of the Port may be contacted by 

telephone at (215) 271–4807 or via VHF 

marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: 

All waters located within a 150-yard 

radius arc centered on the dredging 

operation and barge, conducting 

dredging operations in or near the 

Marcus Hook Range Channel in the 

vicinity of Anchorage 7 off Marcus 

Hook. 

(c) Enforcement. This safety zone will 

be enforced annually from September 1 

through December 31. 

(d) Regulations.

(1) All persons are required to comply 

with the general regulations governing 

safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this 

part. 

(2) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

this safety zone or watch officers aboard 

the dredge and barge can be contacted 

on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 

and 16. The Captain of the Port can be 

contacted at (215) 271–4807.

Dated: August 19, 2004. 

Ben Thomason III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–27473 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–04–047] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operating 

regulations governing the operation of