29092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

affect about 15 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 36 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost between $7,900 and 

$8,610 per product, depending on the 

airplane configuration. Where the 

service information lists required parts 

costs that are covered under warranty, 

we have assumed that there will be no 

charge for these costs. As we do not 

control warranty coverage for affected 

parties, some parties may incur costs 

higher than estimated here. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

between $161,700 and $172,350 for the 

fleet, or between $10,780 and $11,490 

per product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA–2007–

28256; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–

041–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by June 25, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira 

de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model 

EMB–135BJ airplanes, certificated in any 

category, serial numbers 145412, 145462, 

145484, 145495, 145505, 145516, 145528, 

145540, 145549, 145555, 145586, 145625, 

145637, 145642, 145644, and 145678. 

Subject 

(d) Equipment/Furnishings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘It has been found the occurrence of smoke 

on the passenger cabin originated from the 

valance panel lighting system wiring.’’

The corrective action is replacement of the 

valance panel lighting system wiring. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Within 48 months after the effective 

date of this AD, unless already done, replace 

the wiring of the valance panel lighting 

system by another one that complies with the 

current inverter specifications, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG–25–

0070, dated October 11, 2006. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using 

any approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2007–01–03, effective January 22, 

2007, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145LEG–25–0070, dated October 11, 2006, 

for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 

2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–10026 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[CGD01–07–011] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Edgecomb 

Maine, Sheepscot River 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a general anchorage area in 

Edgecomb, Maine, on the Sheepscot 

River. This action is necessary to 

facilitate safe navigation in that area and 

to provide safe and secure anchorages 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29093 

for transient vessels visiting the area. 

This proposal is intended to increase 

the safety for life and property on the 

Sheepscot River, improve the safety of 

anchored vessels, provide for ample 

anchorages for transient vessels, and 

provide for the overall safe and efficient 

flow of recreational vessels and 

commerce. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 

02110, who 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 628, First Coast Guard 

District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First 

Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., 

Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 

Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at 

John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. 

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 (CGD01–07–011), 

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 Branch 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 

The proposed rule is the result of 

colloboration with the Town of 

Edgecomb’s Waterfront Committee to 

accommodate transient vessels mooring 

in the area. Currently, the Town of 

Edgecomb has two large condominium/ 

marina complexes under construction in 

the harbor. Due to this growth, the 

Waterfront Committee wants to be 

proactive and to insure that there will 

always be suitable anchorages available 

to vessels transiting the area. The 

proposed rule would establish a general 

anchorage area adjacent to the current 

town mooring fields. These fields 

currently accommodate approximately 

40 moorings for vessels greater than 27 

feet, and 35 moorings for vessels smaller 

than 27 feet. The proposed rule is 

designed to reserve approximately 15 

anchorages for transient vessels visiting 

the area from May through October each 

year. The anchorage would 

accommodate both sail and power 

vessels with a 3-to-12-foot draft. Vessels 

would use their own ground tackle. 

In developing this proposed rule, the 

Coast Guard has consulted with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, 

located at 696 Virginia Road., Concord, 

MA 01742. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would create a 

general anchorage area located in 

Edgecomb, Maine on the Sheepscot 

River. The proposed rule conforms to 

the changing needs of the Town of 

Edgecomb in addition to the needs of 

the recreational, fishing, and 

commercial vessels. The rule provides 

for the best use of the available 

navigable water. This anchorage is in 

the interest of safe navigation, and 

would protect the vessels moored at the 

Town of Edgecomb and marine 

environment. 

Mariners using the anchorage area 

would be encouraged to contact local 

and state authorities, such as the local 

harbormaster, to ensure compliance 

with any applicable state and local laws. 

Such laws may involve, for example, 

compliance with direction from the 

local harbormaster when anchoring 

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. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

The proposed anchorage area does not 

impede the passage of recreational or 

commercial vessels as it is not located 

in the primary channel of the Sheepscot 

River, and thus, will have a minimal 

economic impact. 

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 Sheepscot River in and around 

the anchorage area. However, this 

anchorage area would not have a 

significant economic impact on these 

entities for the following reasons: The 

proposed anchorage area is not located 

near the primary channel of the river 

and will not restrict vessel traffic 

transiting up or down the Sheepscot 

River. Thus, the anchorage area will not 

impede safe and efficient vessel transits. 

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 Mr. John J. 

Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast 

Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
29094 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 

Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at 

John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. 

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 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 and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, 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 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 an 

anchorage ground. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and ‘‘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 this 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); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 110.131 to read as follows: 

§ 110.131 Sheepscot River in vicinity of 

Edgecomb, Maine. 

(a) Anchorage grounds. All of the 

waters enclosed by a line starting from 

a point located at the southwestern end 

of Davis Island at latitude 43°59.655′ N., 

longitude 69°39.617′ W.; thence to 

latitude 43°59.687′ N., longitude 

69°39.691′ W.; thence to latitude 

43°59.847′ N., longitude 69°39.743′ W.; 

thence to latitude 43°59.879′ N., 

longitude 69°39.559′ W.; thence to 

latitude 43°59.856′ N., longitude 

69°39.488′ W.; thence to latitude 

43°59.771′ N., longitude 69°39.585′ W.; 

thence to the point of beginning. 

DATUM: NAD 83 

(b) Regulations. (1) This anchorage is 

reserved for vessels of all types, with 

drafts of from 3 to 12 feet. 

(2) These anchorage grounds are 

authorized for use from May through 

October. 

(3) Vessels are limited to a maximum 

stay of 1 week. 

(4) Fixed moorings, piles or stakes are 

prohibited. 

(5) Vessels must not anchor so as to 

obstruct the passage of other vessels 

proceeding to or from other anchorage 

spaces. 

(6) Anchors must not be placed in the 

channel and no portion of the hull or 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules 29095 

rigging of any anchored vessel shall 

extend outside the limits of the 

anchorage area. 

(7) The anchorage of vessels is under 

the coordination of the local 

Harbormaster. 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

Timothy S. Sullivan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–9968 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[CGD01–07–009] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, 

Maine, Casco Bay 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish three special anchorage areas 

in Yarmouth, Maine on Casco Bay. This 

action is necessary to facilitate safe 

navigation in that area and to provide 

safe and secure anchorages for vessels of 

not more than 65 feet. This proposal is 

intended to increase the safety for life 

and property on Casco Bay, improve the 

safety of anchored vessels, create 

workable boundaries for future mooring 

expansion, and provide for the overall 

safe and efficient flow of recreational 

vessels and commerce. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 

02110, who 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 628, First Coast Guard 

District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First 

Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., 

Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 

Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at 

John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. 

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 (CGD01–07–009), 

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 Branch 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 

The proposed rule is the result of 

collaboration with the Town of 

Yarmouth’s Harbor and Waterfront 

Committee and Yarmouth town council 

to accommodate vessels mooring in the 

area. The proposed rule would establish 

three separate special anchorage areas 

organized from the current 

accommodations of approximately 350 

moorings. The proposed rule is 

designed to aid the Town of Yarmouth 

in enforcing its mooring and boating 

regulations by clearly defining the 

available mooring fields. In addition, 

the proposed rule will provide finite 

expansion boundaries of town mooring 

fields, ensure that there are transient 

anchorage areas available, and extend 

the convenience of a special anchorage 

to local vessel owners. The areas under 

consideration are currently established 

mooring areas. 

In developing this proposed rule, the 

Coast Guard has consulted with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, 

located at 696 Virginia Road., Concord, 

MA 01742. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would create three 

special anchorage areas located in 

Yarmouth, Maine on Casco Bay: (1) 

Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point Cousins 

Island Special Anchorage,(2) Madeleine 

and Sandy Point Special Anchorage, 

and (3) Drinkwater Point and Princes 

Point Special Anchorage. 

The Town of Yarmouth has 

delineated transient anchorage areas in 

each of the three special anchorage 

areas. These transient anchorage areas 

are located near or next to town-owned 

property that has limited access to 

parking and, in some cases, dock tie-up 

space. 

The special anchorage areas would be 

limited to vessels no greater than 65 feet 

in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet 

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. 

Mariners utilizing the anchorage areas 

are encouraged to contact local and state 

authorities, such as the local 

harbormaster, to ensure compliance 

with any 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. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

This finding is based on the fact that 

this proposal conforms to the changing 

needs of the Town of Yarmouth, the 

changing needs of recreational, fishing 

and commercial vessels, and to make 

the best use of the available navigable 

water. The proposed special anchorage 

areas do not impede the passage of 

recreational or commercial vessels as 

they are not located in the primary 

entrance channel to Yarmouth Harbor. 

The proposed special anchorage areas 

are a consolidation and delineation of 

existing mooring fields. Thus, the 

special anchorage area will have a 

minimal economic impact. This 

proposed rule is in the interest of safe 

navigation, protection of the vessels 

moored at the Town of Yarmouth, and 

protection of the marine environment. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS