Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55367

each comment. The Coast Guard

requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an 81⁄2′′ ×

11′′ unbound format suitable for

copying and electronic filing. If this is

not practical, a second copy of any

bound material is requested. Persons

desiring acknowledgment of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard has also scheduled

a public hearing on November 4,1 997,

at 9 a.m., to receive oral presentations.

The public meeting will be held in the

Function Room on the first floor of

Building 1, at the Coast Guard

Integrated Support Company, 427

Commercial St., Boston, MA.

Background

The Chelesa Street Bridge is a

bascule-type bridge owned by the City

of Boston and originally constructed in

1939. It spans the Chelsea River

providing a means for vehicles to travel

between Chelsea, MA and East Boston,

MA. Several petroleum-product transfer

facilities are located on the Chelsea

River, upstream and downstream of the

Chelsea Street Bridge. Transit of

tankships through the bridge is

necessary to access the facilities

upstream of the bridge. The narrow

bridge-span opening creates a very

difficult passage through the bridge for

larger vessels. Adding to the difficulty

are the close proximity of neighboring

shore structures and, at times, vessels

moored at facilities adjacent to the

bridge.

In 1986, the bridge and its fendering

system were in a dilapidated condition,

which further complicated vessel

transits. Additionally, the Northeast

Petroleum Terminal (locally referred to

as the Jenny Dock) and the Mobil Oil

Terminal were located downstream of

the bridge on the north and south bank

of the river respectively. If one or more

vessels were moored at either of those

facilities, the already short and narrow

approach to the bridge was further

restricted, thus reducing the

maneuverability space of vessels during

the approach and transit through the

bridge. Meetings between the Coast

Guard, marine operators, and pilots

indicated that restrictions on length and

width of particular vessel traffic were

necessary to achieve an acceptable level

of safety for navigating this difficult

area. Additionally, with the double hull

requirements set forth in the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA–90), several

tanker designs keeping the present cargo

capacities while meeting the

requirements of OPA–90 will create a

tanker with a beam up to 92 feet.

Agenda of Meeting

Due to the above mentioned concerns,

the Coast Guard seeks comments on the

following specific items.

Existing Safety Zone Regulations

On June 27, 1986, (51 FR 23415) the

Coast Guard promulgated the safety

zone regulations published in 33 CFR

165.120. These regulations extend over

the waters of the Chelsea River for 100

yards upstream and downstream of the

bridge, restrict water traffic transiting

the Chelsea Street Bridge and

implement vessel operational

constraints. The Coast Guard justified

these restrictions and constraints by

citing more than 75 bridge allisions and

other incidents involving vessels

transiting the Chelsea Street Bridge

during the period from 1978 through

1985.

Vessel Size Restrictions

Currently, only vessels meeting

certain draft and physical dimensions

(overall length and overall width) are

allowed to enter the safety zone. No

vessel greater than 661 feet in length, or

greater than 90.5 feet in beam, may

transit the safety zone. No vessel greater

than 630.5 feet in length, or 85.5 feet or

greater in beam, may transit the safety

zone between sunset and sunrise. No

tankship greater than 550.5 feet in

length may transit the safety zone with

a draft less than 18 feet forward and 24

feet aft. Current regulations authorize

the restrictions to be relaxed with

specific approval from the Captain of

the Port.

Extending the Width of Tankers

Permitted Through the Bridge

While focusing on the physical

dimensions of tank vessels transiting the

Chelsea River, the current regulation

does not address added or redundant

systems aboard these vessels which may

be used to enhance port and vessel

safety and minimize potential pollution

incidents. A slightly wider or longer

double-hulled tankship with enhanced

operational system transiting the

Chelsea River may, in fact, have a

margin of safety greater than the

currently used smaller, less equipped

tankships due to the former’s improved

maneuvering, handling, and safety

characteristics.

Maneuvering

These enhanced systems may include:

redundant power systems, redundant

propulsion, controllable pitch

propellers, improved steering

capabilities, bow thrusters and other

safety systems.

Procedural

All sessions are open to the public. At

the Chairperson’s discretion, members

of the public may make oral

presentations during the meeting.

Persons wishing to make oral

presentations at the meeting should

notify Lt. Michael H. Day no later than

October 27, 1997. Written material for

distribution at the meeting should reach

the COTP Boston no later than October

27, 1997. If a person submitting material

would like copies distributed in

advance of the meeting, that person

should submit 25 copies to the COTP

Boston no later than October 27, 1997.

Information on Services for the

Handicapped

For information on facilities or

services for the handicapped or to

request special assistance at the

meeting, contact COTP Boston as soon

as possible.

Dated: September 30, 1997.

J.L. Grenier,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Boston, Massachusetts.

[FR Doc. 97–28287 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers, Department of the

Army

33 CFR Part 334

Naval Restricted Area, Naval Station

Annapolis, Maryland

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Corps is proposing to

establish a new restricted area in the

waters of the small boat basin off the

Severn River, in Annapolis, Maryland to

prohibit public entry into the area. The

restricted area is needed for the security

of U.S. navy facilities and watercraft

and navigational safety for U.S. Naval

Academy training vessels in that area.

The water area in the small boat basin

has always been closed to the public,

however, as a result of the closure of the

adjacent Naval Surface Warfare Center

and the planned future public

ownership of that facility, the water may

become accessible by the public.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before November 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW–OR,

Washington, DC 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ralph Eppard, Headquarters Regulatory

Branch, at (202) 761–1783, or Mr. Steve
55368 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Elinsky, Corps Baltimore District, at

(410) 962–4503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to its authorities in section 7 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat.

266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40

Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps

proposes to amend the regulations in 33

CFR part 334 by adding a new § 334.155

which establishes a naval restricted area

at the Naval Station Annapolis small

boat basin, off the Severn River at

Annapolis, Maryland. The Commanding

Officer of the Naval Station Annapolis,

has requested that the Corps establish

the restricted area for reasons of security

and navigational safety. The small boat

basin plays an integral role in the

training of midshipmen of the U.S.

Naval Academy. The basin is used

continuously by the Naval Academy as

a training area for maneuvering and

seamanship exercises. Over the past 40

years, the small boat basin has been

surrounded by restricted U.S. Navy

property of the Naval Station Annapolis

and the Naval Surface Warfare Center

(NSWC), and accordingly, access to the

basin was limited to Naval personnel. In

1995, the Congress approved the

Department of Defense Base

Realignment and Closure Commission’s

recommendation to close the NSWC at

that location. The NSWC property is

slated to become the property of Anne

Arundel County and presumably that

area and the shoreline of the basin could

become accessible to the public. Public

access to the basin from the NSWC

property by non-U.S. Navy/Department

of Defense personnel would pose an

unacceptable security risk to the Naval

Station. Navigational safety would also

be a problem if non-Naval vessels are

allowed to operate in the basin and

because 260 feet of the NSWC seawall

is located at the entrance to the basin,

which is only 170 feet wide, any

mooring by vessels along the seawall

would further restrict the entrance and

present a hazard to boats entering and

leaving the basin. In addition to the

publication of this proposed rule, the

Baltimore District Engineer is soliciting

public comment on these proposed

changes to the restricted area rules by

distribution of a public notice to all

known interested parties.

Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is issued with

respect to a military function of the

Defense Department and the provisions

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

B. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

These proposed rules have been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), which

requires the preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis for any regulation

that will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (i.e., small businesses and small

Governments). The Corps expects that

the economic impact of the

establishment of this restricted area

would have practically no impact on the

public, no anticipated navigational

hazard or interference with existing

waterway traffic and accordingly,

certifies that this proposal if adopted,

will have no significant economic

impact on small entities.

C. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment has

been prepared for this action. We have

concluded, based on the minor nature of

the proposed additional restricted area

regulations, that this action will not

have a significant impact to the human

environment, and preparation of an

environmental impact statement is not

required. The environmental assessment

may be reviewed at the District Office

listed at the end of FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

This proposed rule does not impose

an enforceable duty among the private

sector and, therefore, is not a Federal

private sector mandate and is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Act. We have also found under section

203 of the Act, that small Governments

will not be significantly and uniquely

affected by this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Navigation (water), Transportation,

Danger Zones.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, we propose to amend 33 CFR

part 334, as follows:

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 334

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1) and

40 Stat. 892; (33 U.S.C. 3)

2. Add new § 334.155 to read as

follows:

§ 334.155 Severn River, Naval Station

Annapolis, Small Boat Basin, Annapolis,

MD; naval restricted area.

(a) The area. The waters within the

Naval Station Annapolis small boat

basin and adjacent waters of the Severn

River enclosed by a line beginning at the

southeast corner of the U.S. Navy

Marine Engineering Laboratory; thence

to latitude 38°58′56.5′′, longitude

76°28′11.5′′; thence to latitude

38°58′50.5′′, longitude 76°27′52′′; thence

to the southeast corner of the Naval

Station’s seawall.

(b) The regulations. No person, vessel

or other craft shall enter or remain in

the restricted area at any time except as

authorized by the enforcing agency.

(c) Enforcement. The regulations in

this section shall be enforced by the

Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy,

in Annapolis, Maryland, and such

agencies as he/she may designate.

Dated: October 20, 1997.

Approved.

Robert W. Burkhardt,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Executive

Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 97–28196 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–7202b; FRL–5902–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Conditional

Approval of Implementation Plans;

Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing action

on State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut. The EPA is proposing

approval of Connecticut’s 1990 base

year ozone emission inventories, and

establishment of a Photochemical

Assessment Monitoring Stations

(PAMS) network, as revisions to the

Connecticut SIP for ozone. The EPA

proposes a conditional approval of SIP

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut to meet the 15 Percent Rate

of Progress (ROP) Plan requirements of

the Clean Air Act (CAA). A conditional

approval is also proposed for the

Connecticut contingency plan.

The inventory was submitted by

Connecticut to satisfy a CAA

requirement that those States containing

ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs)