Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12089 

permitted aquaculture activities within 

MBNMS and GFNMS; and (2) asking the 

Governor to withdraw his objection to 

prohibiting the release of introduced 

species during research activities in the 

MBNMS. The state’s existing review 

process for aquaculture projects 

provides NOAA with some level of 

assurance that NOAA has an 

opportunity to provide input and can 

minimize the potential for harm to 

sanctuary resources from an introduced 

species aquaculture project. The 

MBNMS permit process would allow 

NOAA to issue a permit for an 

introduced species research project if 

environmental and legal review found 

the project to be acceptable. The state 

would also retain its authority to issue 

permits for introduced species research 

projects, or reject such a proposal. By 

offering to propose regulatory 

exemptions for introduced species that 

are cultivated in MBNMS or GFNMS as 

part of state-permitted aquaculture 

activities, NOAA satisfied a condition of 

the governor’s objection. As such, the 

objection does not apply to these terms 

of designations or the corresponding 

regulations in GFNMS. However, by the 

close of the review period that ended on 

March 9, 2009, the state had not 

accepted the compromise solution for 

the MBNMS with regard to introduced 

species that are released during research 

activities. Therefore, the Governor’s 

December 23, 2008 letter serves, in 

effect, to object to the MBNMS terms of 

designation for introduction of 

introduced species in the state waters of 

the MBNMS. 

Effective Date for GFNMS Regulations 

The revised regulations for the 

GFNMS associated with the November 

20, 2008 final rule became effective on 

March 9, 2009. NOAA will not enforce 

15 CFR 922.82(a)(10), the prohibition on 

introducing introduced species, in state 

waters of the GFNMS until it has been 

amended in accordance with the 

Governor’s requirement that it exempt 

state-permitted aquaculture. NOAA has 

agreed and committed to immediately 

initiate a process to modify the 

introduced species regulation to exempt 

state-permitted introduced species 

aquaculture in the GFNMS. As part of 

this agreement, NOAA has agreed that it 

will not enforce the prohibition on 

introducing introduced species in the 

state waters of GFNMS until a new 

rulemaking process for these regulations 

can take place. NOAA will promptly 

commence a separate regulatory action 

for public comment to determine the 

appropriateness of further regulation of 

introduced species in the state waters of 

the GFNMS. After consideration of all 

comments received for that proposed 

action, NOAA will publish a new final 

rule to address the concerns raised in 

the Governor’s December 23, 2008 letter. 

That regulation will become effective 

soon thereafter, in accordance with 

applicable federal law. 

Effective Date for MBNMS Regulations 

The revised regulations for the 

MBNMS associated with the November 

20, 2008 final rule became effective on 

March 9, 2009 except for 15 CFR 

922.132(a)(12), the prohibition on 

introducing introduced species, which 

will not take effect in state waters of the 

MBNMS. Because the Governor objected 

to the revised term of designation that 

would have provided specific authority 

to prohibit the introduction of 

introduced species in MBNMS, it 

cannot take effect in the state waters of 

the MBNMS. The regulation still applies 

and took effect in the federal waters of 

the MBNMS on March 9, 2009. 

The terms of designation for the 

MBNMS will also reflect the Governor’s 

objection to limit the application of that 

specific term of designation to federal 

waters. As such, paragraph l of section 

1 of Article IV will read: ‘‘l. Introducing 

or otherwise releasing from within or 

into the Sanctuary an introduced 

species. [This provision does not apply 

in the area of the Sanctuary lying within 

the seaward boundary of California, 

because, pursuant to section 304(b) of 

the Act, the Governor of California filed 

an objection to this provision pursuant 

to a December 23, 2008 letter.] 

Effective Date for CBNMS Regulations 

The revised regulations for the 

CBNMS associated with the November 

20, 2008 final rule became effective on 

March 9, 2009. There are no state waters 

in the CBNMS, and thus the terms of 

designation for the sanctuary were not 

subject to gubernatorial objection. 

Dated: March 18, 2009. 

William Corso, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean 

Services and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–6267 Filed 3–19–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1026] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Saugus River, Lynn, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting 

the interim safety zone published on 

December 29, 2008, as a temporary final 

rule. This rule creates a safety zone for 

a portion of the Saugus River in Lynn, 

Massachusetts as requested by the 

Massachusetts Highway Department 

(MHD), to allow for vital repair work to 

commence on the Route 107/Fox Hill 

Bridge during the winter and spring 

months. This zone is necessary to 

protect mariners from the potential 

hazards associated with the work being 

conducted by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts in making critical repairs 

to the bridge while it is closed to 

transiting vessels and vehicular traffic. 

DATES: Effective March 23, 2009, the 

interim rule amending 33 CFR Part 165 

which was published at 73 FR 79363 on 

29 December, 2008 is adopted without 

change as a temporary final rule. 

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–2008–1026 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– 

2008–1026 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 United 

States Coast Guard Sector Boston, 427 

Commercial St, Boston, MA 02109 

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call Chief Petty Officer Eldridge 

McFadden, Waterways Management at 

617–223–3000. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Renee V. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
12090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On December 29, 2008, we published 

an interim rule with request for 

comments entitled ‘‘Safety Zone, Saugus 

River, Lynn, MA’’ in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 79363). We did not 

receive any letters commenting on the 

interim rule. No public meeting was 

requested, and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

A meeting between the Coast Guard, 

local lobstermen, local marina 

operators, lobster purchasing agents, 

and the bridge owner, MHD, was held 

on September 10, 2008. The owner of 

the bridge presented engineering 

evidence of the poor condition of the 

bridge and the need to perform major 

bridge repairs during the winter months. 

It was concluded that in order to keep 

the bridge operating safely and reliably 

until the major repairs can commence, 

the number of bridge openings must be 

reduced to save wear and tear on the 

mechanical components. A temporary 

deviation from standard bridge 

operation was deemed necessary in 

order to insure that the bridge continues 

to operate in a safe and reliable manner 

until the major repairs can be made. No 

objection to the proposed temporary 

deviation schedule was voiced by 

interested parties. In a rulemaking 

supporting that decision, the Coast 

Guard published a temporary change to 

the Saugus Drawbridge Operation 

regulations (USCG–2008–0969) in the 

Federal Register on October 15, 2008 

(73 FR 60954) allowing a deviation of 

the drawbridge operating guidelines. 

That regulation, effective from October 

15, 2008 through December 15, 2008, 

allowed the bridge to remain closed, 

opening on signal only on the half hour 

and hour. 

In addition, the long term repairs may 

only take place by closing the bridge to 

both vehicular and vessel traffic, and 

removing portions of the bridge for 

work. Massachusetts Highway 

Department must bring in a large crane 

barge in order to conduct work on the 

bridge. This barge will be crossing the 

river, effectively restricting the use of 

the river. Frequently moving the barge 

to allow vessel traffic to pass is contrary 

to the public interest as it would further 

delay the bridge repairs well into the 

summer months, which are the primary 

boating and fishing seasons in 

Massachusetts. In order the assist the 

local lobstermen, MHD proposed to 

install a temporary dock system on the 

downstream of the existing bridge to 

mitigate the impacts of closing the 

bridge and blocking the channel with a 

large work barge. During the meeting the 

lobstermen indicated that the proposed 

dates for the bridge closure and 

waterway restriction along with the 

installation of a temporary dock system 

would be a good compromise that 

would satisfy their needs and still allow 

the rehabilitation bridge repairs to be 

completed late May 2009. 

An additional meeting between the 

Coast Guard, town officials, 

harbormaster and MHD took place on 

December 4, 2008 at which time the 

MHD agreed to work with affected 

waterway users to remove the crane 

barge restricting the waterway on no 

more than six occasions during the 

repair process to allow vessels, that are 

able, to pass beneath the bridge while in 

a closed position. 

On December 10, 2008, Captain of the 

Port Boston signed an Interim Rule 

creating a safety zone upriver of the 

Route 107/Fox Hill Bridge on the 

Saugus River in Lynn, MA. That rule 

was subsequently published in the 

Federal Register on 29 December 2008 

as (73 FR 79363). We did not receive 

comments on the interim rule. 

Discussion of Rule 

The COTP Boston is adopting the 

currently effective interim rule, 

reflected in 33 CFR 165.T01–1026, as a 

temporary final rule. This rule 

establishes a safety zone that prohibits 

vessels from coming within 50 yards of 

the upriver side of 107/Fox Hill Bridge 

in the Saugus River in Lynn, 

Massachusetts. While this safety zone 

has the practical effect of closing a 

portion of the waterway, the Captain of 

the Port anticipates minimal negative 

impact on vessel traffic because (1) 

Recreational boating traffic is limited 

this particular time of year, (2) the MHD 

has made alternate mooring and docking 

arrangements for the fishermen which 

typically dock on the up river side of 

the bridge, and (3) MHD will remove the 

crane barge restricting waterway access 

under the bridge on at least six 

occasions allowing vessel traffic, which 

may do so, to pass beneath the closed 

bridge. Public notifications will be made 

prior to and during the effective period 

via Local and Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We are adopting the interim rule as a 

temporary final 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. 

The Coast Guard expects the 

economic impact of this temporary rule 

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory 

Evaluation is unnecessary. Although 

this rule may prevent traffic from 

transiting a portion of the Saugus River 

during the bridge repairs, the effect of 

this rule will not be significant for 

several reasons: Alternate arrangements 

for the offload and mooring of fishing 

vessels have been made, recreational 

boaters typically have their boats out of 

the water at this time of year in order 

to protect them from winter icing, MHD 

will remove the crane barge restricting 

waterway access on at least six 

occasions as requested by a waterway 

users (during which times vessel 

operators may request permission to 

transit through the safety zone 

promulgated by this rule), and 

continued notifications will be made to 

the local maritime community by 

broadcast and local notice to mariners. 

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 will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

fishing and recreational vessels 

intending to transit or anchor in a 

portion of the Saugus River from 

midnight December 14, 2008 through 

midnight on May 15, 2009. This closure 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the reasons described under 

the Regulatory Planning and Review 

section. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12091 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer 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 

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 0023.1 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 this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1 paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction. 

No comments relating to 

environmental issues were received in 

response to the Interim Rulemaking/ 

Request for Comment, and no additional 

environmental concerns have been 

discovered in connection with this 

action. The final environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 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 amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, under authority of 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; 

Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1., the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR 165.T01–1026 that 

was published at 73 FR 79363 on 29 

December, 2008 is adopted without 

change as a temporary final rule. 

Dated: February 17, 2009. 

Gail P. Kulisch, 

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

Port Boston. 

[FR Doc. E9–6186 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES