Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2461

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 18, 1996.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–1318 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–95–139]

RIN 2115–AE84

Safety Zone; Chelsea River, Boston

Inner Harbor, Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is soliciting

public comment as to whether to and,

if so, how to amend the safety zone

regulation for the waters of the Chelsea

River, Boston Inner Harbor. Any

proposed amendments should update

the safety zone to reflect recent

structural changes in the Chelsea Street

Bridge and surrounding areas, and

should address the rationale regarding

vessel size limitations and vessel tug

assist requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Captain of the Port Boston,

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 455

Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109–

1045. Comments may also be handdelivered to the above address between

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except federal holidays. The

telephone number is (617) 223–3000.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at the above

address during the hours noted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT Joseph L. Duffy, Coast Guard Marine

Safety Office Boston, MA (617) 223–

3000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in the

early stages of this rulemaking by

submitting written data, views, or

arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this specific

ANPRM (CGD01–95–139) and the

specific issue to which each comment

applies, and give reasons for each

comment. The Coast Guard requests that

all comments and attachments be

submitted in an 81⁄2′′ by 11′′ unbound

format suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If that is not practical,

a second copy of any bound material is

requested. Persons desiring

acknowledgement of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

All comments received before the

expiration of the comment period will

be considered before any proposed rule

is drafted. Late submittals will be

considered to the extent practicable

without delaying the publication of any

proposed rule.

At this time the Coast Guard has not

scheduled any public hearings. Persons

may request a public hearing by writing

to the Project Manager at the address

listed under ADDRESSES. Requests

should indicate why a public hearing is

considered necessary. If the Coast Guard

determines that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid any rulemaking, it

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information: The principal

persons involved in drafting this document

are LCDR Mark Grossetti, Marine Safety

Office Boston, and CDR John Astley, Project

Counsel, First Coast Guard District Legal

Office.

Background

The Chelsea 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 tank

vessels 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.
2462 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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. As a result, on June 27, 1986, (51

FR 23415) the Coast Guard promulgated

the safety zone regulations at 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 marine bridge

allisons and other incidents involving

vessels transiting the Chelsea Street

Bridge during the period from 1978

through 1985.

Since the implementation of those

regulations, physical changes have

occurred within the confines of the

existing safety zone. The Jenny Dock,

which is specifically mentioned in the

regulations, has since collapsed into the

Chelsea River and is no longer an active

dock. The bulkhead has since been

repaired, but vessels no longer moor at

the facility. Also, the dilapidated

fendering system on the Chelsea Street

Bridge has been completely rebuilt with

new wooden-reinforced pilings.

In addition to these physical changes,

the Coast Guard has documented

sixteen allisions with the bridge or its

fendering system since the

implementation of the current

regulations. Six allisions involved tank

vessels, two involved tug/barge

combinations over 10,000 gross tons,

and eight involved tug/barge

combinations under 10,000 gross tons.

No allisions have involved integrated

tug/barge combinations (ITBs). All but

two of the allisions resulted in only

minor damage. The exceptions involved

the Barge OCEAN STATES in February

1993 (structural damage to the bridge)

and the Barge DXE 1640 OS in July 1994

(damaged many pilings).

Discussion

Due to the above mentioned changes

and casualties, recent informal

discussions between the Captain of the

Port and the local maritime community

have raised concern that changes to the

safety zone regulations may be needed.

While the current regulations have

provided an acceptable level of safety, it

may be possible to improve safety while

reducing the burden of compliance. The

Coast Guard seeks comments on the

following specific items, and would

welcome input and possible solutions

regarding any other Chelsea Riverrelated problems or concerns not

addressed in this document.

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 local Captain

of the Port.

Is the present practice of using a

vessel’s physical dimensions as limiting

factors satisfactory? If so, are the present

size limitations satisfactory? Are there

better dimensions and/or dimension

ratios, or different operating restrictions,

that would increase safety or provide an

equivalent level of safety?

Mobil Oil/Jenny Dock

Currently, when the Chelsea River

channel is obstructed by vessel(s)

moored at either of the subject terminals

certain restrictions apply. When there is

a vessel moored at each terminal, no

vessel greater than 300.5 feet in length

or greater than 60.5 feet in beam may

transit the safety zone. When a vessel

with a beam greater than 60.5 feet is

moored at either terminal, no vessel

greater than 630.5 feet in length, or

greater than 85.5 feet in beam may

transit the safety zone. When a vessel

with a beam greater than 85.5 feet is

moored at either terminal, no vessel

greater than 550.5 feet in length, or

greater than 85.5 feet in beam may

transit the safety zone.

Since the Jenny Dock is no longer in

use, the Coast Guard seeks public

comment regarding the possibility of

removing the existing vessel size

restrictions that apply when the Chelsea

River channel is obstructed by vessel(s)

at the Jenny Dock. However, as the

Mobil Oil facility remains operational

just downstream of the Chelsea Street

Bridge, the transiting vessel’s length and

beam remains a safety concern when

certain sized vessels are moored at

Mobil Oil. Is the present practice of

using a transiting vessel’s physical

dimensions as limiting factors

satisfactory? If so, are the present size

limitations satisfactory? Are there better

dimensions and/or dimension ratios, or

different operating restrictions, that

would increase safety or provide an

equivalent level of safety?

Tug Assistance Requirements

Existing tug assistance requirements

vary depending on the physical size and

the type of the transiting vessel. All

tankships greater than 630.5 feet in

length or greater than 85.5 feet in beam

shall be assisted by at least four tugs of

adequate horsepower. All tankships

from 450 feet in length up to and

including 630.5 feet in length and less

than 85.5 feet in beam shall be assisted

by at least three tugs of adequate

horsepower.

U.S. certificated ITBs shall meet the

tug assistance requirements of a

tankship of similar length and beam,

except that one less assist tug would be

required.

All conventional tug/barge

combinations over 10,000 gross tons

shall be assisted by at least one tug of

adequate horsepower.

Are the aforementioned existing tug

assistance requirements adequate, too

stringent, or not stringent enough for the

applicable type of vessel? Are there

other applicable type of vessels that the

tug assistance requirements should

apply to?

Additionally, the Coast Guard is

considering deleting one of the required

assistance tugs for any transiting vessel

equipped with a bow thruster of

adequate horsepower. Although bow

thrusters are not addressed in the

current regulation, this would appear to

be an issue for consideration. Bow

thrusters are an effective maneuvering

aid in certain areas of restricted

maneuverability such as this safety

zone. Can the presence of an operational

bow thruster be considered an adequate

equivalent to substitute for one

assistance tug? The Coast Guard is

specifically seeking input regarding this

issue.

Tug/Barge Combinations Under 10,000

Gross Tons

As stated in the previous paragraphs

addressing tug assistance requirements,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2463

conventional tug/barge combinations

under 10,000 gross tons do not currently

require assistance tugs. A majority of the

documented Chelsea Street Bridge

allisions since implementation of the

existing regulations involved tug/barge

combinations under 10,000 gross tons.

The Coast Guard is soliciting comment

regarding the possibility of applying

current or future size restrictions that

apply to ITBs to tug/barge combinations

under 10,000 gross tons. Should the

same draft and size limitations and tug

assist requirements that apply to

tankships of similar length and beam

apply to tug/barge combinations of any

tonnage? Should additional, fewer, or

the same number of assist tugs be

required for tug/barge combinations?

Dated: January 23, 1996.

D.M. Maguire,

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

Port, Boston, MA.

[FR Doc. 96–1388 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 242

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 100

Alaska Federal Subsistence Regional

Advisory Council Meetings;

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and

Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Meetings.

DATES AND LOCATIONS: The Federal

Subsistence Board announces the

forthcoming public meetings of the

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory

Councils. Future Federal shutdowns

may require rescheduling these

meetings. The Regional Council

meetings may last two–three days and

will be held in the following Alaska

locations, and begin on the specified

dates:

Region 1 (Southeast)—Wrangell—Feb. 8,

1996

Region 2 (Southcentral)—Cordova—

Mar. 4, 1996

Region 3 (Kodiak/Aleutians)—Kodiak—

Feb. 26, 1996

Region 4 (Bristol Bay)—Naknek—Mar.

18, 1996

Region 5 (Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta)—

Nunapitchuk—Feb. 21, 1996

Region 6 (Western Interior)—Holy

Cross—Feb. 22, 1996

Region 7 (Seward Peninsula)—

Anchorage—Feb. 15, 1996

Region 8 (Northwest Arctic)—

Kotzebue—Feb. 23, 1996

Region 9 (Eastern Interior)—Fort

Yukon—Mar. 5, 1996

Region 10 (North Slope)—Barrow—Feb.

8, 1996

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public

of the Regional Council meetings

identified above. The public is invited

to attend and observe meeting

proceedings. In addition, the public is

invited to provide oral testimony before

the Councils on proposals to change

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska for the 1996–

97 regulatory year as set forth in a

proposed rule on August 15, 1995 (60

FR 42085–42130). A booklet of

proposed regulation changes was

distributed to the public by mail on

December 5, 1995.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The

following agenda items will be

discussed at each Regional Council

meeting:

(1) Introduction of Regional Council

members and guests

(2) Old business

(3) New business

a. Charter review

b. Member recruitment

c. Review, and development of

recommendations on proposals to

change Subsistence Management

Regulations for Public Lands in

Alaska

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o

Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,

Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone

(907) 786–3864. For questions related to

subsistence management issues on

National Forest Service lands, inquiries

may also be directed to Ken Thompson,

Regional Subsistence Program Manager,

USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region,

P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, Alaska 99802–

1628; telephone (907) 586–7921.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Regional Councils have been established

in accordance with Section 805 of the

Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96–487, and

Subsistence Management Regulations

for Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR part

242 and 50 CFR part 100, subparts A, B,

and C (57 FR 22940–22964). The

Regional Councils advise the Federal

Government on all matters related to the

subsistence taking of fish and wildlife

on public lands in Alaska and operate

in accordance with provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The identified Regional Council

meetings will be open to the public. The

public is invited to attend these

meetings, observe the proceedings, and

provide comments to the Regional

Councils.

Dated: January 12, 1996.

Richard S. Pospahala,

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

[FR Doc. 96–1253 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202

[Docket No. RM 95–7]

Registration of Claims to Copyright,

Group Registration of Photographs

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is

extending the comment period in its

consideration of regulations permitting

group registration of unpublished or

published photographs.

DATES: The extended deadline for

comments is February 9, 1996, and for

reply comments is March 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, fifteen

copies of written comments should be

addressed to Marilyn J. Kretsinger,

Acting General Counsel, Copyright GC/

I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station,

Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone:

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–

8366. If by hand, fifteen copies should

be brought to: Office of the General

Counsel, Copyright Office, James

Madison Memorial Building, Room LM–

407, First and Independence Avenue,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General

Counsel, Telephone: (202) 707–8380 or

Telefax: (202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 4, 1995, the Copyright Office

published proposed regulations that

permit group registration of

unpublished or published photographs

without the deposit of copies of the

works. 60 FR 62057 (Dec. 4, 1995). The

proposed regulations would enable

photographers and photography

businesses to seek the benefits of

registration by making it less

burdensome for them to register a claim

to copyright in a large number of