Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 35703

commercial fishing vessels and

recreational boats. The alternate route

past the bridge site is through the outer

harbor, with a maximum detour of 10

miles.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under Section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of costs under

section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under that

order. It is not significant under the

Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for the

NPRM has been superceded by the

economic analysis in the Coast Guard

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) for the Ford Bridge Replacement

dated November 25, 1994. A copy of the

FEIS has been placed in the rulemaking

docket, and may be inspected and

copied at the address listed under

ADDRESSES.

Replacement of the existing bridge

was determined to be the most feasible

and prudent alternative. This

replacement cannot be accomplished

without closing the bridge span for a

period of months. To minimize the

impact on the maritime community, the

applicant plans to work an accelerated

schedule to complete the work requiring

the bridge closure in five months.

Increased costs to the marine industry

are estimated to be $1 million due to

detours during a five month closure.

The overtime work schedule increases

overall project costs approximately $2.2

million. The applicant estimates that if

the contractor were required to work

only a standard 40 hour work week,

they would need a closure of eleven

months to complete work. Thus, the

impact to the maritime industry has

been minimized. On balance, the short

term costs due to the detour will be

offset by the long-term benefits gained

by the operation of a new, more reliable

bridge. The new bridge will ensure

uninterrupted rail service to Terminal

Island, and timely, reliable openings of

the bridge for waterborne traffic.

Construction of a new bridge will

minimize the possibility of congestion

or delays in transit times, which would

occur if the existing bridge

malfunctioned, or was damaged by

seismic activity.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632). During the environmental

review process, the Coast Guard

determined that the economic impact to

navigation would be approximately $1

million. Almost half of that impact was

on the towing and tour boat operations

of one company who does not qualify as

a ‘‘small business concern’’. The

remaining economic impact was on

recreational mariners berthed at nearby

marinas and two other towing

companies. Recreational mariners

would have small additional costs to

travel as much as 5 miles further to fuel

docks, pumpout stations, etc. The cost

per recreational vessel is estimated to be

less than $100. the towing companies

would have additional costs for

personnel and fuel to travel as much as

5 miles further to towing assignments.

The cost per towing company is

estimated to be less than $100 thousand.

These companies will all benefit from

the reliable operation of the new bridge

span for many years to come. Since

there are only a few small entities

affected by the 5 month closure, and the

effect is short-time, the Coast Guard

certifies under section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) that this rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this rule

does not raise sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

together with the overall impacts of the

replacement project in their FEIS for the

Henry Ford (Badger Avenue) Bridge

Replacement Project dated November

25, 1994. The principal environmental

impact of the project was the loss of the

existing, historic bridge. The

environmental impacts of this rule were

marine transportation disruptions,

economic impacts to waterway users,

and minor increases in air pollution

from detouring marine vessels. The

Coast Guard determined that there was

no feasible and prudent alternative to

the loss of the historic bridge to meet

the needs of future transportation and

safety. A new bridge will allow for

increased carriage of goods to and from

the port by rail, rather than by truck,

resulting in a net decrease in air

pollution. On balance, the short-term

impacts to navigation will be offset by

long-term benefits to navigation from

construction of a new, more reliable

bridge. The FEIS supercedes the draft

Environmental Assessment prepared for

the NPRM. The FEIS is available for

review at the address under ADDRESSES.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges

Regulation: For the reasons set out in

the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes

to amend 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; and

33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.147 is amended by

suspending paragraph (b) and adding a

new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 117.147 Cerritos Channel.

* * * * *

(c) During the period November 7,

1996 through April 7, 1997 the Henry

Ford Avenue railroad bridge, mile 4.4 at

Long Beach, will be undergoing

reconstruction and the draw need not

open for the passage of vessels.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

D.D. Polk,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District Acting.

[FR Doc. 96–17301 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[CGD 96–030]

Port Access Routes; Approaches to

the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet,

North Carolina

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of study.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

conducting a port access route study to

evaluate the need for vessel routing or

other traffic management measures in

the approaches to the Cape Fear River

and Beaufort Inlet, NC. Concerns for the
35704 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

safety of navigation in these areas have

been expressed by the Morehead City

Pilots Association and the Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office in Wilmington,

NC. This port access route study will

determine what, if any, vessel routing or

other traffic management measures are

needed in the approaches to the Cape

Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, NC. As a

result of the study, vessel routing

measures or other vessel operating

requirements may be proposed in the

Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Commander (Aow), Fifth

Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford

Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004.

The comments and other materials

referenced in this notice will be

available for inspection and copying at

431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA,

room 401. Normal office hours are 8

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Comments may also be

hand delivered to this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT Edward Westfall (757) 398–6559 or

E.Westfall/LANT5@cgsmtp.uscg.mil

(Internet), or Margie Hegy (202) 267–

0415 or M.Hegy/GM11@cgsmtp.uscg.mil (Internet).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard is interested in

receiving information and opinions

from persons who have an interest in

safe routing of ships in the study area.

Vessel owners and operators are

specifically invited to comment on any

safety concerns they may have when

operating in the study area. Negative

impacts that may result from the

establishment of a routing measure,

such as a traffic separation scheme

(TSS), or a regulated navigation area

(RNA) with vessel operating

requirements should be identified and

supported with documentation of any

costs or benefits.

Commenters should include their

names and addresses, identify this

notice (CGD 96–030), and give reasons

for each comment. Receipt of comments

will be acknowledged if a stamped, selfaddressed post card or envelope is

enclosed. In addition to the specific

questions asked herein, comments from

the maritime community, offshore

development concerns, environmental

groups and any other interested parties

are invited. All comments received

during the comment period will be

considered in the study and in

development of any regulatory

proposals.

The Fifth Coast Guard District will

conduct the study and develop

recommendations. LT Edward Westfall,

Waterways Management Section, Aids

to Navigation and Waterways

Management Branch, Fifth Coast Guard

District (757) 398–6559, is the project

officer responsible for the study.

Background and Purpose

The 1978 amendments to the Ports

and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33

U.S.C. 1223(c), require that a port access

route study be conducted prior to

establishing or adjusting fairways or

TSS’s. The Coast Guard is undertaking

a port access route study to determine

if a vessel routing system is needed in

the study area.

An internationally recognized vessel

routing system is one or more routes or

routing measures aimed at reducing the

risk of casualties. A system may include

TSS’s, two-way routes, recommended

tracks, areas to be avoided, inshore

traffic zones, roundabouts,

precautionary areas, and deep-water

routes.

A TSS is a routing measure which

minimizes the risk of collision by

separating vessels into opposing streams

of traffic through the establishment of

traffic lanes. Vessel use of a TSS is

voluntary; however, vessels operating in

or near an International Maritime

Organization (IMO) approved TSS are

subject to Rule 10 of the International

Regulations for Prevention of Collisions

at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS).

A two-way route is a route within

defined limits inside which two-way

traffic is established, aimed at providing

safe passage of ships through waters

where navigation is difficult or

dangerous.

A recommended track is a route

which has been specially examined to

ensure so far as possible that it is free

of dangers and along which ships are

advised to navigate.

An area to be avoided is a routing

measure comprising an area within

defined limits in which either

navigation is particularly hazardous or

it is exceptionally important to avoid

casualties and which should be avoided

by all ships, or certain classes of ships.

An inshore traffic zone comprises a

designated area between the landward

boundary of a TSS and the adjacent

coast and is used in accordance with

Rule 10(d) of the 72 COLREGS.

A roundabout is a routing measure

comprising a separation point or

circular separation zone and a circular

traffic lane within defined limits. Traffic

within the roundabout is separated by

moving in a counterclockwise direction

around the separation point or zone.

A precautionary area is a defined area

where ships must navigate with

particular caution and within which the

direction of traffic flow may be

recommended.

A deep-water route is a route within

defined limits which has been

accurately surveyed for clearance of sea

bottom and submerged obstacles as

indicated on nautical charts.

The approaches to the Cape Fear

River and Beaufort Inlet, NC were last

studied in 1981, and the final results

were published on July 22, 1982 (47 FR

31766). The study concluded that ‘‘there

is no need to impose new ship routing

measures such as TSS’s or shipping

safety fairways where fixed structures

would be prohibited, in any’’ area off

the North Carolina coast. Vessel traffic

density and channel depth and width

have changed since 1981.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

Waterborne Commerce of The United

States reports that, from 1981 to 1993,

annual trips to and from the Port of

Wilmington, NC increased by 128%

(from 10,060 to 22,897) and the number

of trips to and from Morehead City

Harbor, NC decreased by 57% (from

7,842 to 3,385). Since 1981, the actual

controlling depth for the Cape Fear

River ocean bar channel has increased

from 38 feet to 40 feet, the project depth.

The project depth for Beaufort Inlet/

Morehead City has recently been

increased from 42 to 45 feet.

The Morehead City Pilots Association

requested additional aids to navigation

in the approach routes commonly used

for Beaufort Inlet because a dredge spoil

area has shallowed the area. They also

report difficulty in distinguishing the

range lights on Beaufort Inlet Reach

because of background lights from the

town of Beaufort; and, the light at the

entrance to Gallants Channel is easily

confused with the lights marking the

Morhead City Channel and could be the

cause of an accident. Because of safety

concerns associated with the close

proximity of shipping lanes to shallow

water, the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety

Office in Wilmington, NC suggested that

establishing anchorages and a vessel

routing scheme, to include pilot transfer

zones, may assist safe navigation in the

study area.

Study Area

The study area is bounded by a line

connecting the following geographic

positions:

Latitude Longitude

34°40′N 77°00′W

34°40′N 76°15′W

34°10′N 76°15′′W
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 35705

Latitude Longitude

33°15′N 77°30′W

33°00′N 78°20′W

33°50′N 78°20′W

33°50′N 77°55′W

The study area encompasses the

approaches to the Cape Fear River and

Beaufort Inlet, as well as the area

offshore of North Carolina used by

commercial vessels transiting to and

between these ports.

Issues

The Coast Guard is trying to

determine the scope of any safety

problems associated with vessel transit

in the study area. It is expected that

information will be gathered during the

study that will identify the problems

and appropriate solutions.

The study may recommend the

following:

1. No vessel routing measures are

needed.

2. Establish one or more of the

following vessel routing measures:

(a) TSS in the Approach to Cape Fear

River;

(b) TSS in the Approach to Beaufort

Inlet;

(c) TSS Off North Carolina

encompassing the routes typically used

by merchant and naval vessels transiting

the study area;

(d) Precautionary area(s) near either or

both approaches;

(e) Inshore traffic zone(s) near either

or both approaches; and,

(f) Establish an area to be avoided in

shallow areas where the risk of

grounding is present.

3. Create anchorage area(s).

4. Establish a regulated navigation

area with specific vessel operating

requirements to ensure safe navigation

in areas near shallow water.

Procedural Requirements

In order to provide safe access routes

for movement of vessel traffic

proceeding to and from U.S. ports, the

PWSA directs that the Secretary

designate necessary fairways and TSS’s

in which the paramount right of

navigation over all other uses shall be

recognized. Before a designation can be

made, the Coast Guard is required to

undertake a study of potential traffic

density and the need for safe access

routes.

During the study, the Coast Guard is

directed to consult with federal and

state agencies and to consider the views

of representatives of the maritime

community, port and harbor authorities

or associations, environmental groups,

and other parties who may be affected

by the proposed action.

In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1223(c),

the Coast Guard will, to the extent

practicable, reconcile the need for safe

access routes with the needs of all other

reasonable uses of the area involved.

The Coast Guard will also consider

previous studies and experience in the

areas of vessel traffic management,

navigation, shiphandling, the effects of

weather, and prior analysis of the traffic

density in certain regions.

The results of this study will be

published in the Federal Register. If the

Coast Guard determines that new

routing or other regulatory measures are

needed, a notice of proposed

rulemaking will be published. It is

anticipated that the study will be

concluded by 31 December 1996.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

J.C. Card,

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

Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 96–17302 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR PART 425

[FRL–5530–7]

RIN 2040–AC48

Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent

Limitations Guidelines Pretreatment

Standards New and Existing Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed regulation.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to modify

the pretreatment standards for existing

and new sources applicable to certain

facilities in the leather tanning and

finishing point source category that

conduct unhairing operations and that

discharge process wastewater to

publicly owned treatment works

(‘‘POTW’’). In the final rules section of

this Federal Register, EPA is

promulgating these changes as a

‘‘direct’’ final rule because the Agency

does not expect significant adverse or

critical comments. EPA also wants to

provide prompt implementation of the

rule to minimize any potential hazards

to worker safety and health that may

occur in the absence of this rule.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules

must be received by September 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate

on this proposal to Mr. Ed Terry,

Engineering and Analysis Division

(4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St. S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ed Terry, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.,

S.W., Washington, DC 20460, or

telephone 202–260–7128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

action which is located in the rules

section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 425

Leather, leather tanning and finishing,

water pollution control, wastewater

treatment and disposal, pretreatment

standards for existing and new sources.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17024 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–137; RM–8823]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Negaunee, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by Todd

Stuart Noordyk requesting the allotment

of Channel 270A to Negaunee,

Michigan, with cut-off protection and

modification of his application for

Channel 258A to specify operation on

Channel 270A at Negaunee. The

coordinates for Channel 270A at

Negaunee are 46–28–18 and 87–36–55.

Since Negaunee is located within 320

kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-

Canadian border, concurrence of the

Canadian government will be requested

for this allotment. This proposal would

enable the settlement of a mutually

exclusive proceeding between two

applicants for Channel 258A at

Negaunee, Michigan.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 12, 1996, and reply

comments on or before August 27, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Cary S.

Tepper, Booth, Freret & Imlay, P.C.,

1233 - 20th Street, NW., Suite 204,

Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.