Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49131 

to the east (approximately 0.5 mile 

north of the Wilfred Avenue overpass) 

T6N, R8W. 

(19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa 

Avenue north 1.1 miles to its 

intersection with Todd Road, crossing 

on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N, R8W. 

(20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa 

Avenue generally north 5.8 miles, 

eventually becoming Mendocino 

Avenue, to its intersection with an 

unnamed secondary road, locally 

known as Bicentennial Way, 0.3 mile 

north-northwest of BM 161 on 

Mendocino Avenue, section 11, T7N, 

R8W. 

(21) The boundary follows a straight 

line north 2.5 miles crossing over the 

906-foot elevation peak in section 35, 

T8N, R8W, crossing onto the Mark West 

Springs map, to its intersection with 

Mark West Springs Road and the 

meandering 280-foot elevation line in 

section 26, T6N, R8W. 

(22) The boundary follows the 

unnamed secondary highway, Mark 

West Springs Road, on the Sonoma 

County map, generally north and east, 

eventually turning into Porter Road and 

then to Petrified Forest Road, passing 

BM 545, the town of Mark West Springs, 

BM 495, and the Petrified Forest area, to 

its intersection with the Sonoma 

County-Napa County line. 

* * * * * 

Signed: August 13, 2008. 

Vicky McDowell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–19327 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0497] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’, Boston 

Harbor, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

increase the size of the Boston Inner 

Harbor Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’ at 

the entrance to Fort Point Channel in 

Boston Harbor, Boston, MA at the 

request of the Boston Harbormaster and 

the Boston Harbor Yacht Club. This 

action will provide additional 

anchorage space and provide a safe and 

secure anchorage for vessels of not more 

than 65 feet in length. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 20, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0497 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: 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–

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, 

Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail 

John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

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. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or, Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility 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 

In 1982, three anchorages were 

established in response to a request by 

the Boston Harbormaster. These three 

anchorages were designated Boston 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Inner Harbor A, Boston Inner Harbor B, 

and Boston Inner Harbor C. When they 

were created, 39 of 43 comments were 

in favor of the anchorage 

establishments. Many of the initial 

commenters identified themselves as 

members of the Boston Harbor Sailing 

Club, a sailing club located in close 

proximity to the proposed anchorage 

area at that time. Of the disfavoring 

groups, the Department of the Army, 

Corps of Engineers expressed some 

concern about Anchorage Area ‘‘C’’

encroaching on the Fort Point Channel 

approach. Another commenter 

complained that Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’, 

extended southward, interfering with 

the approach to Rowes Wharf. The two 

remaining commenters represented 

commercial interests opposed to the 

Anchorage Areas, especially Anchorage 

Area ‘‘C’’. 

A public hearing was held thereafter 

in which six commenters voiced their 

support for the Anchorage Area. One 

commenter, however, expressed 

concern about the proximity of 

Anchorage Area ‘‘C’’ to the main 

shipping channel for Boston Harbor. 

With an average speed of six (6) knots, 

a large vessel transiting the area could 

damage closely anchored sailboats. The 

same commenter also disapproved of 

the way Anchorage Area ‘‘C’’

encroached on the Fort Point Channel. 

Another commenter complained about 

Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’ and the difficult 

approach that would be required by a 

vessel attempting to moor on Rowes 

Wharf. The final commenter was 

concerned about the navigational safety 

of the Fort Point Channel approach, 

which was reduced by Anchorage Area 

‘‘C’’, and also agreed with the concerns 

about the approach to Rowes Wharf. 

At that time, in response to the 

comments received, the Anchorage 

Areas ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘C’’ were modified in 

response to reasonable complaints that 

were raised by commercial parties. Each 

of the areas was plotted on a large scale 

chart providing for greater accuracy. 

The southern boundary of Anchorage 

Area ‘‘A’’ was moved northward to 

allow a more favorable approach to 

Rowes Wharf and the southern 

boundary of Anchorage Area ‘‘C’’ was 

relocated northward to open up the 

approach to Fort Point Channel. The 

eastern boundary of Anchorage Area 

‘‘C’’ was moved away from the main 

shipping channel. 

At the same time, administration of 

the anchorage area was given to the 

Harbormaster of the City of Boston 

pursuant to local ordinances. The City 

of Boston was also given charge of 

installing and maintaining suitable 

navigational aids to mark the limits of 

the anchorage area. 

In 1985, in response to a request by 

the Boston Harbormaster, Boston Police 

Department and the developer of the 

Rowes Wharf reconstruction project, a 

modification to the anchorages was 

deemed to be required because 

redevelopment of the Rowes Wharf area 

in Boston would change recreational 

and commercial vessel traffic patterns in 

the Rowes Wharf waterfront area. The 

presence of the existing Anchorage Area 

B would impede the passage of vessels 

in and out of Rowes Wharf and would 

create a navigation safety hazard if 

vessels were anchored there. Therefore, 

this modification removed Anchorages 

A, B and C and established Boston Inner 

Harbor Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’. 

Since this time, Boston Harbormasters 

have permitted the Boston Harbor 

Sailing Club to establish moorings in 

Anchorage Area A. The Boston Harbor 

Sailing Club rents the moorings to 

customers who then apply to the City of 

Boston for a permit allowing the 

mooring. Although the moorings are 

relatively small, the associated 

anchoring systems range from 1000 to 

4000 pounds. 

In addition, when the anchorage was 

established, the Coast Guard used the 

North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) 

as a plotting system. Since then, 

however, the Coast Guard adopted the 

North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) 

for its plotting system. This new system 

changed the coordinate positions of the 

anchorages on the charts. In this 

rulemaking, the Coast Guard intends to 

update the position of this anchorage 

using NAD83 coordinates. 

When Rowes Wharf was finished, the 

new wharf had a set of docks attached 

to it. The current placement of these 

docks does not allow enough of a 

fairway for vessels to transit between 

the anchorage area and the pier facings. 

Changing the size of the anchorage area 

will allow this to occur by changing the 

positions of the buoys. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

increase the size of the Boston Inner 

Harbor Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’. By 

enlarging Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’ and 

shifting the positions of the buoys, it 

will correct what is currently an unsafe 

condition, and allow for the safe passage 

of vessels between the wharf and the 

anchorage. This regulation will also 

allow for the creation of a slightly larger 

anchorage area. By enlarging the 

anchorage area, the current problem 

with boats maintaining a mooring and 

swinging out into the channel will be 

alleviated. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed 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 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, as the creation of the 

anchorage modifies the buoys which 

will align more efficiently with current 

traffic patterns. 

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 vessels 

transiting in the vicinity of the 

anchorage, the Boston Aquarium, 

Boston Harbor ferry vessels transiting 

the local area as well as those vessels 

transiting into Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’. 

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 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49133 

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 Chief Petty 

Officer Eldridge McFadden by mail at 

United States Coast Guard Sector 

Boston, 47 Commercial Street, Boston, 

MA 02109. 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 an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would 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 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 Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 5100.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides 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 

under the instruction that this action is 

not likely to have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

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, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170. 

2. Amend § 110.30 by revising (m) to 

read as follows: 

§ 110.30 Boston Harbor, Mass., and 

adjacent waters. 

* * * * * 

(m) Boston Inner Harbor A. The 

waters of the western side of Boston 

Inner Harbor north of the entrance to the 

Fort Point Channel bounded by the 

following points beginning at latitude 

42°21′32′′ N, longitude 071°02′50′′ W; 

thence to latitude 42°21′33′′ N, 

longitude 071°02′44′′ W; thence to 

latitude 42°21′26′′ N, longitude 

071°02′36′′ W; thence to latitude 

42°21′26′′ N, longitude 071°02′53′′ W; 

thence to point of origin. Datum NAD83. 

Note: The area is principally for use by 

yachts and other recreational craft. 

Temporary floats or buoys for marking 

anchors will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles 

or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring of 

vessels and placing of temporary moorings 

will be under the jurisdiction, and at the 

discretion of the Harbormaster, City of 

Boston. All moorings shall be so placed that 

no vessel, when moored, will at any time 

extend beyond the limits of the area. 

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

Dale G. Gabel, 

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

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E8–19267 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS