Anchorage Regulation; Port Everglades, FL, 59491-59494 [E7-20608]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because 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. 4321 et seq). 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. 3501 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies 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. 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. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:32 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded Mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: September 12, 2007. Allen D. Klein, Regional Director, Western Region. [FR Doc. E7–20697 Filed 10–19–07; 8:45 am] 59491 the anchorage area. These changes would ensure all vessels have fair access to the anchorage area, and provide a higher degree of vessel and environmental safety by reducing the possibility of vessels grounding in sensitive coral reef areas. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139. Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Chris Svencer, Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division at (305) 535– 4550. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments AGENCY: We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07–122], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, 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. ACTION: Public Meeting BILLING CODE 4310–05–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. CGD07–122] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulation; Port Everglades, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for Port Everglades, Florida. The amendment would modify the current anchorage area by eliminating that portion of the anchorage closest to sensitive coral reef areas, expand that portion of the anchorage area that poses less risk to these areas, and limit the amount of time a vessel may remain in PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division 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. E:\FR\FM\22OCP1.SGM 22OCP1 59492 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules Background and Purpose During the last ten years, nine known groundings and six known anchor mishaps have occurred while vessels were attempting to anchor inside the current anchorage described in 33 CFR 110.186, or after a vessel anchored inside the anchorage dragged her anchor outside of the anchorage area. Anchoring mishaps include both misplacement of the anchor itself upon coral reefs as well as contact between the anchor cable and coral reefs. Adverse weather conditions, proximity to the reef, anchorage congestion, and poor seamanship were contributing factors to the groundings and anchoring mishaps. This proposed rule is necessary to modify existing anchoring requirements and guidelines in order to provide a higher degree of protection to the coastal area and sensitive benthic coral reef ecosystems, and to provide a safer anchorage for mariners. This amendment is intended to re-designate the anchorage areas to account for anchor position and cable lay and limit the amount of time vessels may remain at anchorage. Placing a limitation on the amount of time a vessel can spend at the anchorage area will reduce the number of vessels routinely utilizing the anchorage area for purposes other than awaiting berth inside Port Everglades. The Coast Guard has also researched alternative solutions for restructuring the anchorage. These alternatives have included: Change nothing and continue to use the current anchorage; create anchorage circles to control the location of vessels in the anchorage area; and remove the anchorage completely. The dramatic impact of recent vessel groundings on the sensitive coral reefs in the vicinity of the current anchorage area necessitates modification of the current anchorage area to provide a greater distance between the anchorage and shore. Creating anchorage circles for precision anchorage does not eliminate the threat to the local reefs due to ever changing weather conditions that may drag properly anchored vessels over the coral reefs to the west. Finally, removing the anchorage altogether is not feasible due to commercial traffic in need of a location to anchor while awaiting a berth in Port Everglades. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule This adjustment of the anchorage area off Port Everglades is necessary to protect life, minimize injury to the marine environment, and provide a greater margin of safety for vessels and property from the associated hazards resulting from vessel groundings. This VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:32 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 proposal will close anchorage area ‘‘A’’ and expand anchorage area ‘‘B’’. The new anchorage area will be farther away from sensitive coral reef species. The Coast Guard has completed an environmental assessment and has confirmed that the relocated anchorage will greatly reduce the impact on the delicate coral structures currently located near anchorage ‘‘A’’. The time period a vessel may remain at anchor in the anchorage will be limited to 72 hours to provide all vessels calling on the port equal and fair access to the anchorage grounds. These amendments will improve navigation, provide a safer anchorage area, and minimize negative impacts on the environment by giving the vessels one specified anchorage location. Regulatory Evaluation 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. The existing commercial anchorage is used by container vessels, tank vessels, and other general cargo vessels awaiting a berth in Port Everglades, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the new anchorage is expected to be used by the same type and number of vessels for the same purpose. The new proposed commercial anchorage will allow for enough anchorage space to sufficiently support operations in Port Everglades, and is expected to have little, if any, economic impact. This proposed regulation is expected to have little or no economic impact because all of the vessels previously using the anchorage will be able to continue using the new anchorage. 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. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 operators of vessels intending to utilize the anchorage area outside Port Everglades, Florida. This proposed rule would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons given above in the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section of this preamble. 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. 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 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Chris Svencer, Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division at (305) 535–4550. 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 E:\FR\FM\22OCP1.SGM 22OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed 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 proposed rule would not affect 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. 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. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 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. 14:32 Oct 19, 2007 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. Jkt 214001 We have analyzed this proposed rule under 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 although this action may have qualified for a categorical exclusion under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f) of the Instruction, the Coast Guard found good reason to further investigate the effects the anchorage area modification would have on the environment. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Furthermore, as part of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402, 16 U.S.C. 1536), the U.S. Coast Guard opened consultation with a number of stakeholders. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have reviewed all restructuring plans and believe the proposed action would not likely affect the West Indian Manatee, Johnson’s Seagrass, Smalltooth Sawfish, and all local turtle species because the project does not have any elements with the potential to affect these listed species. NOAA also found that the restructuring into deeper waters, farther away from the easternmost reef, is likely to have an indirect beneficial effect on Elkhorn and Staghorn coral by potentially reducing vessel groundings and anchor damage that have adversely affected corals and other important near shore benthic resources in the project area. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. 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 § 110.186 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3) through (6), and adding paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) to read as follows: § 110.186 Environment Protection of Children VerDate Aug<31>2005 Technical Standards Sfmt 4702 59493 Port Everglades, Florida. (a) The anchorage grounds. The anchorage grounds, the center of which is located approximately two and one half miles northeast of the entrance to Port Everglades, is an area bounded by a line connecting points with the following North American Datum 83 coordinates: 26–08′26.934″ N 080–04′28.240″ W 26–08′08.560″ N 080–04′16.158″ W 26–07′56.000″ N 080–04′17.486″ W 26–07′56.000″ N 080–02′42.623″ W 26–07′19.500″ N 080–02′53.153″ W 26–07′19.500″ N 080–04′28.800″ W 26–06′35.160″ N 080–04′28.800″ W 26–06′35.160″ N 080–04′38.694″ W (b) The regulations. * * * * * (3) All vessels within the designated anchorage area shall maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed deck officer proficient in English, monitoring VHFFM channel 16. This individual shall confirm that the ship’s crew performs frequent checks of the vessel’s position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor. (4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage area provided that: such anchoring does not interfere with the operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging over reefs. (5) No vessel may anchor in a ‘‘dead ship’’ status (i.e. propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing casualties such as a main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion E:\FR\FM\22OCP1.SGM 22OCP1 59494 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules engine repairs or maintenance, shall immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via Coast Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM Channel 16. (6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via the Port Everglades Harbor Master, on VHF-FM Channel 14. (7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety or security. (8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances outside the anchorage area shall shift to new positions within the anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases. (9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the anchorage area. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or signal for a tug, and must change position as directed. Dated: October 4, 2007. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–20608 Filed 10–19–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI Office of Postsecondary Education; Notice of Negotiated Rulemaking for Programs Authorized Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended Department of Education. Notice of establishment of negotiated rulemaking committee. AGENCY: ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS ACTION: SUMMARY: We announce our intention to establish one or two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Each committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We also announce three public hearings where interested parties can suggest issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees. In addition, we request nominations for VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:32 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies that are involved in the student financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA to serve on these committees. DATES: We must receive your nominations for negotiators to serve on the committees on or before November 29, 2007. The dates, times, and locations of the public hearings are listed under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. ADDRESSES: Please send your nominations for negotiators to Patty Chase, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8050, Washington, DC 20006, or by fax to Patty Chase at (202) 502–7874. You may also e-mail your nominations to: Patty.Chase@ed.gov. Those nominated will be notified via letter as to whether or not they have been selected as a negotiator as soon as the Department’s review process is completed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the hearings and the nomination submission process, contact: Patty Chase, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8050, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7905. You may also e-mail your questions about the hearings and the nomination submission process to: Patty.Chase@ed.gov. For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, contact: John Kolotos, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8018, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone (202) 502–7762. You may also e-mail your questions about negotiated rulemaking to: John.Kolotos@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free at 1–800–877–8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person responsible for information about the hearings and the nomination submission process listed in this section under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary uses a negotiated rulemaking process to develop the proposed regulations. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 We intend to develop proposed regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA. We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committees that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA. Regulatory Issues We intend to conduct negotiated rulemaking to develop proposed regulations for the new TEACH Grant program, which was added to Title IV of the HEA by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA), Pub. L. 110–84. We will also address regulatory changes that will be needed for the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL) and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program resulting from the enactment of the CCRAA including, but not limited to: rules for income-based repayment; changes to the maximum repayment period; reductions to the lender insurance rates and loan forgiveness for public service employees; and definitions of terms used in the programs. We will also consider whether the regulations need to be amended to implement or reflect Pub. L. 110–93, which made permanent the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). We note that there is legislation currently pending in Congress to reauthorize the HEA. If reauthorization of the HEA is completed prior to the first negotiating session, we may also include on the negotiating agenda additional changes to the regulations that may be needed. We also expect to conduct negotiated rulemaking on other regulatory issues. These may include issues raised by the public during the regional hearings. Other issues the Department identifies as necessary to improve program administration and accountability will also be negotiated, including potential Federal preemption of State laws that may conflict with the Department’s regulations on improper inducements and the use of preferred lender lists in the FFEL program. We may also consider the establishment of competitive preference priorities within the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) program. E:\FR\FM\22OCP1.SGM 22OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 203 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59491-59494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20608]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. CGD07-122]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulation; Port Everglades, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations 
for Port Everglades, Florida. The amendment would modify the current 
anchorage area by eliminating that portion of the anchorage closest to 
sensitive coral reef areas, expand that portion of the anchorage area 
that poses less risk to these areas, and limit the amount of time a 
vessel may remain in the anchorage area. These changes would ensure all 
vessels have fair access to the anchorage area, and provide a higher 
degree of vessel and environmental safety by reducing the possibility 
of vessels grounding in sensitive coral reef areas.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard 
Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division, 100 MacArthur Causeway, 
Miami Beach, Florida, 33139. Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways 
Management Division maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents 
indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will 
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division 
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Chris Svencer, 
Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division at (305) 535-
4550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-
122], indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, 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.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways 
Management Division 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.

[[Page 59492]]

Background and Purpose

    During the last ten years, nine known groundings and six known 
anchor mishaps have occurred while vessels were attempting to anchor 
inside the current anchorage described in 33 CFR 110.186, or after a 
vessel anchored inside the anchorage dragged her anchor outside of the 
anchorage area. Anchoring mishaps include both misplacement of the 
anchor itself upon coral reefs as well as contact between the anchor 
cable and coral reefs. Adverse weather conditions, proximity to the 
reef, anchorage congestion, and poor seamanship were contributing 
factors to the groundings and anchoring mishaps.
    This proposed rule is necessary to modify existing anchoring 
requirements and guidelines in order to provide a higher degree of 
protection to the coastal area and sensitive benthic coral reef 
ecosystems, and to provide a safer anchorage for mariners. This 
amendment is intended to re-designate the anchorage areas to account 
for anchor position and cable lay and limit the amount of time vessels 
may remain at anchorage. Placing a limitation on the amount of time a 
vessel can spend at the anchorage area will reduce the number of 
vessels routinely utilizing the anchorage area for purposes other than 
awaiting berth inside Port Everglades.
    The Coast Guard has also researched alternative solutions for 
restructuring the anchorage. These alternatives have included: Change 
nothing and continue to use the current anchorage; create anchorage 
circles to control the location of vessels in the anchorage area; and 
remove the anchorage completely. The dramatic impact of recent vessel 
groundings on the sensitive coral reefs in the vicinity of the current 
anchorage area necessitates modification of the current anchorage area 
to provide a greater distance between the anchorage and shore. Creating 
anchorage circles for precision anchorage does not eliminate the threat 
to the local reefs due to ever changing weather conditions that may 
drag properly anchored vessels over the coral reefs to the west. 
Finally, removing the anchorage altogether is not feasible due to 
commercial traffic in need of a location to anchor while awaiting a 
berth in Port Everglades.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This adjustment of the anchorage area off Port Everglades is 
necessary to protect life, minimize injury to the marine environment, 
and provide a greater margin of safety for vessels and property from 
the associated hazards resulting from vessel groundings. This proposal 
will close anchorage area ``A'' and expand anchorage area ``B''. The 
new anchorage area will be farther away from sensitive coral reef 
species.
    The Coast Guard has completed an environmental assessment and has 
confirmed that the relocated anchorage will greatly reduce the impact 
on the delicate coral structures currently located near anchorage 
``A''. The time period a vessel may remain at anchor in the anchorage 
will be limited to 72 hours to provide all vessels calling on the port 
equal and fair access to the anchorage grounds. These amendments will 
improve navigation, provide a safer anchorage area, and minimize 
negative impacts on the environment by giving the vessels one specified 
anchorage location.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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. The existing 
commercial anchorage is used by container vessels, tank vessels, and 
other general cargo vessels awaiting a berth in Port Everglades, Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, and the new anchorage is expected to be used by 
the same type and number of vessels for the same purpose. The new 
proposed commercial anchorage will allow for enough anchorage space to 
sufficiently support operations in Port Everglades, and is expected to 
have little, if any, economic impact. This proposed regulation is 
expected to have little or no economic impact because all of the 
vessels previously using the anchorage will be able to continue using 
the new anchorage.

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.
    This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which 
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending 
to utilize the anchorage area outside Port Everglades, Florida. This 
proposed rule would not have significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the same reasons given above 
in the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of this preamble.
    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. 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 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Chris 
Svencer, Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division at 
(305) 535-4550. 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

[[Page 59493]]

aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one 
year. Though this proposed 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 proposed rule would not affect 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 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 
although this action may have qualified for a categorical exclusion 
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f) of the Instruction, the Coast Guard 
found good reason to further investigate the effects the anchorage area 
modification would have on the environment. A preliminary 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. Furthermore, as part of section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402, 16 U.S.C. 1536), the U.S. 
Coast Guard opened consultation with a number of stakeholders. The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) have reviewed all restructuring plans and believe the proposed 
action would not likely affect the West Indian Manatee, Johnson's 
Seagrass, Smalltooth Sawfish, and all local turtle species because the 
project does not have any elements with the potential to affect these 
listed species. NOAA also found that the restructuring into deeper 
waters, farther away from the easternmost reef, is likely to have an 
indirect beneficial effect on Elkhorn and Staghorn coral by potentially 
reducing vessel groundings and anchor damage that have adversely 
affected corals and other important near shore benthic resources in the 
project area. Comments on this section will be considered before we 
make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically 
excluded from further environmental review.

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 Sec.  110.186 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3) through 
(6), and adding paragraphs (b)(7) through (9) to read as follows:


Sec.  110.186  Port Everglades, Florida.

    (a) The anchorage grounds. The anchorage grounds, the center of 
which is located approximately two and one half miles northeast of the 
entrance to Port Everglades, is an area bounded by a line connecting 
points with the following North American Datum 83 coordinates:

26-08'26.934'' N 080-04'28.240'' W
26-08'08.560'' N 080-04'16.158'' W
26-07'56.000'' N 080-04'17.486'' W
26-07'56.000'' N 080-02'42.623'' W
26-07'19.500'' N 080-02'53.153'' W
26-07'19.500'' N 080-04'28.800'' W
26-06'35.160'' N 080-04'28.800'' W
26-06'35.160'' N 080-04'38.694'' W
    (b) The regulations.
* * * * *
    (3) All vessels within the designated anchorage area shall maintain 
a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed deck officer proficient in 
English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual shall confirm 
that the ship's crew performs frequent checks of the vessel's position 
to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.
    (4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage 
area provided that: such anchoring does not interfere with the 
operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor 
and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging 
over reefs.
    (5) No vessel may anchor in a ``dead ship'' status (i.e. propulsion 
or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior 
approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing casualties 
such as a main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment 
malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion

[[Page 59494]]

engine repairs or maintenance, shall immediately notify the Coast Guard 
Captain of the Port via Coast Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more 
than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To 
obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via 
the Port Everglades Harbor Master, on VHF-FM Channel 14.
    (7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage 
area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of 
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest 
of port safety or security.
    (8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances 
outside the anchorage area shall shift to new positions within the 
anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.
    (9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United 
States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, 
Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the 
anchorage area. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or 
signal for a tug, and must change position as directed.

    Dated: October 4, 2007.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-20608 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P