Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL, 28788-28791 [2016-10850]
Download as PDF
28788
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
addition to its section 6038A reporting and
record maintenance described in Example 1
of this paragraph (b)(9).
(d) * * * In the case of an entity that
is treated as a reporting corporation by
reason of § 301.7701–2(c)(2)(vi) of this
chapter, Form 5472 must be filed at
such time and in such manner as the
Commissioner may prescribe in forms or
instructions.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 301—PROCEDURE AND
ADMINISTRATION
Par. 4. The authority citation for part
301 continues in part to read as follows:
■
under subpart E of subchapter J of
chapter 1 of the Code.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(9) Reporting required under section
6038A. Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this
section applies to taxable years ending
on or after the date that is 12 months
after the date of publication of the
Treasury decision adopting these rules
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–10852 Filed 5–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 5. Section 301.7701–2 is
amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(c)(2)(vi) and (e)(9) to read as follows:
■
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 301.7701–2
definitions.
Coast Guard
Business entities;
(a) * * * But see paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)
through (vi) of this section for special
rules that apply to an eligible entity that
is otherwise disregarded as an entity
separate from its owner.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Special rule for reporting under
section 6038A—(A) In general. An
entity that is disregarded as separate
from its owner for any purpose under
this section is treated as an entity
separate from its owner and classified as
a corporation for purposes of section
6038A if—
(1) The entity is a domestic entity;
and
(2) One foreign person has direct or
indirect sole ownership of the entity.
(B) Definitions—(1) Indirect sole
ownership. For purposes of paragraph
(c)(2)(vi)(A)(2) of this section, indirect
sole ownership means ownership by
one person entirely through one or more
entities disregarded as separate from
their owners or through grantor trusts,
regardless of whether any such
disregarded entity or grantor trust is
domestic or foreign.
(2) Entity disregarded as separate
from its owner. For purposes of this
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(B), an entity
disregarded as separate from its owner
is an entity described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section, without regard to
the exceptions provided in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii) though (vi) of this section.
(3) Grantor trust. For purposes of this
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(B), a grantor trust is
any portion of a trust that is treated as
owned by the grantor or another person
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:20 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0729]
RIN 1625–AA01
Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic
Ocean, Miami Beach, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
revise the Miami Anchorage. Under the
proposal, the Miami Anchorage would
be divided into two separate anchorage
areas. This action is necessary to reduce
potential damage to threatened coral
posed by anchoring vessels. This
proposed revision would update the
regulation to clarify the regulatory text
and to reflect the establishment of two
anchorage areas instead of one area
currently in place. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2015–0729 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email LT Ruth
Sadowitz, Sector Miami Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone 305–535–4307, email
Ruth.A.Sadowitz@uscg.mil.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
FR Federal Register
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
SEFCRI South East Florida Coral Reef
Initiative
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On December 1, 2015, the Coast
Guard published a Notice of Study and
request for comments (80 FR 75020)
advising that we were evaluating an
amendment to the Miami Anchorage (33
CFR 110.188) that would divide the
anchorage into two separate anchorage
areas. The possible modification of the
anchorage area was designed in
coordination with local stakeholders in
an effort to mitigate damage to coral that
may be caused by vessels anchoring.
Comments provided by these
stakeholders, academic research, and
environmental reports addressed a
number of options to potentially reduce
the likelihood of damage to the Florida
Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Those
documents, which may be found in the
docket, influenced this Coast Guard’s
selection of the anchorage modification
proposed in this notice.
In response to the Notice of Study, the
Coast Guard received four comments.
The first comment was from the nonprofit organization, Miami Waterkeeper.
Miami Waterkeeper supports the
modifications to the anchorage area as
those modifications would both better
protect threatened species and critical
coral habitat and still allow for safe
navigation.
The second comment came from the
National Marine Fisheries Service—
Habitat Conservation Division (NFMS).
NMFS stated that they support
relocating the anchorage area in order to
reduce continued degradation of the
coral reef and, ultimately, allow for
restoration of the reef.
The third comment was from NOAA.
On December 1, 2015, NOAA submitted
a comment to verify the coordinates of
the possible amended anchorage area
listed in the notice. The coordinates for
the location of the amended anchorage
areas were published incorrectly. The
latitudinal coordinates were
inadvertently published in the longitude
column and vice versa. However, the
numerical coordinates published in the
chart was correct. The error has been
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
28789
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
corrected in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM).
The final comment came from Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). FDEP commented that the Coast
Guard erred when it stated the genesis
for the division of the anchorages was
a SEFCRI report. While the SEFCRI
report was instrumental to the
evaluation of the current Miami
Anchorage, the two anchorage solution
was originally discussed in an academic
paper authored by Lauren Waters, a
FDEP employee. This paper can be
found in the docket.
The comments received in response to
the notice were positive or addressed
non-substantive errors in the notice. The
Coast Guard is therefore proceeding
with a proposal to revise the Miami
Anchorage under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33
CFR 1.05–1 and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to revise
the Miami Anchorage by dividing the
anchorage into two separate anchorage
areas and clarifying text throughout the
regulation. This revision is intended to
reduce threats to protected coral
without compromising the ability of
vessels to anchor safely. Although the
two separate anchorages encompass a
smaller area, they allow for the
facilitation of safe anchorage of both
shallow and deep draft vessels. The
amended coordinates would establish
two anchorages with a combined area of
approximately 1.5 square miles thereby
reducing the total anchorage area by
approximately 3 square nautical miles.
The amended anchorage areas would be
established with the following
coordinates:
SMALL WESTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 45 ft]
Latitude
NW Corner ........................................................................
NE Corner .........................................................................
SE Corner .........................................................................
SW Corner ........................................................................
25°47′57.687″
25°47′57.341″
25°46′31.443″
25°46′31.557″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
080°05′37.225″
080°05′26.466″
080°05′27.069″
080°05′37.868″
W.
W.
W.
W.
LARGE EASTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 120 ft]
Latitude
NW Corner ........................................................................
NE Corner .........................................................................
SE Corner .........................................................................
SW Corner ........................................................................
Additional minor revisions to the
Miami Anchorage regulation are also
proposed to pluralize the anchorage
grounds that would be established and
to clarify existing regulation text.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:20 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
25°48′13.841″
25°48′04.617″
25°46′32.712″
25°46′32.767″
N
N
N
N
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
This regulatory action determination
is based on relatively minor changes to
the existing Miami Anchorage
regulation. This proposed regulation
would create two separate anchorage
areas with a combined total of 1.5
square miles of anchorage; while this
does reduce the total anchorage area, the
ability of shallow and deep draft vessels
to safely anchor should not be impacted.
This proposed regulation would clarify
other regulatory text, but no other
substantive changes are proposed.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Longitude
Sfmt 4702
080°04′59.155″
080°04′04.582″
080°04′28.387″
080°04′59.775″
W.
W.
W.
W.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to use the anchorage
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above, this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. 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 the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
28790
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for
a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
Also, 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:20 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
involves reducing an anchorage.
Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2–1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD.
We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
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—ANCHORAGES
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through
1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
■
2. Revise § 110.188 to read as follows:
§ 110.188 Atlantic Ocean off Miami and
Miami Beach, FL.
(a) The anchorage grounds. (1)
Anchorage A. All area of the Atlantic
Ocean, encompassed by a line beginning
at 25°47′57.687″ N., 080°05′37.225″ W.,
thence east to 25°47′57.341″ N.,
080°05′26.466″ W., thence south to
25°46′31.443″ N., 080°05′27.069″ W.,
thence west to 25°46′31.557″ N.,
080°05′37.868″ W., thence back to
origin.
(2) Anchorage B. All area of the
Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line
beginning at 25°48′13.841″ N.,
080°04′59.155″ W., thence east to
25°48′04.617″ N., 080°04′04.582″ W.,
thence south to 25°46′32.712″ N.,
080°04′28.387″ W., thence west to
25°46′32.767″ N., 080°04′59.775″ W.,
thence back to origin.
(b) The rules and regulations. (1)
Except in cases of emergency, no vessel
shall be anchored in the Atlantic Ocean
in the vicinity of the entrances to the
approach channels leading to the cities
of Miami Beach and Miami, Fl., outside
of the anchorage grounds defined and
established.
(2) Any vessel anchoring under
circumstances of emergency outside of
either anchorage ground shall be shifted
to a new berth within the grounds
immediately after the emergency ceases.
(3) All vessels seeking to anchor shall
lie at anchor with as short a cable as
conditions will permit.
(4) A vessel, upon being notified to
move into the anchorage limits or to
shift its position on an anchorage
ground, must get underway at once or
signal for a tug and must change
position as directed with reasonable
promptness.
(5) Whenever the maritime or
commercial interests of the United
States so require, the Captain of the
Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida,
is hereby empowered to shift the
position of any vessel anchored on an
anchorage ground or outside thereof, or
any vessel moored or anchored so as to
impede or obstruct vessel movements or
obstruct or interfere with range lights.
(6) Vessels carrying explosives shall
be anchored only under a written permit
issued by the Captain of the Port and at
such point as she or he may direct.
(7) Vessels carrying explosives shall
be at all times under the charge or
command of a competent person and
must display by day a red flag, of not
less than 16 square feet, at the masthead
or not less than 10 feet above the upper
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
deck if the vessel has no mast; at night
a red light shall be displayed in the
positions specified for the red flag.
(8) Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as relieving the owner or
person in charge of any vessel from
penalties for obstructing navigation, or
for obstructing or interfering with range
lights, or for not complying with
navigation laws in regard to lights, fog
signals, or other aids to navigation, or
for otherwise violating the law.
(9) All vessels desiring to use an
Anchorage must notify the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay
Pilots on VHF–FM Channel 12 or 16.
(10) All vessels anchored within the
anchorage grounds shall maintain a 24–
hour bridge watch by an English
speaking licensed or credentialed deck
officer monitoring VHF–FM Channel 16.
This individual shall perform frequent
checks of the vessel’s position to ensure
the vessel is not dragging anchor.
(11) Vessels experiencing casualties
such as a main propulsion, main
steering, or anchoring equipment
malfunction or which are planning to
perform main propulsion engine repairs
or maintenance, shall immediately
notify the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port via the Coast Guard Sector Miami
on VHF–FM Channel 16.
(12) The Coast Guard Captain of the
Port may close the anchorage grounds
and direct vessels to depart an
anchorage during periods of adverse
weather or at other times as deemed
necessary in the interest of port safety.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–10850 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0205]
RIN 1625–AA09
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New
Smyrna Beach, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the Coronado Beach (George
Musson) Bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:20 May 09, 2016
Jkt 238001
Smyrna Beach, FL. This proposed rule
would change the existing 20 minute
opening schedule to a 30 minute
opening schedule between 7 a.m. and 7
p.m. This modification would provide
some relief to vehicle traffic congestion
and would have little to no effect on
navigation. The proposed rule will also
add the local bridge name to the
regulation published in the Code of
Federal Regulations, George Musson/
Coronado Beach (SR44). We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0205 using Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Allan Storm with
the Coast Guard; telephone 904–714–
7616, email allan.h.storm@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
On April 25, 2015, the City of New
Smyrna Beach requested that the Coast
Guard review the current operating
schedule for the Coronado Beach
(George Musson) Bridge (SR 44) to
determine whether a change could be
made to improve vehicle traffic flow in
the area. The bridge owner, Florida
Department of Transportation, was also
consulted on this issue and it concurred
with the recommendation to change the
current schedule requiring an opening
every 20 minutes to a schedule
requiring an opening every 30 minutes
all days of the week.
The George Musson Bridge across the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile
845, at New Smyrna Beach, FL is a
double leaf bascule bridge. It has a
vertical clearance of 24 feet in the
closed position at mean high water and
a horizontal clearance of 90 feet.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR
117.261(h), the Coronado Beach bridge
(SR 44), also known as the George
Musson Bridge, at mile 845 at New
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28791
Smyrna Beach, FL shall open on signal,
except that from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.,
each day of the week, the draw need
only open on the hour, twenty minutes
past the hour and forty minutes past the
hour. The Coast Guard proposes this
rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C.
499.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 117.261, paragraph h, regarding
the operation of the George Musson/
Coronado Beach (SR 44) Bridge, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New
Smyrna Beach, FL. The proposed
regulation would allow the bridge to
open twice an hour rather than three
times an hour to reduce vehicle traffic
backups. In addition to changing the
operating schedule, this regulation
would add the local name of this bridge,
George Musson, to the CFR. This
regulation change will not have a
significant impact on navigation in this
area.
As per, 33 CFR 117.261(a) General:
Public vessels of the United States and
tugs with tows must be passed through
the drawspan of each drawbridge listed
in this section at anytime. These
proposed changes will meet the
reasonable needs of vessel traffic
passing through the Bridge while taking
into account the reasonable needs of
other modes of transportation. Vessels
not requiring an opening may pass at
any time.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders and we also discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the limited impact that it is
anticipated to have on vessel traffic on
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This
E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM
10MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28788-28791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10850]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2015-0729]
RIN 1625-AA01
Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the Miami Anchorage. Under
the proposal, the Miami Anchorage would be divided into two separate
anchorage areas. This action is necessary to reduce potential damage to
threatened coral posed by anchoring vessels. This proposed revision
would update the regulation to clarify the regulatory text and to
reflect the establishment of two anchorage areas instead of one area
currently in place. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0729 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Ruth Sadowitz, Sector Miami
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-
4307, email Ruth.A.Sadowitz@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FR Federal Register
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
SEFCRI South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Study
and request for comments (80 FR 75020) advising that we were evaluating
an amendment to the Miami Anchorage (33 CFR 110.188) that would divide
the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas. The possible
modification of the anchorage area was designed in coordination with
local stakeholders in an effort to mitigate damage to coral that may be
caused by vessels anchoring. Comments provided by these stakeholders,
academic research, and environmental reports addressed a number of
options to potentially reduce the likelihood of damage to the Florida
Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Those documents, which may be found in the
docket, influenced this Coast Guard's selection of the anchorage
modification proposed in this notice.
In response to the Notice of Study, the Coast Guard received four
comments. The first comment was from the non-profit organization, Miami
Waterkeeper. Miami Waterkeeper supports the modifications to the
anchorage area as those modifications would both better protect
threatened species and critical coral habitat and still allow for safe
navigation.
The second comment came from the National Marine Fisheries
Service--Habitat Conservation Division (NFMS). NMFS stated that they
support relocating the anchorage area in order to reduce continued
degradation of the coral reef and, ultimately, allow for restoration of
the reef.
The third comment was from NOAA. On December 1, 2015, NOAA
submitted a comment to verify the coordinates of the possible amended
anchorage area listed in the notice. The coordinates for the location
of the amended anchorage areas were published incorrectly. The
latitudinal coordinates were inadvertently published in the longitude
column and vice versa. However, the numerical coordinates published in
the chart was correct. The error has been
[[Page 28789]]
corrected in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The final comment came from Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). FDEP commented that the Coast Guard erred when it
stated the genesis for the division of the anchorages was a SEFCRI
report. While the SEFCRI report was instrumental to the evaluation of
the current Miami Anchorage, the two anchorage solution was originally
discussed in an academic paper authored by Lauren Waters, a FDEP
employee. This paper can be found in the docket.
The comments received in response to the notice were positive or
addressed non-substantive errors in the notice. The Coast Guard is
therefore proceeding with a proposal to revise the Miami Anchorage
under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33 CFR
1.05-1 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the Miami Anchorage by dividing
the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas and clarifying text
throughout the regulation. This revision is intended to reduce threats
to protected coral without compromising the ability of vessels to
anchor safely. Although the two separate anchorages encompass a smaller
area, they allow for the facilitation of safe anchorage of both shallow
and deep draft vessels. The amended coordinates would establish two
anchorages with a combined area of approximately 1.5 square miles
thereby reducing the total anchorage area by approximately 3 square
nautical miles. The amended anchorage areas would be established with
the following coordinates:
Small Western Anchorage
[Approximate water depths: 45 ft]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW Corner............................ 25[deg]47'57.687'' N......... 080[deg]05'37.225'' W.
NE Corner............................ 25[deg]47'57.341'' N......... 080[deg]05'26.466'' W.
SE Corner............................ 25[deg]46'31.443'' N......... 080[deg]05'27.069'' W.
SW Corner............................ 25[deg]46'31.557'' N......... 080[deg]05'37.868'' W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Eastern Anchorage
[Approximate water depths: 120 ft]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW Corner............................ 25[deg]48'13.841'' N......... 080[deg]04'59.155'' W.
NE Corner............................ 25[deg]48'04.617'' N......... 080[deg]04'04.582'' W.
SE Corner............................ 25[deg]46'32.712'' N......... 080[deg]04'28.387'' W.
SW Corner............................ 25[deg]46'32.767'' N......... 080[deg]04'59.775'' W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional minor revisions to the Miami Anchorage regulation are
also proposed to pluralize the anchorage grounds that would be
established and to clarify existing regulation text.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on relatively minor
changes to the existing Miami Anchorage regulation. This proposed
regulation would create two separate anchorage areas with a combined
total of 1.5 square miles of anchorage; while this does reduce the
total anchorage area, the ability of shallow and deep draft vessels to
safely anchor should not be impacted. This proposed regulation would
clarify other regulatory text, but no other substantive changes are
proposed.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the
anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
[[Page 28790]]
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves reducing
an anchorage. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
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--ANCHORAGES
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 110.188 to read as follows:
Sec. 110.188 Atlantic Ocean off Miami and Miami Beach, FL.
(a) The anchorage grounds. (1) Anchorage A. All area of the
Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line beginning at 25[deg]47'57.687''
N., 080[deg]05'37.225'' W., thence east to 25[deg]47'57.341'' N.,
080[deg]05'26.466'' W., thence south to 25[deg]46'31.443'' N.,
080[deg]05'27.069'' W., thence west to 25[deg]46'31.557'' N.,
080[deg]05'37.868'' W., thence back to origin.
(2) Anchorage B. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a
line beginning at 25[deg]48'13.841'' N., 080[deg]04'59.155'' W., thence
east to 25[deg]48'04.617'' N., 080[deg]04'04.582'' W., thence south to
25[deg]46'32.712'' N., 080[deg]04'28.387'' W., thence west to
25[deg]46'32.767'' N., 080[deg]04'59.775'' W., thence back to origin.
(b) The rules and regulations. (1) Except in cases of emergency, no
vessel shall be anchored in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the
entrances to the approach channels leading to the cities of Miami Beach
and Miami, Fl., outside of the anchorage grounds defined and
established.
(2) Any vessel anchoring under circumstances of emergency outside
of either anchorage ground shall be shifted to a new berth within the
grounds immediately after the emergency ceases.
(3) All vessels seeking to anchor shall lie at anchor with as short
a cable as conditions will permit.
(4) A vessel, upon being notified to move into the anchorage limits
or to shift its position on an anchorage ground, must get underway at
once or signal for a tug and must change position as directed with
reasonable promptness.
(5) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United
States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami,
Florida, is hereby empowered to shift the position of any vessel
anchored on an anchorage ground or outside thereof, or any vessel
moored or anchored so as to impede or obstruct vessel movements or
obstruct or interfere with range lights.
(6) Vessels carrying explosives shall be anchored only under a
written permit issued by the Captain of the Port and at such point as
she or he may direct.
(7) Vessels carrying explosives shall be at all times under the
charge or command of a competent person and must display by day a red
flag, of not less than 16 square feet, at the masthead or not less than
10 feet above the upper
[[Page 28791]]
deck if the vessel has no mast; at night a red light shall be displayed
in the positions specified for the red flag.
(8) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as relieving the
owner or person in charge of any vessel from penalties for obstructing
navigation, or for obstructing or interfering with range lights, or for
not complying with navigation laws in regard to lights, fog signals, or
other aids to navigation, or for otherwise violating the law.
(9) All vessels desiring to use an Anchorage must notify the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay Pilots on VHF-FM
Channel 12 or 16.
(10) All vessels anchored within the anchorage grounds shall
maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by an English speaking licensed or
credentialed deck officer monitoring VHF-FM Channel 16. This individual
shall perform frequent checks of the vessel's position to ensure the
vessel is not dragging anchor.
(11) Vessels experiencing casualties such as a main propulsion,
main steering, or anchoring equipment malfunction or which are planning
to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, shall
immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via the Coast
Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM Channel 16.
(12) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage
grounds and direct vessels to depart an anchorage during periods of
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest
of port safety.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016-10850 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P