Anchorage Grounds; Delaware Bay and River, Philadelphia, PA, 46026-46030 [2016-16714]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46026
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
per application = 30,000 minutes/by 60
minutes per hour = 500 hours.
■
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not result
in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or
more in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The PSOB program is a
federal benefits program that provides
benefits directly to qualifying
individuals. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
§ 32.5
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Education, Emergency medical services,
Firefighters, Law enforcement officers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rescue squad.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of
Title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’
DEATH, DISABILITY, AND
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
BENEFITS CLAIMS
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 32 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42
U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a),
3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c–1, 3796c–2;
sec. 1601, title XI, Pub. L. 90–351, 82 Stat.
239; secs. 4 through 6, Pub. L. 94–430, 90
Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Pub. L. 107–37, 115
Stat. 219.
2. Amend § 32.3 as follows:
a. Amend the definition of Act by
removing ‘‘and Apr. 5, 2006 (designated
beneficiaries))’’ and adding in its place
‘‘Apr. 5, 2006 (designated beneficiaries);
and Jan. 2, 2013)’’.
■ b. Add definitions of List of WTCrelated health conditions and Physical
harm in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 32.3
Definitions.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
List of WTC-related health conditions
means the list of health conditions
(other than a mental-health condition)
listed—
(1) At 42 U.S.C. 300mm–22(a)(3); or
(2) On the List of WTC-Related Health
Conditions in 42 CFR part 88.
*
*
*
*
*
Physical harm means physical harm
as defined at 28 CFR 104.2(c).
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
3. Amend § 32.5 by adding paragraph
(j) to read as follows:
Evidence.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Physical harm suffered by a public
safety officer as a direct and proximate
result of a condition on the List of WTCRelated Health Conditions shall be
understood to be a line-of-duty injury if,
as determined by the PSOB determining
official, and pursuant to the standards
governing the World Trade Center
Health Program’s certification of injuries
as covered by the program, such
officer’s exposure to airborne toxins,
any other hazards, and any other
adverse conditions resulting from the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is
substantially likely to have been a
significant factor in aggravating,
contributing to, or causing the illness or
health condition.
■ 4. Amend § 32.6 by adding paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
§ 32.6
Payment and repayment.
*
*
*
*
*
(f)(1) If compensation under the
September 11th Victim Compensation
Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note))
has been paid with respect to an injury,
the total amount payable under subpart
B or C of this part, with respect to the
same injury, shall be reduced by the
amount of such payment of
compensation.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, or in the Act, at 42 U.S.C.
3796(f)(3), shall be understood to
preclude payment under this part before
the final payment of compensation
under such Fund.
(3) Nothing in the Act, at 42 U.S.C.
3796(f)(3), shall be understood to
require reduction of any amount
payable under subpart D of this part.
■ 5. Amend § 32.13 as follows:
■ a. Add definitions of Something other
than the mere presence of
cardiovascular disease risk factors and
Unrelated in alphabetical order.
■ b. Remove the definitions of
Competent medical evidence to the
contrary, Excessive consumption of
alcohol, Extrinsic circumstances, Risky
behavior, and Undertaking of treatment.
The additions read as follows:
§ 32.13
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Something other than the mere
presence of cardiovascular disease risk
factors means—
(1) Ingestion of controlled substances
included on Schedule I of the drug
control and enforcement laws (see 21
U.S.C. 812(a)); or
(2) Abuse of controlled substances
included on Schedule II, III, IV, or V of
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the drug control and enforcement laws
(see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)).
*
*
*
*
*
Unrelated—A public safety officer’s
heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture
is unrelated to the officer’s engagement
in a situation or participation in a
training exercise, as described in 42
U.S.C. 3796(k)(1), when an independent
event or occurrence significantly
contributes in bringing about the
officer’s heart attack, stroke, or vascular
rupture.
§ 32.14
[Amended]
6. In § 32.14, remove paragraph (c).
7. In § 32.33, the definition of Eligible
public safety officer is revised to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 32.33
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Eligible public safety officer means a
public safety officer—
(1) With respect to whose death,
benefits under subpart B of this part
properly—
(i) Have been paid; or
(ii) Would have been paid but for
operation of the Act, at 42 U.S.C.
3796(f); or
(2) With respect to whose disability,
benefits under subpart C of this part
properly—
(i) Have been paid; or
(ii) Would have been paid, but for
operation of—
(A) Paragraph (b)(1) of § 32.6; or
(B) The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Karol V. Mason,
Assistant Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016–16086 Filed 7–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0110]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Grounds; Delaware Bay
and River, Philadelphia, PA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend the anchorage regulations for
Delaware Bay and River. The Coast
Guard conducted a review of the
Delaware Bay and River anchorage
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
grounds to support increased traffic and
vessel size. The proposed changes to
this regulation would eliminate
unusable anchorage grounds and
provide additional usable grounds to
support current and future port
demands and enhance the overall
navigation safety of this critical
component of the maritime
transportation system. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0110 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.
If
you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant
Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways
Management Division, telephone (215)
271–4851, email Brennan.P.Dougherty@
uscg.mil or Lieutenant Commander
Tiffany Johnson, U.S. Coast Guard, Fifth
Coast Guard District, Waterways
Management Branch, telephone (757)
398–6516, email Tiffany.A.Johnson@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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
COTP Captain of the Port
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
The Delaware Bay and River
anchorage grounds are largely used by
commercial vessel traffic. General
regulations covering the anchorage of
vessels in the port are set out in 33 CFR
110.157. In 1992, the Delaware River
Main Channel Deepening project was
authorized for construction by Public
Law 102–580, Section 101 (6) of the
Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) 1992; modified by Public Law
106–53, Section 308 of WRDA 1999 and
further modified by Public Law 106–
541, Section 306 of WRDA 2000. This
project includes deepening the existing
Delaware River Federal Navigation
Channel from 40 to 45 feet from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
Camden, New Jersey to the mouth of the
Delaware Bay. The Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) along with nonFederal sponsor, the Philadelphia
Regional Port Authority (PRPA),
commenced dredging for this project in
2010. This project, once completed, will
allow for deeper draft vessels within the
port and increase overall traffic, and
anchorage usage. Due to this anticipated
increase in marine traffic a review of the
current Delaware Bay and River
anchorage grounds was conducted by
the Waterways Management Division
Sector Delaware Bay, Philadelphia, PA
in coordination with the Mariners
Advisory Committee (MAC). Upon
review it was found that multiple
anchorage grounds in 33 CFR 110.157
were unusable for some larger vessels
due to lack of depth needed to safely
anchor. Other anchorage grounds are
unusable because they spanned
underneath bridges where it would be
impractical for vessels to anchor, and
posed an increased and unnecessary
safety risk of bridge allision. The
proposed changes to the Delaware Bay
and River anchorages would eliminate
unusable anchorage grounds and
maximize usable anchorage grounds
within the anchorage boundaries while
continuing to safely support current and
future port demands. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The following changes are being
proposed for seven Delaware Bay and
River anchorage grounds.
Anchorage 1 Bombay off Hook Point,
found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(2),
currently has portions of the anchorage
which intermittently experiences a
water depth of 2 feet, which is unsafe
for vessels to transit or anchor. The
proposed changes would reduce the
width of the anchorage to approximately
1,109 yards while extending the length
to approximately 9,802 yards, thereby
allowing more room for safe usable
space within the anchorage.
Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy
Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(4),
currently has portions of the anchorage
in the navigational channel.
Furthermore, the northern portion of the
anchorage, in relation to the entrance to
the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
poses an unnecessary risk of vessel
collisions due to the proximity of
vessels transiting to and from the canal.
The proposed changes would move this
anchorage 1,573 yards south of the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 2 light,
bounding the east side of the anchorage
along the west side of Reedy Island
Range, and extend the anchorage south
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46027
to the southern end of Reed Island Bar.
These changes would eliminate portions
of the anchorage that are in the
navigational channel and increase the
anchorage grounds southward.
Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point,
found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(7),
currently has the southern portion of the
anchorage approximately 480 yards
north from the Delaware Memorial
Bridge, this proximity creates an
unnecessary risk of a bridge allision. To
mitigate this risk, the proposed changes
would relocate the southern boundary
of the anchorage to approximately 701
yards north of the Delaware Memorial
Bridge and extend the northern portion
of the anchorage where it would end
opposite the channel from the entrance
of the Christina River.
Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point,
found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(9), currently
has portions of the anchorage in less
than 9 feet of water, causing an
unnecessary safety risk to vessels
attempting to transit or anchor. The
proposed changes would increase
usable anchorage grounds within the
anchorage by reducing the width of the
anchorage to approximately 231 yards
and extending the northern end of the
anchorage to the edge of Crab Point.
Anchorage 11 at Gloucester, found in
33 CFR 110.157(a)(12), currently has the
northern portion of the anchorage
approximately 71 yards south of the
Walt Whitman Bridge. This proximity
creates an unnecessary risk of a bridge
allision. The proposed changes would
increase the distance of the northern
portion of the anchorage to 254 yards
from the Walt Whitman Bridge,
reducing the risk of a bridge allision for
vessels in the anchorage.
Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and
Camden, found in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(13), currently begins south of
the Walt Whitman Bridge, bordering the
northern line of Anchorage 11 traveling
north to the southern boundary of
Anchorage 13 at Camden, NJ.
Anchorages 12 and 13 each span a
bridge where anchoring a vessel is
impractical and creates an unnecessary
risk of bridge allision. The proposed
changes would address this issue by
relocating the south end of Anchorage
12 to begin 232 yards north of the Walt
Whitman Bridge and relocating the
northern boundary to approximately
155 yards south of the Benjamin
Franklin Bridge. This would eliminate
any anchorage grounds underneath the
Walt Whitman Bridge and Benjamin
Franklin Bridge, mitigating the
unnecessary risk of a bridge allision.
Anchorage 13, found in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(14), currently begins on the
east side of the channel adjoining and
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
46028
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
on the upstream side of Anchorage 12,
to Cooper Point, Camden. Anchorages
12 and 13 each span a bridge where
anchoring a vessel is impractical and
creates an unnecessary risk of bridge
allision. The proposed changes above
would move the south end of Anchorage
13 to begin approximately 190 yards
north of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
Anchorage 13’s northern boundary
would remain the same, terminating in
the vicinity of Coopers Point, Camden.
This would eliminate any anchorage
grounds underneath Benjamin Franklin
Bridge, mitigating the unnecessary risk
of a bridge allision.
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action because it would not
interfere with existing maritime activity
on the Delaware River. Rather, it would
enhance navigational safety along the
Delaware River by providing safer
locations for vessels to anchor,
improving navigation safety near
bridges and reducing the potential for
disruption to maritime traffic by
anchored vessels potentially within the
federal channel. Vessels may navigate
in, around, and through the modified
anchorages.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
The proposed rule would affect
owners and operators of vessels wishing
to anchor in the Delaware Bay and River
anchorages. Boundaries of some of the
current anchorages would be modified,
reduced, or increased depending on the
water depth and relation of the
anchorage to bridges along the Delaware
Bay and River. The impact of the
proposed rule changes would be
minimal because the changes increase
usable anchorage grounds and enable
vessels to safely anchor in the anchorage
boundaries.
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 (Pub. L. 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 directly with establishing,
disestablishing, and modifying
anchorage grounds. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(f) of
Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
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
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
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.
2. Amend § 110.157 by revising
paragraphs (a)(2), (4), (7), (9), and (12)
through (14) to read as follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 110.157
Delaware Bay and River.
(a) * * *
(2) Anchorage 1 off Bombay Hook
Point. On the southwest side of the
channel along Liston Range, bounded as
follows: Beginning at a point
(approximately latitude 39°17′14″ N.,
longitude 75°22′21″ W.) bearing 170°
from Ship John Shoal Light, 380 yards
southwest of the southwest edge of the
channel along Liston Range; thence
231°, 1,000 yards; thence 319°, 9,800
yards; thence 049°, 1,000 yards; and
thence 139°, 9,800 yards, back to the
beginning point. These coordinates are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
based on the World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy
Point. Southeast of the entrance to the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at
Reedy Point, bounded as follows:
Beginning at a point (approximately
latitude 39°33′09″ N. and longitude
75°32′38″ W.), bearing 120°, 1,573 yards
southeast from Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal 2 Light, bounded on the
east by the west edge of the channel
along Reedy Island Range, south to a
point (approximately latitude 39°31′29″
N. and longitude 75°33′01″ W.), thence
286°, 406 yards, thence 008°, 1,460
yards, continuing north by a line
running from the last point to
(approximately latitude 39°33′09″ N.
and longitude 75°33′10″ W.), 1,817
yards, and thence 90°, 840 yards, to the
point of beginning. These coordinates
are based on the World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point.
East of the entrance to Christina River,
bounded as follows: Beginning at
latitude 39°43′00″ N., longitude
75°30′20″ W.; thence 106°, 966 yards;
thence 214°, 1,882 yards; thence 203°,
828 yards; thence 182°, 232 yards;
thence 283°, 335 yards; and thence 015°,
2,858 yards, along the east side of the
Cherry Island Range, to the point of
beginning. Vessels must not cast anchor
in the cable area at the lower end of this
anchorage except in case of emergency.
These coordinates are based on the
World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point.
On the south side of the channel along
Tinicum Range, between Thompson
Point and the east side of Crab Point,
bounded as follows: Beginning at a
point on the south edge of the channel
along Tinicum Range at longitude
75°18′23″ W.; thence easterly along the
edge of the channel to longitude
75°17′41″ W.; thence 185°, 220 yards;
thence 272°, 1,079 yards; thence 001°,
192 yards, to the point of beginning.
These coordinates are based on the
World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) Anchorage 11 at Gloucester. East
of the channel south of the Walt
Whitman Bridge at Gloucester, bounded
as follows: Beginning at a point latitude
39°54′11″ N., longitude 75°07′45″ W.;
thence bearing 101°, 85 yards, thence
177°, 275 yards to a point latitude
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46029
39°54′03″ N., longitude 75°07′41″ W.,
along the New Jersey shore, thence 200°,
1,179 yards; thence 216°, 875 yards to
a point at latitude 39°53′10″ N.,
longitude 75°08′17″ W., thence
northeasterly bearing 026°, 1,006 yards,
and thence 018°, 1,203 yards to the
point of beginning. The area between
Pier 124 S and 122 S, along the west
side of the Delaware River, is restricted
to facilitate vessel movements. The
areas adjacent to working piers are
restricted to facilitate the movement of
vessels to and from these piers. Should
the anchorage become so congested that
vessels are compelled to anchor in these
restricted areas, they must move
immediately when another berth is
available. These coordinates are based
on the World Geodetic System 1984
(WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.
(13) Anchorage 12 between Gloucester
and Camden. East of the channel
beginning north of the Walt Whitman
Bridge at Gloucester and ending south
of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge at
Camden, bounded as follows: Beginning
at a point at latitude 39°54′26″ N.,
longitude 75°07′41″ W., bounded on the
west by a line perpendicular to the
channel, 210 yards from the east edge of
the channel north, 5,536 yards, thence
bearing 098°, 178 yards, thence 193°,
437 yards, thence 185°, 546 yards,
thence 179°, 1,107 yards, thence 168°,
964 yards, thence 161°, 1,749 yards,
thence 182°, 401 yards, thence 195°, 305
yards, and thence 276°, 132 yards to the
point of beginning. The area between
No. 2 Broadway pier and No. 1
Broadway pier is restricted to facilitate
vessel movements. The areas adjacent to
working piers are restricted to facilitate
the movement of vessels to and from
these piers. Should the anchorage
become so congested that vessels are
compelled to anchor in these restricted
areas, they must move immediately
when another berth is available. These
coordinates are based on the World
Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
(14) Anchorage 13 at Camden. East of
the channel, North of the Benjamin
Franklin Bridge to Cooper Point,
Camden, bounded as follows: Beginning
at a point latitude 39° 57′17″, longitude
75°07′58″, thence bearing 16°, 209
yards, thence 27°, 368 yards, thence 46°,
355 yards, thence 139°, 200 yards,
thence 221°, 604 yards, thence 199°, 222
yards, and thence 287°, 147 yards to the
point of beginning. These coordinates
are based on the World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
46030
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Dated: June 20, 2016.
Meredith L. Austin,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–16714 Filed 7–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0392; FRL–9946–01–
OW]
RIN 2040–AF61
Water Quality Standards;
Establishment of Revised Numeric
Criteria for Selenium for the San
Francisco Bay and Delta, State of
California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the
current federal Clean Water Act
selenium water quality criteria
applicable to the San Francisco Bay and
Delta to ensure that the criteria are set
at levels that protect aquatic life and
aquatic-dependent wildlife, including
federally listed threatened and
endangered species. The San Francisco
Bay and Delta ecosystem is at risk due
to environmental degradation, including
impacts from elevated levels of
selenium, and state and federal actions
are underway to restore the waterway.
Scientific evidence indicates that
elevated selenium levels can contribute
to the decline of fish and aquaticdependent birds. EPA promulgated the
San Francisco Bay and Delta’s existing
selenium criteria in 1992 as part of the
National Toxics Rule, using EPA’s
recommended aquatic life criteria
values at the time. However, the latest
science on selenium fate and
bioaccumulation indicates that the
existing criteria are not protective of
aquatic life and aquatic-dependent
wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and
Delta. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revise the existing selenium criteria,
taking into account available science,
legal requirements, and EPA policies
and guidance. EPA’s proposal will
address the Administrator’s
determination—described in this
preamble—that EPA’s previously
promulgated water quality criteria are
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
not adequate to protect the designated
uses for these waters.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 13, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2015–0392, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Two public hearings will be held on
Tuesday, August 23, 2016, one at 9:00
a.m. and one at 2:00 p.m., at EPA Region
9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105. Additionally, EPA will offer
a virtual public hearing on the proposed
rule via the internet on Monday
evening, August 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m.
to 8:00 p.m. For details on these public
hearings, as well as registration
information, please visit: https://
epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualitystandards-establishment-revisednumeric-criteria-selenium-sanfrancisco-bay.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards
and Health Protection Division (4305T),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 566–1057; email address:
Fleisig.Erica@EPA.gov; or Diane E.
Fleck, P.E., Esq., Water Division (WTR–
2–1), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone
number: (415) 972–3527; email address:
Fleck.Diane@EPA.gov.
Category
16:59 Jul 14, 2016
I. General Information
II. Background
A. CWA and EPA Regulations
B. National Toxics Rule
C. California Toxics Rule
D. State of California Actions
E. Applicability of EPA Promulgated Water
Quality Standards When Final
F. Selenium Chemistry and Biology
III. Rationale and Approach
A. Necessity
B. Administrator’s Determination of
Necessity
C. Approach
D. Proposed Criteria
IV. Implementation and Alternative
Regulatory Approaches
V. Endangered Species Act
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Identifying Affected Entities
B. Method for Estimating Costs
C. Results
VII. Statutory and Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks)
H. Executive Oder 13211 (Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
I. General Information
Applicability: Entities such as
industries, stormwater management
districts, or publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) that directly or
indirectly discharge selenium to the San
Francisco Bay and Delta could be
indirectly affected by this rulemaking
because federal water quality standards
(WQS) promulgated by EPA would be
applicable to Clean Water Act (CWA)
regulatory programs, such as National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned
with water quality in California could
also be interested in this rulemaking.
Categories and entities that could be
affected include the following:
Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
This
proposed rule is organized as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Industries discharging pollutants to the San Francisco Bay and Delta.
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46026-46030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2016-0110]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Grounds; Delaware Bay and River, Philadelphia, PA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations
for Delaware Bay and River. The Coast Guard conducted a review of the
Delaware Bay and River anchorage
[[Page 46027]]
grounds to support increased traffic and vessel size. The proposed
changes to this regulation would eliminate unusable anchorage grounds
and provide additional usable grounds to support current and future
port demands and enhance the overall navigation safety of this critical
component of the maritime transportation system. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0110 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
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division,
telephone (215) 271-4851, email Brennan.P.Dougherty@uscg.mil or
Lieutenant Commander Tiffany Johnson, U.S. Coast Guard, Fifth Coast
Guard District, Waterways Management Branch, telephone (757) 398-6516,
email Tiffany.A.Johnson@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
The Delaware Bay and River anchorage grounds are largely used by
commercial vessel traffic. General regulations covering the anchorage
of vessels in the port are set out in 33 CFR 110.157. In 1992, the
Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project was authorized for
construction by Public Law 102-580, Section 101 (6) of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1992; modified by Public Law 106-53,
Section 308 of WRDA 1999 and further modified by Public Law 106-541,
Section 306 of WRDA 2000. This project includes deepening the existing
Delaware River Federal Navigation Channel from 40 to 45 feet from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey to the mouth of the
Delaware Bay. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) along with non-
Federal sponsor, the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA),
commenced dredging for this project in 2010. This project, once
completed, will allow for deeper draft vessels within the port and
increase overall traffic, and anchorage usage. Due to this anticipated
increase in marine traffic a review of the current Delaware Bay and
River anchorage grounds was conducted by the Waterways Management
Division Sector Delaware Bay, Philadelphia, PA in coordination with the
Mariners Advisory Committee (MAC). Upon review it was found that
multiple anchorage grounds in 33 CFR 110.157 were unusable for some
larger vessels due to lack of depth needed to safely anchor. Other
anchorage grounds are unusable because they spanned underneath bridges
where it would be impractical for vessels to anchor, and posed an
increased and unnecessary safety risk of bridge allision. The proposed
changes to the Delaware Bay and River anchorages would eliminate
unusable anchorage grounds and maximize usable anchorage grounds within
the anchorage boundaries while continuing to safely support current and
future port demands. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The following changes are being proposed for seven Delaware Bay and
River anchorage grounds.
Anchorage 1 Bombay off Hook Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(2),
currently has portions of the anchorage which intermittently
experiences a water depth of 2 feet, which is unsafe for vessels to
transit or anchor. The proposed changes would reduce the width of the
anchorage to approximately 1,109 yards while extending the length to
approximately 9,802 yards, thereby allowing more room for safe usable
space within the anchorage.
Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy Point, found in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(4), currently has portions of the anchorage in the
navigational channel. Furthermore, the northern portion of the
anchorage, in relation to the entrance to the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, poses an unnecessary risk of vessel collisions due to the
proximity of vessels transiting to and from the canal. The proposed
changes would move this anchorage 1,573 yards south of the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal 2 light, bounding the east side of the anchorage
along the west side of Reedy Island Range, and extend the anchorage
south to the southern end of Reed Island Bar. These changes would
eliminate portions of the anchorage that are in the navigational
channel and increase the anchorage grounds southward.
Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(7),
currently has the southern portion of the anchorage approximately 480
yards north from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, this proximity creates
an unnecessary risk of a bridge allision. To mitigate this risk, the
proposed changes would relocate the southern boundary of the anchorage
to approximately 701 yards north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and
extend the northern portion of the anchorage where it would end
opposite the channel from the entrance of the Christina River.
Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(9),
currently has portions of the anchorage in less than 9 feet of water,
causing an unnecessary safety risk to vessels attempting to transit or
anchor. The proposed changes would increase usable anchorage grounds
within the anchorage by reducing the width of the anchorage to
approximately 231 yards and extending the northern end of the anchorage
to the edge of Crab Point.
Anchorage 11 at Gloucester, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(12),
currently has the northern portion of the anchorage approximately 71
yards south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. This proximity creates an
unnecessary risk of a bridge allision. The proposed changes would
increase the distance of the northern portion of the anchorage to 254
yards from the Walt Whitman Bridge, reducing the risk of a bridge
allision for vessels in the anchorage.
Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and Camden, found in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(13), currently begins south of the Walt Whitman Bridge,
bordering the northern line of Anchorage 11 traveling north to the
southern boundary of Anchorage 13 at Camden, NJ. Anchorages 12 and 13
each span a bridge where anchoring a vessel is impractical and creates
an unnecessary risk of bridge allision. The proposed changes would
address this issue by relocating the south end of Anchorage 12 to begin
232 yards north of the Walt Whitman Bridge and relocating the northern
boundary to approximately 155 yards south of the Benjamin Franklin
Bridge. This would eliminate any anchorage grounds underneath the Walt
Whitman Bridge and Benjamin Franklin Bridge, mitigating the unnecessary
risk of a bridge allision.
Anchorage 13, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(14), currently begins on
the east side of the channel adjoining and
[[Page 46028]]
on the upstream side of Anchorage 12, to Cooper Point, Camden.
Anchorages 12 and 13 each span a bridge where anchoring a vessel is
impractical and creates an unnecessary risk of bridge allision. The
proposed changes above would move the south end of Anchorage 13 to
begin approximately 190 yards north of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
Anchorage 13's northern boundary would remain the same, terminating in
the vicinity of Coopers Point, Camden. This would eliminate any
anchorage grounds underneath Benjamin Franklin Bridge, mitigating the
unnecessary risk of a bridge allision.
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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because
it would not interfere with existing maritime activity on the Delaware
River. Rather, it would enhance navigational safety along the Delaware
River by providing safer locations for vessels to anchor, improving
navigation safety near bridges and reducing the potential for
disruption to maritime traffic by anchored vessels potentially within
the federal channel. Vessels may navigate in, around, and through the
modified anchorages.
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.
The proposed rule would affect owners and operators of vessels
wishing to anchor in the Delaware Bay and River anchorages. Boundaries
of some of the current anchorages would be modified, reduced, or
increased depending on the water depth and relation of the anchorage to
bridges along the Delaware Bay and River. The impact of the proposed
rule changes would be minimal because the changes increase usable
anchorage grounds and enable vessels to safely anchor in the anchorage
boundaries.
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 (Pub. L. 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 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 directly
with establishing, disestablishing, and modifying anchorage grounds.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
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
[[Page 46029]]
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--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
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. Amend Sec. 110.157 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (4), (7), (9),
and (12) through (14) to read as follows:
Sec. 110.157 Delaware Bay and River.
(a) * * *
(2) Anchorage 1 off Bombay Hook Point. On the southwest side of the
channel along Liston Range, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point
(approximately latitude 39[deg]17'14'' N., longitude 75[deg]22'21'' W.)
bearing 170[deg] from Ship John Shoal Light, 380 yards southwest of the
southwest edge of the channel along Liston Range; thence 231[deg],
1,000 yards; thence 319[deg], 9,800 yards; thence 049[deg], 1,000
yards; and thence 139[deg], 9,800 yards, back to the beginning point.
These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
* * * * *
(4) Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy Point. Southeast of the entrance
to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Reedy Point, bounded as
follows: Beginning at a point (approximately latitude 39[deg]33'09'' N.
and longitude 75[deg]32'38'' W.), bearing 120[deg], 1,573 yards
southeast from Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 2 Light, bounded on the
east by the west edge of the channel along Reedy Island Range, south to
a point (approximately latitude 39[deg]31'29'' N. and longitude
75[deg]33'01'' W.), thence 286[deg], 406 yards, thence 008[deg], 1,460
yards, continuing north by a line running from the last point to
(approximately latitude 39[deg]33'09'' N. and longitude 75[deg]33'10''
W.), 1,817 yards, and thence 90[deg], 840 yards, to the point of
beginning. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.
* * * * *
(7) Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point. East of the entrance to
Christina River, bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude
39[deg]43'00'' N., longitude 75[deg]30'20'' W.; thence 106[deg], 966
yards; thence 214[deg], 1,882 yards; thence 203[deg], 828 yards; thence
182[deg], 232 yards; thence 283[deg], 335 yards; and thence 015[deg],
2,858 yards, along the east side of the Cherry Island Range, to the
point of beginning. Vessels must not cast anchor in the cable area at
the lower end of this anchorage except in case of emergency. These
coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
* * * * *
(9) Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point. On the south side of the
channel along Tinicum Range, between Thompson Point and the east side
of Crab Point, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point on the south
edge of the channel along Tinicum Range at longitude 75[deg]18'23'' W.;
thence easterly along the edge of the channel to longitude
75[deg]17'41'' W.; thence 185[deg], 220 yards; thence 272[deg], 1,079
yards; thence 001[deg], 192 yards, to the point of beginning. These
coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
* * * * *
(12) Anchorage 11 at Gloucester. East of the channel south of the
Walt Whitman Bridge at Gloucester, bounded as follows: Beginning at a
point latitude 39[deg]54'11'' N., longitude 75[deg]07'45'' W.; thence
bearing 101[deg], 85 yards, thence 177[deg], 275 yards to a point
latitude 39[deg]54'03'' N., longitude 75[deg]07'41'' W., along the New
Jersey shore, thence 200[deg], 1,179 yards; thence 216[deg], 875 yards
to a point at latitude 39[deg]53'10'' N., longitude 75[deg]08'17'' W.,
thence northeasterly bearing 026[deg], 1,006 yards, and thence
018[deg], 1,203 yards to the point of beginning. The area between Pier
124 S and 122 S, along the west side of the Delaware River, is
restricted to facilitate vessel movements. The areas adjacent to
working piers are restricted to facilitate the movement of vessels to
and from these piers. Should the anchorage become so congested that
vessels are compelled to anchor in these restricted areas, they must
move immediately when another berth is available. These coordinates are
based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum
reference.
(13) Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and Camden. East of the
channel beginning north of the Walt Whitman Bridge at Gloucester and
ending south of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge at Camden, bounded as
follows: Beginning at a point at latitude 39[deg]54'26'' N., longitude
75[deg]07'41'' W., bounded on the west by a line perpendicular to the
channel, 210 yards from the east edge of the channel north, 5,536
yards, thence bearing 098[deg], 178 yards, thence 193[deg], 437 yards,
thence 185[deg], 546 yards, thence 179[deg], 1,107 yards, thence
168[deg], 964 yards, thence 161[deg], 1,749 yards, thence 182[deg], 401
yards, thence 195[deg], 305 yards, and thence 276[deg], 132 yards to
the point of beginning. The area between No. 2 Broadway pier and No. 1
Broadway pier is restricted to facilitate vessel movements. The areas
adjacent to working piers are restricted to facilitate the movement of
vessels to and from these piers. Should the anchorage become so
congested that vessels are compelled to anchor in these restricted
areas, they must move immediately when another berth is available.
These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
(14) Anchorage 13 at Camden. East of the channel, North of the
Benjamin Franklin Bridge to Cooper Point, Camden, bounded as follows:
Beginning at a point latitude 39[deg] 57'17'', longitude
75[deg]07'58'', thence bearing 16[deg], 209 yards, thence 27[deg], 368
yards, thence 46[deg], 355 yards, thence 139[deg], 200 yards, thence
221[deg], 604 yards, thence 199[deg], 222 yards, and thence 287[deg],
147 yards to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on the
World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.
* * * * *
[[Page 46030]]
Dated: June 20, 2016.
Meredith L. Austin,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-16714 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
