Safety Zone; Apra Harbor, Guam, 789-792 [2016-31894]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government 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 above. 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 will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS F. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Jan 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 review, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. 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 http:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http:// 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 http:// 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 notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http:// 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. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 789 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. ■ 2. Revise § 117.671 to read as follows: § 117.671 Upper Mississippi River. (a) The draws of all bridges between Lock and Dam No. 14, mile 493.3, and Lock and Dam No. 2, mile 815.2, shall open on signal; except that, from on or about December 15 through the last day of February, the draws shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. (b) The draws of all bridges between Lock and Dam No. 2, mile 815.2 and Lock and Dam No. 1, mile 847.6, shall open on signal; except that, from on or about December 15 through the last day of February, the draws shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. Dated: December 22, 2016. D.R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–31893 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2016–1019] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Apra Harbor, Guam Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the existing safety zones currently in effect at Naval Wharf Kilo in Apra Outer Harbor, Guam, by adding a 500yard permanent safety zone, hereinafter referred to as Safety Zone D, to provide a buffer between the explosives regularly handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the general public and maritime operators. The addition of Safety Zone D would also reduce the frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B. This action also eliminates from the regulation the requirement to post a sign when Safety Zones A or B are being SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM 04JAP1 790 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules enforced; during such enforcement periods, notification will occur via a slight modification of the displayed visual indicators already codified in the existing regulation as well as via a broadcast notice to mariners. This rulemaking will better meet the needs of the community and reduce the frequency that restrictions must be imposed through the addition of a less restrictive permanent safety zone, thereby enhancing the safe and efficient use of Apra Outer Harbor Channel in the vicinity of Naval Wharf Kilo. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 21, 2017. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 30, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2016–1019 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. DATES: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671–255–4866, email WWMGuam@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners 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 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis In 1990, Safety Zone B was established around the newly constructed Naval Wharf Kilo. On February 10, 2015, the Coast Guard amended Apra Harbor safety zone regulation in 33CFR 165.1401 to remove the 680-yard permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and add two intermittent safety zones, Safety Zones A and B, with arcs of 1,000 and 1,400 yards radius, respectively. Over the past 21 plus months, the Coast Guard has evaluated the effect of these changes and their impact on the waters in and around Naval Wharf Kilo. Based on this evaluation, the Coast Guard has VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Jan 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 determined that an additional amendment to 33 CFR 165.1401 providing a 500-yard permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo is necessary to enhance the safety of the waterway and reduce adverse impacts to the maritime community and general public. This amendment will also reduce the frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B and eliminate from the regulation the requirement to post a sign during the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A or B; during such enforcement periods notification will occur via a slight modification of the displayed visual indicators already codified in the existing regulation as well as via a broadcast notice to mariners. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of people and vessels in the navigable waters of Apra Outer Harbor within a 500–1,400 yard radius of Naval Wharf Kilo before, during, and after wharf operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking pursuant to its authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The COTP proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.1401 to add Safety Zone D, a 500yard permanent safety zone at Naval Wharf Kilo, to provide a buffer between the explosives regularly handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the general public and marine operators. Safety Zone D will greatly reduce the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A and B. Safety zones A and B will be enforced when the COTP determines that reasonable risks to the public exist that may be minimized through zone enforcement. Notification of enforcement of Safety Zones A will be provided via a red (BRAVO) flag by day or single red light by night. Notification of enforcement of Safety Zone B will be provided via 2 red (BRAVO) flags by day or 2 red lights by night. When Safety Zone A or B is enforced, the COTP will also provide notification via a broadcast notice to mariners. Signs stating ‘‘Safety Zone A’’ and ‘‘Safety Zone B,’’ respectively, will not be posted. During enforcement of any safety zone, no vessel or person may enter the zone without the express permission from the COTP or his designated representative. The proposed regulatory amendments appear at the end of this document. IV. Regulatory Analyses This proposed rule was developed after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 executive orders and we 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 size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. The implementation of a 500-yard safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo will drastically minimize the number of days that vessel traffic will be impacted under current parameters for activation of Safety Zone A. Vessel traffic will continue to be permitted to pass through Safety Zones A and B with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the zones. 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 transit the safety zone 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. E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM 04JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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). mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Jan 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 the re-establishment of a permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and the clarification of visual indicators utilized during the active implementation of Safety Zones A and B. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) 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. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. 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 http:// www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http:// www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 791 CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// 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 http://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. We plan to hold a public meeting to receive oral comments on this NPRM and will announce the date, time, and location in a separate document published in the Federal Register. If you signed up for docket email alerts mentioned in the paragraph above, you will receive an email notice when the public meeting notice is published and placed in the docket. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 165.1401, add paragraph (a)(3) and revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 165.1401 zones. Apra Harbor, Guam—safety (a) * * * (3) The following is designated Safety Zone D: The waters of Apra Outer Harbor encompassed within an arc of 500 yards radius centered at the center of Naval Wharf Kilo, located at 13 degrees 26′44.5″ N. and 144 degrees 37′50.7″ E. (Based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum). (b) Regulations. (1) Safety Zone A, described in paragraph (a) of this E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM 04JAP1 792 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules section, will only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– FM marine channel 16 about the zone and Naval Wharf Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or a red light by night. (2) Safety Zone B described in paragraph (a) of this section will only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the zone and Naval Wharf Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying 2 red (BRAVO) flags by day or 2 red lights by night. (3) Safety Zone D is permanent and will be enforced at all times. (4) Under general regulations in § 165.23, during periods of enforcement, entry into the Safety Zones A and B as described in paragraph (a) of this section, is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a designated representative. Entry into Safety Zone D is prohibited at all times unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a designated representative. Dated: December 5, 2016. James B. Pruett, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam. [FR Doc. 2016–31894 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0479; FRL–9957–60– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY, nonattainment area (hereafter, ‘‘the Cincinnati-Hamilton area’’) to attainment for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) annual national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard). The Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties. Because EPA has determined mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:07 Jan 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is attaining the annual PM2.5 standard, EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to attainment and also proposing several additional related actions. EPA is proposing to approve the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) portion of Ohio’s Cincinnati-Hamilton area attainment plan SIP revision as providing adequate RACM/RACT. EPA is proposing to approve an update to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), by updating the state’s approved plan for maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2027. EPA previously approved the base year emissions inventory for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and is proposing to approve Ohio’s updated emission inventory which includes emission inventories for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia. Ohio’s approved maintenance plan submission includes a budget for the mobile source contribution of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the Cincinnati-Hamilton Ohio PM2.5 area for transportation conformity purposes, which EPA is proposing to approve and update. EPA is proposing to take these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s implementation rule regarding the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2016–0479 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section. For the full EPA public comment policy, PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947, ko.joseph@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Contents I. Background II. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment? III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s request? 1. Attainment 2. Section 110 and Part D Requirements, and Approval SIP under Section 110(k) (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)) 3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 4. Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEBs) for the Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX 6. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory IV. EPA’s Proposed Actions V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of ambient air, based on a three-year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air quality data for calendar years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, EPA designated the CincinnatiHamilton area (the Ohio portion being Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account two decisions of the D.C. Circuit. On August 21, 2012, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and ordered EPA to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . development of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM 04JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 789-792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-1019]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Apra Harbor, Guam

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the existing safety zones 
currently in effect at Naval Wharf Kilo in Apra Outer Harbor, Guam, by 
adding a 500-yard permanent safety zone, hereinafter referred to as 
Safety Zone D, to provide a buffer between the explosives regularly 
handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the general public and maritime 
operators. The addition of Safety Zone D would also reduce the 
frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B. This action also 
eliminates from the regulation the requirement to post a sign when 
Safety Zones A or B are being

[[Page 790]]

enforced; during such enforcement periods, notification will occur via 
a slight modification of the displayed visual indicators already 
codified in the existing regulation as well as via a broadcast notice 
to mariners. This rulemaking will better meet the needs of the 
community and reduce the frequency that restrictions must be imposed 
through the addition of a less restrictive permanent safety zone, 
thereby enhancing the safe and efficient use of Apra Outer Harbor 
Channel in the vicinity of Naval Wharf Kilo. We invite your comments on 
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before February 21, 2017. Requests for public meetings must 
be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-1019 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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 Chief Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam 
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-255-
4866, email WWMGuam@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    In 1990, Safety Zone B was established around the newly constructed 
Naval Wharf Kilo. On February 10, 2015, the Coast Guard amended Apra 
Harbor safety zone regulation in 33CFR 165.1401 to remove the 680-yard 
permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and add two intermittent 
safety zones, Safety Zones A and B, with arcs of 1,000 and 1,400 yards 
radius, respectively. Over the past 21 plus months, the Coast Guard has 
evaluated the effect of these changes and their impact on the waters in 
and around Naval Wharf Kilo. Based on this evaluation, the Coast Guard 
has determined that an additional amendment to 33 CFR 165.1401 
providing a 500-yard permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo is 
necessary to enhance the safety of the waterway and reduce adverse 
impacts to the maritime community and general public. This amendment 
will also reduce the frequency of enforcement of Safety Zones A and B 
and eliminate from the regulation the requirement to post a sign during 
the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A or B; during such enforcement 
periods notification will occur via a slight modification of the 
displayed visual indicators already codified in the existing regulation 
as well as via a broadcast notice to mariners.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of people 
and vessels in the navigable waters of Apra Outer Harbor within a 500-
1,400 yard radius of Naval Wharf Kilo before, during, and after wharf 
operations. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking pursuant to its 
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.1401 to add Safety Zone D, a 
500-yard permanent safety zone at Naval Wharf Kilo, to provide a buffer 
between the explosives regularly handled on Naval Wharf Kilo, and the 
general public and marine operators. Safety Zone D will greatly reduce 
the enforcement periods of Safety Zones A and B. Safety zones A and B 
will be enforced when the COTP determines that reasonable risks to the 
public exist that may be minimized through zone enforcement. 
Notification of enforcement of Safety Zones A will be provided via a 
red (BRAVO) flag by day or single red light by night. Notification of 
enforcement of Safety Zone B will be provided via 2 red (BRAVO) flags 
by day or 2 red lights by night. When Safety Zone A or B is enforced, 
the COTP will also provide notification via a broadcast notice to 
mariners. Signs stating ``Safety Zone A'' and ``Safety Zone B,'' 
respectively, will not be posted. During enforcement of any safety 
zone, no vessel or person may enter the zone without the express 
permission from the COTP or his designated representative. The proposed 
regulatory amendments appear at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    This proposed rule was developed 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 
and we 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 size, 
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. The 
implementation of a 500-yard safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo will 
drastically minimize the number of days that vessel traffic will be 
impacted under current parameters for activation of Safety Zone A. 
Vessel traffic will continue to be permitted to pass through Safety 
Zones A and B with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Moreover, 
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM 
marine channel 16 about the zones.

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 transit the 
safety zone 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.

[[Page 791]]

    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 the re-
establishment of a permanent safety zone around Naval Wharf Kilo and 
the clarification of visual indicators utilized during the active 
implementation of Safety Zones A and B. Normally such actions are 
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) 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.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that 
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places, or vessels.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://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 http://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 http://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.
    We plan to hold a public meeting to receive oral comments on this 
NPRM and will announce the date, time, and location in a separate 
document published in the Federal Register. If you signed up for docket 
email alerts mentioned in the paragraph above, you will receive an 
email notice when the public meeting notice is published and placed in 
the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1401, add paragraph (a)(3) and revise paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  165.1401  Apra Harbor, Guam--safety zones.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The following is designated Safety Zone D: The waters of Apra 
Outer Harbor encompassed within an arc of 500 yards radius centered at 
the center of Naval Wharf Kilo, located at 13 degrees 26'44.5'' N. and 
144 degrees 37'50.7'' E. (Based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum).
    (b) Regulations. (1) Safety Zone A, described in paragraph (a) of 
this

[[Page 792]]

section, will only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a 
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the 
zone and Naval Wharf Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is 
displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or a red light by night.
    (2) Safety Zone B described in paragraph (a) of this section will 
only be enforced when Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a Broadcast Notice 
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and Naval Wharf 
Kilo, and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying 2 red 
(BRAVO) flags by day or 2 red lights by night.
    (3) Safety Zone D is permanent and will be enforced at all times.
    (4) Under general regulations in Sec.  165.23, during periods of 
enforcement, entry into the Safety Zones A and B as described in 
paragraph (a) of this section, is prohibited unless expressly 
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a designated 
representative. Entry into Safety Zone D is prohibited at all times 
unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a 
designated representative.

    Dated: December 5, 2016.
James B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2016-31894 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P