Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL, 11329-11332 [2017-03405]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
The Manager, Chicago Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(h) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace
Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA,
2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018;
phone: 847–294–7836; fax: 847–294–7834;
email: kyri.zaroyiannis@faa.gov.
(2) For RRC service information identified
in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation,
450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB–
01–06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317–
230–3774; email: indy.pubs.services@rollsroyce.com; Internet: www.rolls-royce.com.
(3) You may view this service information
at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
January 27, 2017.
Colleen M. D’Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–03283 Filed 2–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0729]
RIN 1625–AA01
Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic
Ocean, Miami Beach, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend the Miami Anchorage. The
Miami Anchorage would be divided
into two separate anchorage areas. This
action is necessary to reduce potential
damage to threatened coral posed by
anchoring vessels. We invite your
comments on this supplemental
proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before March 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2015–0729 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Feb 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email MST2
Benjamin R. Colbert, Sector Miami
Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 305–535–4317,
email Benjamin.R.Colbert@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
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed
rule making
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On December 1, 2015, the Coast
Guard published a notice of study (80
FR 75020) that indicated we were
evaluating amending the Miami
Anchorage to divide the anchorage into
two smaller anchorage areas. The
proposed amendment was designed in
coordination with a variety of local
stakeholders, including the South East
Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI).
Comments provided by these
stakeholders, academic research, and
environmental reports raised concerns
with the Coast Guard about the potential
for damage to the Florida Reef in the
Miami Anchorage. Examples of the body
of work that influenced the Coast Guard
in proposing the amendment may be
found in the docket.
In response to the notice of study, the
Coast Guard received four comments.
These comments were addressed in an
NPRM published on May 10, 2016 (81
FR 28788). In response to the NPRM, we
received four additional comments. Two
of the comments, one by the local nonprofit Miami Waterkeeper and the other
by a private citizen, supported our
planned modification of the Miami
Anchorage. The third and fourth
comments were submitted by the
Biscayne Bay Pilots Association.
The Biscayne Bay Pilots Association
(pilots) submitted a comment, through
the Port of Miami, on May 17, 2016.
This comment requested the Coast
Guard to evaluate changes in the
proposed anchorage, including shifting
the outer anchorage west and shifting
the southern boundary of the outer
anchorage north. In response to these
comments, the Coast Guard met with
the Pilots to discuss the requests and the
basis at which the Coast Guard arrived
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11329
at the proposed anchorage
configuration. During the meeting, the
Coast Guard agreed that shifting the
western boundary of the outer
anchorage approximately 300 feet to the
west would provide more room for large
anchoring vessels. This change would
not have any effect on coral or
hardbottom as the sea floor in that area
is sand.
On June 11, 2016, the Pilots submitted
a follow up comment to the public
docket expressing concern that the outer
anchorage would expose vessels to
increased current and waves and, they
claim, could increase the chance a
vessel would drag anchor. To properly
assess environmental conditions and
risk of an anchor drag, the Coast Guard
consulted with the National Weather
Service and Maersk Training Center.
The National Weather Service
conducted a study, analyzing the
previous year’s current in the vicinity of
the anchorage. The Weather Service
found that the average current in the
area of the outer anchorage over the
previous year was approximately 1.2
knots with current ranging plus or
minus half a knot from the mean current
70 percent of the time. This information
was provided to the Maersk Training
Center in Svendborg, Denmark. Subject
matter experts at the Training Center
indicated that the conditions posed no
significant hazard and that Masters
would have the training and experience
to set an anchor in the deeper waters of
the outer anchorage.
In addition to consulting with experts,
the Coast Guard has made minor
changes to the proposed anchorage
regulations that would further ensure
the safety of all vessels anchoring in the
outer anchorage. Vessels using the
Miami Anchorage would be prohibited
from anchoring with engines off or in a
‘‘dead ship’’ status and would be
required to maintain a bridge watch
with an English speaking deck officer.
Finally, the Coast Guard will submit
amendments to the local Coast Pilot to
provide improved guidance to vessels
planning to anchor in the outer
anchorage.
In addition to the discussions with
the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association and
SEFCRI discussed above, the Coast
Guard consulted with a number of other
stakeholders and subject matter experts
in the development of this
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM). Several biologists
from the University of Miami and Nova
Southeastern University supported the
proposed changes to the Miami
Anchorage. The Florida State Historical
Preservation Officer determined that
there were no known cultural resources
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
11330
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
that would be impacted by the proposed
changes and opined that the proposed
changes to the anchorage would have no
effect on historic properties listed, or
eligible for listing, on the National
Register for Historic Places. The Habitat
Conservation Division of the National
Marine Fisheries Service supports
relocating the anchorage as a means to
reduce the continued degradation of
coral reef and hardbottom in this area
from anchoring activities. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
strongly supports this rulemaking and
relocating the anchorage as a means to
reduce the continued degradation of
coral reef and hardbottom in this area
from anchoring activities.
The Coast Guard is committed to
continued outreach, consultation, and
communication in order to ensure
effective rulemaking and invites your
comments to the proposed rule in this
SNPRM. All comments referenced
above, having been received directly
and not submitted to the
www.regulations.gov portal, will be
added to the docket for public review.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard
proposes to amend the Miami
Anchorage by dividing the anchorage
into two smaller anchorage areas. The
amended coordinates would establish
two anchorages with a combined area of
approximately 1.5 square miles and
reduce the total anchorage area by
approximately 3 square miles. The
amended anchorage areas would be
established with the following
coordinates:
SMALL INNER WESTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 45 ft]
Latitude
NW Corner .........................................................
NE Corner ..........................................................
SE Corner ..........................................................
SW Corner .........................................................
25°47′57.687″
25°47′57.341″
25°46′31.443″
25°46′31.557″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
080°05′37.225″
080°05′26.466″
080°05′27.069″
080°05′37.868″
W.
W.
W.
W.
LARGE OUTER EASTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 120 ft]
Latitude
NW Corner .........................................................
NE Corner ..........................................................
SE Corner ..........................................................
SW Corner .........................................................
Additionally, in response to
comments received from the Biscayne
Bay Pilots Association and others, the
Coast Guard has proposed minor
changes to the anchorage regulations.
Vessels anchored in the Miami
Anchorage will prohibited from
anchoring with engines off or in a ‘‘dead
ship’’ status and vessels will be required
to seek permission of the Captain of the
Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer
than 72 hours. In addition to the above
changes, we have reordered and
reworded the proposed anchoring
regulations.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Feb 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
25°48′13.841″
25°48′04.617″
25°46′32.712″
25°46′43.770″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This SNPRM has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the relatively minor changes
being proposed to the regulation. The
regulation would ensure 1.5 square
miles of anchorage areas continue to
exist, vessels will be prohibited from
anchoring with engines off or in a ‘‘dead
ship’’ status, and vessels will be
required to seek permission of the
Captain of the Port Miami prior to
anchoring for longer than 72 hours.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
080°04′59.155″ W.
080°04′04.582″W.
080°04′28.387″ W.
080°05′02.360″ W.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to use the anchorage
may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (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
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
11331
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Feb 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
involves reducing an anchorage.
Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2–1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD.
We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110—ANCHORAGES
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through
1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
■
2. Revise § 110.188 to read as follows:
§ 110.188 Atlantic Ocean off Miami and
Miami Beach, Fla.
(a) The anchorage grounds. (1)
Anchorage A. All area of the Atlantic
Ocean, encompassed by a line
connecting the points of the following
North America Datum 83 coordinates:
Latitude
25°47′57.687″
25°47′57.341″
25°46′31.443″
25°46′31.557″
Longitude
N.
N.
N.
N.
080°05′37.225″
080°05′26.466″
080°05′27.069″
080°05′37.868″
W.
W.
W.
W.
(2) Anchorage B. All area of the
Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line
connecting the points of the following
North America Datum 83 coordinates:
Latitude
25°
25°
25°
25°
48′
48′
46′
46′
13.841″
04.617″
32.712″
43.770″
Longitude
N.
N.
N.
N.
080°
080°
080°
080°
04′
04′
04′
05′
59.155″
04.582″
28.387″
02.360″
W.
W.
W.
W.
(b) The regulations. (1) Vessels in the
Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Port of
Miami entrance channel must anchor
only within the anchorage area hereby
defined and established, except in cases
of emergency.
(2) Prior to entering the anchorage
area, all vessels must notify the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port, via the
Biscayne Bay Pilots, on VHF–FM
channel 12 or 16.
(3) All vessels within the designated
anchorage must maintain a 24-hour
bridge watch by a licensed or
credentialed deck officer proficient in
English, monitoring VHF–FM channel
16. This individual must confirm that
the ship’s crew performs frequent
checks on the vessel’s position to ensure
the vessel is not dragging anchor.
(4) Vessels may anchor anywhere
within the designated anchorage area
provided that: Such anchoring does not
interfere with the operations of any
other vessels currently at anchorage;
and all anchor and chain or cable is
positioned in such a manner to preclude
dragging over reefs.
(5) No vessel may anchor in a ‘‘dead
ship’’ status (that is, propulsion or
control unavailable for normal
operations) without the prior approval
of the Captain of the Port. Vessels
experiencing casualties such as main
propulsion, main steering or anchoring
equipment malfunction or which are
planning to perform main propulsion
engine repairs or maintenance, must,
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
11332
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
immediately notify the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port via Coast Guard
Sector Miami on VHF–FM channel 16.
(6) No vessel may anchor within the
designated anchorage for more than 72
hours without the prior approval of the
Captain of the Port. To obtain this
approval, contact the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port via the Biscayne Bay
Pilots, on VHF–FM channel 12 or 16.
(7) The Coast Guard Captain of the
Port may close the anchorage area and
direct vessels to depart the anchorage
during periods of adverse weather or at
other times as deemed necessary in the
interest of port safety or security.
(8) Commercial vessels anchoring
under emergency circumstances outside
the anchorage area must shift to new
positions within the anchorage area
immediately after the emergency ceases.
(9) Whenever the maritime or
commercial interests of the United
States so require, the Captain of the
Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida,
may direct relocation of any vessel
anchored within the anchorage area.
Once directed, such vessel must get
underway at once or signal for a tug,
and must change position as directed.
Dated: February 15, 2017.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017–03405 Filed 2–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
action is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on these navigable waters
during the lowering and securing of the
existing bridge’s center span onto two
barges within the Federal navigation
channel and during the barge’s
outbound transit through Newtown
Creek to the East River tentatively
scheduled during April–May, 2017.
This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from being
in the safety zones unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port New York or a
designated representative. We invite
your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before March 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–1048 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.
DATES:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Jeff
Yunker, Sector New York Waterways
Management Division; telephone 718–
354–4195, email jeff.m.yunker@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
I. Table of Abbreviations
COTP Captain of the Port New York
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NYSDOT New York State Department of
Transportation
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2016–1048]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Kosciuszko Bridge
Construction, Newtown Creek,
Brooklyn and Queens, NY
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish two safety zones on the
navigable waters of Newtown Creek,
NY. The first safety zone is within 500
feet of the two barges and assist vessels
to be used for the removal and loading
of the existing center span from the
Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1. The
second is from approximately 370 yards
south (upstream) of the Kosciuszko
Bridge at mile 2.1 and Newtown Creek’s
confluence with the East River at mile
0.0 during transport of the existing
center span to an offsite location. This
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Feb 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
The Coast Guard issued a Bridge
Permit dated August 21, 2013 approving
the location and construction of the
Kosciuszko Bridge across Newtown
Creek, mile 2.1, between the Boroughs
of Queens and Brooklyn, NY. The bridge
carries Interstate 278, also known as the
Brooklyn-Queens Expressway over
Newtown Creek. On May 23, 2014 the
New York State Department of
Transportation awarded a $554 million
dollar contract to design and build the
replacement bridge. On December 4,
2014 construction began on the
eastbound replacement bridge. All
vehicle traffic is expected to be shifted
onto this new bridge in the spring of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2017. Once traffic has been shifted to
the new bridge the existing bridge will
be demolished and replaced with a new
bridge carrying Interstate 278
westbound traffic over Newtown Creek.
On November 29, 2016, NYSDOT
notified the Coast Guard that it will be
lowering the existing center span from
the Kosciuszko Bridge over Newtown
Creek at mile 2.1 onto two barges within
the Newtown Creek Federal navigation
channel, securing the center span to the
barges for transit, rotating the barges,
and towing the barges through Newtown
Creek to the East River for final upland
disposal. The center span is 259 feet
long, 88 feet 8 inches wide, 46 feet high,
and weighs 2,400 tons. This operation is
dependent on the ongoing construction
of the new eastbound span of the new
Kosciuszko Bridge being built adjacent
to, and south (upstream) of, the existing
bridge and tides during daylight hours.
NYSDOT has identified April 1–24, May
1–23, and May 30–31, 2017 as being
conducive to this operation. The Coast
Guard proposes to make this rule
enforceable through December 31, 2017
as a contingency for any unforeseen
delays to the bridge construction
schedule. The loading and securing of
the bridge span to the two barges is
expected to take a minimum of 24-hours
and the towing time to the East River is
expected to be one hour. The entire
process is expected to last at least 48
hours. Hazards from this operation
include accidental falling debris. The
two barges will block at least 109 feet of
the 130 foot wide Newtown Creek
Federal navigation channel during
loading, securing, and towing
operations. The COTP has determined
that potential hazards associated with
these operations would be a safety
concern for anyone within a 500-foot
radius of the tugs and barges.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within a 500-foot
radius of the two barges and assist
vessels when loading, securing, and
transporting the center span of the
Kosciuszko Bridge through Newtown
Creek before, during, and after the
operations. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP proposes to establish two
safety zones for approximately 48 hours
between April 1 and May 31, 2017. The
safety zone would cover all navigable
waters of Newtown Creek within 500
feet of the two barges and assist vessels
to be used for the removal and loading
of the existing center span from the
Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 and
E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM
22FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11329-11332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03405]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2015-0729]
RIN 1625-AA01
Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Miami Anchorage. The
Miami Anchorage would be divided into two separate anchorage areas.
This action is necessary to reduce potential damage to threatened coral
posed by anchoring vessels. We invite your comments on this
supplemental proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0729 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST2 Benjamin R. Colbert, Sector
Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-
535-4317, email Benjamin.R.Colbert@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
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rule making
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of study
(80 FR 75020) that indicated we were evaluating amending the Miami
Anchorage to divide the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas. The
proposed amendment was designed in coordination with a variety of local
stakeholders, including the South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative
(SEFCRI). Comments provided by these stakeholders, academic research,
and environmental reports raised concerns with the Coast Guard about
the potential for damage to the Florida Reef in the Miami Anchorage.
Examples of the body of work that influenced the Coast Guard in
proposing the amendment may be found in the docket.
In response to the notice of study, the Coast Guard received four
comments. These comments were addressed in an NPRM published on May 10,
2016 (81 FR 28788). In response to the NPRM, we received four
additional comments. Two of the comments, one by the local non-profit
Miami Waterkeeper and the other by a private citizen, supported our
planned modification of the Miami Anchorage. The third and fourth
comments were submitted by the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association.
The Biscayne Bay Pilots Association (pilots) submitted a comment,
through the Port of Miami, on May 17, 2016. This comment requested the
Coast Guard to evaluate changes in the proposed anchorage, including
shifting the outer anchorage west and shifting the southern boundary of
the outer anchorage north. In response to these comments, the Coast
Guard met with the Pilots to discuss the requests and the basis at
which the Coast Guard arrived at the proposed anchorage configuration.
During the meeting, the Coast Guard agreed that shifting the western
boundary of the outer anchorage approximately 300 feet to the west
would provide more room for large anchoring vessels. This change would
not have any effect on coral or hardbottom as the sea floor in that
area is sand.
On June 11, 2016, the Pilots submitted a follow up comment to the
public docket expressing concern that the outer anchorage would expose
vessels to increased current and waves and, they claim, could increase
the chance a vessel would drag anchor. To properly assess environmental
conditions and risk of an anchor drag, the Coast Guard consulted with
the National Weather Service and Maersk Training Center. The National
Weather Service conducted a study, analyzing the previous year's
current in the vicinity of the anchorage. The Weather Service found
that the average current in the area of the outer anchorage over the
previous year was approximately 1.2 knots with current ranging plus or
minus half a knot from the mean current 70 percent of the time. This
information was provided to the Maersk Training Center in Svendborg,
Denmark. Subject matter experts at the Training Center indicated that
the conditions posed no significant hazard and that Masters would have
the training and experience to set an anchor in the deeper waters of
the outer anchorage.
In addition to consulting with experts, the Coast Guard has made
minor changes to the proposed anchorage regulations that would further
ensure the safety of all vessels anchoring in the outer anchorage.
Vessels using the Miami Anchorage would be prohibited from anchoring
with engines off or in a ``dead ship'' status and would be required to
maintain a bridge watch with an English speaking deck officer. Finally,
the Coast Guard will submit amendments to the local Coast Pilot to
provide improved guidance to vessels planning to anchor in the outer
anchorage.
In addition to the discussions with the Biscayne Bay Pilots
Association and SEFCRI discussed above, the Coast Guard consulted with
a number of other stakeholders and subject matter experts in the
development of this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM).
Several biologists from the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern
University supported the proposed changes to the Miami Anchorage. The
Florida State Historical Preservation Officer determined that there
were no known cultural resources
[[Page 11330]]
that would be impacted by the proposed changes and opined that the
proposed changes to the anchorage would have no effect on historic
properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register
for Historic Places. The Habitat Conservation Division of the National
Marine Fisheries Service supports relocating the anchorage as a means
to reduce the continued degradation of coral reef and hardbottom in
this area from anchoring activities. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection strongly supports this rulemaking and
relocating the anchorage as a means to reduce the continued degradation
of coral reef and hardbottom in this area from anchoring activities.
The Coast Guard is committed to continued outreach, consultation,
and communication in order to ensure effective rulemaking and invites
your comments to the proposed rule in this SNPRM. All comments
referenced above, having been received directly and not submitted to
the www.regulations.gov portal, will be added to the docket for public
review.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to amend the Miami
Anchorage by dividing the anchorage into two smaller anchorage areas.
The amended coordinates would establish two anchorages with a combined
area of approximately 1.5 square miles and reduce the total anchorage
area by approximately 3 square miles. The amended anchorage areas would
be established with the following coordinates:
Small Inner Western Anchorage
[Approximate water depths: 45 ft]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW Corner...................... 25[deg]47'57.687'' 080[deg]05'37.225'
N. ' W.
NE Corner...................... 25[deg]47'57.341'' 080[deg]05'26.466'
N. ' W.
SE Corner...................... 25[deg]46'31.443'' 080[deg]05'27.069'
N. ' W.
SW Corner...................... 25[deg]46'31.557'' 080[deg]05'37.868'
N. ' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Outer Eastern Anchorage
[Approximate water depths: 120 ft]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW Corner...................... 25[deg]48'13.841'' 080[deg]04'59.155'
N. ' W.
NE Corner...................... 25[deg]48'04.617'' 080[deg]04'04.582'
N. 'W.
SE Corner...................... 25[deg]46'32.712'' 080[deg]04'28.387'
N. ' W.
SW Corner...................... 25[deg]46'43.770'' 080[deg]05'02.360'
N. ' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in response to comments received from the Biscayne
Bay Pilots Association and others, the Coast Guard has proposed minor
changes to the anchorage regulations. Vessels anchored in the Miami
Anchorage will prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a
``dead ship'' status and vessels will be required to seek permission of
the Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72
hours. In addition to the above changes, we have reordered and reworded
the proposed anchoring regulations.
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 SNPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the relatively
minor changes being proposed to the regulation. The regulation would
ensure 1.5 square miles of anchorage areas continue to exist, vessels
will be prohibited from anchoring with engines off or in a ``dead
ship'' status, and vessels will be required to seek permission of the
Captain of the Port Miami prior to anchoring for longer than 72 hours.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the
anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (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
[[Page 11331]]
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 reducing
an anchorage. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGES
0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 110.188 to read as follows:
Sec. 110.188 Atlantic Ocean off Miami and Miami Beach, Fla.
(a) The anchorage grounds. (1) Anchorage A. All area of the
Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line connecting the points of the
following North America Datum 83 coordinates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25[deg]47'57.687'' N. 080[deg]05'37.225'' W.
25[deg]47'57.341'' N. 080[deg]05'26.466'' W.
25[deg]46'31.443'' N. 080[deg]05'27.069'' W.
25[deg]46'31.557'' N. 080[deg]05'37.868'' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Anchorage B. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a
line connecting the points of the following North America Datum 83
coordinates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25[deg] 48' 13.841'' N. 080[deg] 04' 59.155'' W.
25[deg] 48' 04.617'' N. 080[deg] 04' 04.582'' W.
25[deg] 46' 32.712'' N. 080[deg] 04' 28.387'' W.
25[deg] 46' 43.770'' N. 080[deg] 05' 02.360'' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The regulations. (1) Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean in the
vicinity of Port of Miami entrance channel must anchor only within the
anchorage area hereby defined and established, except in cases of
emergency.
(2) Prior to entering the anchorage area, all vessels must notify
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay Pilots, on
VHF-FM channel 12 or 16.
(3) All vessels within the designated anchorage must maintain a 24-
hour bridge watch by a licensed or credentialed deck officer proficient
in English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual must confirm
that the ship's crew performs frequent checks on the vessel's position
to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.
(4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage
area provided that: Such anchoring does not interfere with the
operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor
and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging
over reefs.
(5) No vessel may anchor in a ``dead ship'' status (that is,
propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the
prior approval of the Captain of the Port. Vessels experiencing
casualties such as main propulsion, main steering or anchoring
equipment malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion
engine repairs or maintenance, must,
[[Page 11332]]
immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via Coast Guard
Sector Miami on VHF-FM channel 16.
(6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more
than 72 hours without the prior approval of the Captain of the Port. To
obtain this approval, contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via
the Biscayne Bay Pilots, on VHF-FM channel 12 or 16.
(7) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage
area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest
of port safety or security.
(8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances
outside the anchorage area must shift to new positions within the
anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.
(9) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United
States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami,
Florida, may direct relocation of any vessel anchored within the
anchorage area. Once directed, such vessel must get underway at once or
signal for a tug, and must change position as directed.
Dated: February 15, 2017.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-03405 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P