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 http:// 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 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 SNPRM 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 SNPRM 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.

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