Security Zones; Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, 46007-46010 [2017-21230]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 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. Documents mentioned in this notice of proposed rulemaking as being available in the docket, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http:// www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086). Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: 46007 Coast Guard ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2017–0146] RIN 1625–AA87 2. Amend § 110.4 to by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: Security Zones; Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL § 110.4 AGENCY: ■ Penobscott Bay, Maine. * * * * * (d) Passagassawakeag River, Belfast Bay, Belfast, Maine.— (1) Special anchorage area A. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 44°25′23″ N., longitude 068°58′55″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′30″ N., longitude 068°58′48″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′33″ N., longitude 068°59′15″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′39″ N., longitude 068°59′17″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′48″ N., longitude 068°59′57″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′46″ N., longitude 069°00′08″ W.; thence to the point of beginning. (2) Special anchorage area B. All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 44°25′17″ N., longitude 068°59′00″ W.; thence to latitude 44°24′56″ N., longitude 068°59′23″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′20″ N., longitude 068°59′38″ W.; thence to latitude 44°25′44″ N., longitude 069°00′09″ W.; thence to the point of beginning. Note to § 110.4(d): All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83. All anchoring in the areas is under the supervision of the town of Belfast harbormaster or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Belfast, Maine. Mariners using these special anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Dated: September 7, 2017. S.D. Poulin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2017–21231 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ACTION: Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast Guard proposes to expand the geographical boundaries of a permanent security zone at Port Canaveral Harbor. This action is necessary to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within this zone. This rule is intended to prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 3, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2017–0146 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. SUMMARY: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714–7616, email Allan.H.Storm@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: On October 3, 1988, the Coast Guard published a final rule creating a permanent security zone at Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Oct 02, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 46008 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Florida (53 FR 38718) to safeguard the waterfront and military assets along the U.S. Navy’s Poseidon Wharf inside the southeast portion of Port Canaveral Harbor’s Middle Basin. This waterfront area is located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), a U.S. Air Force military installation. Additionally, the northern and northeast portion of the Middle Basin’s waterfront is located almost entirely on CCAFS property, and within this area are piers utilized by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army. CCAFS routinely conducts operations critical to national security. The U.S. Navy requested to amend the current regulation in 33 CFR 165.705(b) to expand the geographical boundaries to include the northern and northeastern portion of the Middle Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor in order to ensure the safety and security of military assets and infrastructure along the entire CCAFS waterfront. The COTP Jacksonville has determined it is necessary to expand the security zone to ensure the security of military assets and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature, while still allowing for safe navigation within the Middle Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor. The proposed expanded geographical boundaries would encompass the entire CCAFS waterfront in the middle basin, with a perpendicular boundary distance from the shore varying from approximately 120 feet to 665 feet. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to expand the geographical boundaries of the current regulated area in 33 CFR 165.705(b) to include the navigable waters of the Port Canaveral Harbor’s Middle Basin. The proposed amendment would redesignate § 165.705(b) to new § 165.705(a)(2) and would read as follows: ‘‘Security Zone B. Middle Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida. All waters within the following coordinates inside the Middle Basin: starting at Point 1 in position 28°24′54.49″ N., 80°36′39.13″ W.; thence south to Point 2 in position 28°24′53.27″ N., 80°36′39.15″ W.; thence east to Point 3 in position 28°24′53.25″ N., 80°36′30.41″ W.; thence south to Point 4 in position 28°24′50.51″ N., 80°36′30.41″ W.; thence southeast to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Oct 02, 2017 Jkt 244001 Point 5 in position 28°24′38.15″ N., 80°36′17.18″ W.; thence east to Point 6 in position 28°24′38.16″ N., 80°36′ 14.92″ W.; thence northeast to Point 7 in position 28°24′39.36″ N., 80°36′13.37″ W.; thence following the land based perimeter boundary to the point of origin.’’ The proposed rule would also make the following amendments: (1) Change the title of the existing regulation in 33 CFR 165.705 from ‘‘Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, Florida’’ to ‘‘Security Zones: Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL’’; (2) add a new paragraph (c) and change the title to ‘‘(c) Regulations’’; (3) redesignate existing paragraph (d) as new paragraph (c)(1) with minor nonsubstantive changes; (4) redesignate existing paragraph (c) as new paragraph (c)(2) with minor non-substantive changes; (5) and add a new paragraph (c)(3), which states: ‘‘Persons desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone may request permission from the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904–714– 7557, or a designated representative via VHF–FM radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or the designated representative.’’ Lastly, we propose to add a new paragraph (b), entitled ‘‘Definitions’’ and propose a new definition for the term ‘‘designated representative.’’ 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, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant. Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor it, or remain within the security zone without authorization from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate in the navigable water adjacent to the proposed security zone and the Federal channel. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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, E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132. Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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, the Coast Guard discusses 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Oct 02, 2017 Jkt 244001 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. The proposed rule involves expanding the geographical boundaries of a permanent security zone that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of the Port Canaveral Harbor’s Middle Basin. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. V. Public Participation and Request for Comments Public participation is essential to effective rulemaking, and the Coast Guard will consider all comments and related materials 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46009 the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086). Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. ■ 2. Revise § 165.705 to read as follows: § 165.705: Security Zones: Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. (a) Regulated areas. (1) Security Zone A. East (Trident) Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida. All waters of the East Basin north of latitude 28°24′36″ N. (2) Security Zone B. Middle Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida. All waters within the following coordinates inside the Middle Basin: Starting at Point 1 in position 28°24′54.49″ N., 80°36′39.13″ W.; thence south to Point 2 in position 28°24′53.27″ N., 80°36′39.15″ W.; thence east to Point 3 in position 28°24′53.25″ N., 80°36′30.41″ W.; thence south to Point 4 in position 28°24′50.51″ N., 80°36′30.41″ W.; thence southeast to Point 5 in position 28°24′38.15″ N., 80°36′17.18″ W.; thence east to Point 6 in position 28°24′38.16″ N., 80°36′14.92″ W.; thence northeast to Point 7 in position 28°24′39.36″ N., 80°36′13.37″ W.; thence following the land based perimeter boundary to the point of origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983. (b) Definitions. The term ‘‘designated representative’’ means personnel E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 46010 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville in the enforcement of the security zone. This includes Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels and federal, state, and local law officers designated by or assisting the COTP Jacksonville in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas and security zones. (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this section. (2) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative. (3) Persons desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone may request permission from the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904–714–7557, or a designated representative via VHF–FM radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or the designated representative. Dated: September 28, 2017. T.C. Wiemers, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville. [FR Doc. 2017–21230 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Overweight Parcels Postal ServiceTM. Request for comments. AGENCY: ACTION: The Postal Service is contemplating amendment of the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), to address the challenges presented by overweight parcels that make their way into the postal network. To aid us in this effort, we are requesting comments from the postal community regarding a variety of suggested actions to resolve or ameliorate this problem. Overweight parcels for the purpose of this notice are defined as anything in excess of 70 pounds or the maximum weight allowed for HAZMAT. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Oct 02, 2017 Jkt 244001 Submit comments on or before November 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to ProductClassification@usps.gov, with a subject line of ‘‘Overweight Parcels.’’ Faxed comments are not accepted. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–4 p.m., by calling 202–268–2906. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions or comments to Lizbeth J. Dobbins by email at lizbeth.j.dobbins@ usps.gov or phone (202) 268–3789. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: The Challenge of Overweight Parcels Overweight parcels should never be accepted for delivery into the postal network. On occasion an item, such as a returns parcel, gets into the Postal network and arrives at a destination plant or post office. It is unsafe to return the item back through the postal network so the receiving office contacts the customer and asks the customer to pick up the package. Sometimes the package is abandoned which creates another safety issue trying to dispose of the overweight item. Part of the challenge is that we do not want overweight items at any time since these items cause numerous safety issues and we strongly discourage mailers from entering them into the postal system. We do not accept them at postal retail counters either and yet, these items still get into the postal system. In order to discourage unsafe practices, the Postal Service is seeking input from the mailing community about how to prevent overweight packages from entering the postal system, and if they get into the postal system, the appropriate postage to be paid. The maximum weight for postage payment is 70 pounds. Suggested Remedies One partial remedy would be to assess additional postage on overweight parcels discovered in the postal network. Thus, if a package weight is 75 pounds, and it arrives at the destination office, with postage calculated at 70 pounds, an additional 5 pounds worth of postage could be collected (70 plus PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 5). Or if the item is 80 pounds, postage would be collected on the additional 10 pounds. This would appear to provide the Postal Service with at least some degree of reimbursement for the extra service provided. As a further deterrent, another possibility would be to charge not only additional postage, but an additional penalty fee (perhaps $20.00). Thus, for an 80 pound parcel the total amount due would include the postage payment for 70 pounds, a postage surcharge for the additional 10 pounds and a $20 penalty. Since HAZMAT parcels have lower maximum weight limits, and overweight HAZMAT parcels may pose additional safety challenges, it would seem appropriate to provide an additional element of deterrence with regard to the mailing of such items. Thus, for example, if a 65-pound HAZMAT package exceeded the maximum weight limit of 25 pounds, the amount due might include not only the postage on the actual weight of the package, but an additional surcharge of $20.00 for each 10 pounds (or fraction thereof) in excess of the applicable weight limit. We look forward to feedback on this important safety issue. Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–21150 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–12–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396; FRL–9968–53– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; 2011 Base Year Inventory for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, as a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, the 2011 base year inventory for the Baltimore, Maryland moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) submitted by the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). In the Final Rules section of this issue SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46007-46010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0146]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force 
Station, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the geographical boundaries 
of a permanent security zone at Port Canaveral Harbor. This action is 
necessary to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the 
surrounding areas within this zone. This rule is intended to prohibit 
persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or 
remaining within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of 
the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated representative. We invite 
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before November 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0146 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 Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector 
Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 
telephone (904) 714-7616, email Allan.H.Storm@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 3, 1988, the Coast Guard published a final rule creating 
a permanent security zone at Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral,

[[Page 46008]]

Florida (53 FR 38718) to safeguard the waterfront and military assets 
along the U.S. Navy's Poseidon Wharf inside the southeast portion of 
Port Canaveral Harbor's Middle Basin. This waterfront area is located 
on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), a U.S. Air Force military 
installation. Additionally, the northern and northeast portion of the 
Middle Basin's waterfront is located almost entirely on CCAFS property, 
and within this area are piers utilized by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. 
Army. CCAFS routinely conducts operations critical to national 
security.
    The U.S. Navy requested to amend the current regulation in 33 CFR 
165.705(b) to expand the geographical boundaries to include the 
northern and northeastern portion of the Middle Basin of Port Canaveral 
Harbor in order to ensure the safety and security of military assets 
and infrastructure along the entire CCAFS waterfront.
    The COTP Jacksonville has determined it is necessary to expand the 
security zone to ensure the security of military assets and waterfront 
facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other 
subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature, while 
still allowing for safe navigation within the Middle Basin of Port 
Canaveral Harbor. The proposed expanded geographical boundaries would 
encompass the entire CCAFS waterfront in the middle basin, with a 
perpendicular boundary distance from the shore varying from 
approximately 120 feet to 665 feet. The purpose of the proposed rule is 
to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding 
areas within the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes this 
rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to expand the geographical boundaries of 
the current regulated area in 33 CFR 165.705(b) to include the 
navigable waters of the Port Canaveral Harbor's Middle Basin. The 
proposed amendment would redesignate Sec.  165.705(b) to new Sec.  
165.705(a)(2) and would read as follows: ``Security Zone B. Middle 
Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 
Brevard County, Florida. All waters within the following coordinates 
inside the Middle Basin: starting at Point 1 in position 
28[deg]24'54.49'' N., 80[deg]36'39.13'' W.; thence south to Point 2 in 
position 28[deg]24'53.27'' N., 80[deg]36'39.15'' W.; thence east to 
Point 3 in position 28[deg]24'53.25'' N., 80[deg]36'30.41'' W.; thence 
south to Point 4 in position 28[deg]24'50.51'' N., 80[deg]36'30.41'' 
W.; thence southeast to Point 5 in position 28[deg]24'38.15'' N., 
80[deg]36'17.18'' W.; thence east to Point 6 in position 
28[deg]24'38.16'' N., 80[deg]36' 14.92'' W.; thence northeast to Point 
7 in position 28[deg]24'39.36'' N., 80[deg]36'13.37'' W.; thence 
following the land based perimeter boundary to the point of origin.''
    The proposed rule would also make the following amendments: (1) 
Change the title of the existing regulation in 33 CFR 165.705 from 
``Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, Florida'' to ``Security Zones: 
Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL''; (2) add 
a new paragraph (c) and change the title to ``(c) Regulations''; (3) 
redesignate existing paragraph (d) as new paragraph (c)(1) with minor 
non-substantive changes; (4) redesignate existing paragraph (c) as new 
paragraph (c)(2) with minor non-substantive changes; (5) and add a new 
paragraph (c)(3), which states: ``Persons desiring to enter, transit 
through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone may request 
permission from the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904-714-7557, or 
a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16. If 
authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such 
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP 
Jacksonville or the designated representative.'' Lastly, we propose to 
add a new paragraph (b), entitled ``Definitions'' and propose a new 
definition for the term ``designated representative.''

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, and 
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory 
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least 
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost 
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a 
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not 
a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled 
``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of 
January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant. 
Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor it, 
or remain within the security zone without authorization from the COTP 
Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate in the 
navigable water adjacent to the proposed security zone and the Federal 
channel.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    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,

[[Page 46009]]

organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions 
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast 
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or 
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast 
Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
E.O. 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, the Coast Guard discusses 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. The proposed rule involves expanding 
the geographical boundaries of a permanent security zone that will 
prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of the Port Canaveral 
Harbor's Middle Basin.
    Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further 
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) 
supporting this determination is available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may 
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 
proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    Public participation is essential to effective rulemaking, and the 
Coast Guard will consider all comments and related materials received 
during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of 
this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket 
number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal 
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal 
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's 
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up 
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a 
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.705 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.705:  Security Zones: Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral 
Air Force Station, FL.

    (a) Regulated areas.
    (1) Security Zone A. East (Trident) Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, 
at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida. All 
waters of the East Basin north of latitude 28[deg]24'36'' N.
    (2) Security Zone B. Middle Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape 
Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida. All waters within 
the following coordinates inside the Middle Basin: Starting at Point 1 
in position 28[deg]24'54.49'' N., 80[deg]36'39.13'' W.; thence south to 
Point 2 in position 28[deg]24'53.27'' N., 80[deg]36'39.15'' W.; thence 
east to Point 3 in position 28[deg]24'53.25'' N., 80[deg]36'30.41'' W.; 
thence south to Point 4 in position 28[deg]24'50.51'' N., 
80[deg]36'30.41'' W.; thence southeast to Point 5 in position 
28[deg]24'38.15'' N., 80[deg]36'17.18'' W.; thence east to Point 6 in 
position 28[deg]24'38.16'' N., 80[deg]36'14.92'' W.; thence northeast 
to Point 7 in position 28[deg]24'39.36'' N., 80[deg]36'13.37'' W.; 
thence following the land based perimeter boundary to the point of 
origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definitions. The term ``designated representative'' means 
personnel

[[Page 46010]]

designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville 
in the enforcement of the security zone. This includes Coast Guard 
Patrol Commanders, Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other 
officers operating Coast Guard vessels and federal, state, and local 
law officers designated by or assisting the COTP Jacksonville in the 
enforcement of regulated navigation areas and security zones.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) The general regulations governing security zones found in 33 
CFR 165.33 apply to the security zones described in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (2) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, 
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the security zone 
unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated 
representative.
    (3) Persons desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or 
remain within the security zone may request permission from the COTP 
Jacksonville by telephone at 904-714-7557, or a designated 
representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16. If authorization is 
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must 
comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or the designated 
representative.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
T.C. Wiemers,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2017-21230 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P