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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions. Documents
mentioned in this notice of proposed
rulemaking as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
instructions. Additionally, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
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 https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 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 https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email 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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 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