81 FR 28788 - Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 90 (May 10, 2016)
Coast Guard
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 90 (May 10, 2016)
| Page Range | 28788-28791 | |
| FR Document | 2016-10850 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 28788-28791] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-10850] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the Miami Anchorage. Under the proposal, 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. This proposed revision would update the regulation to clarify the regulatory text and to reflect the establishment of two anchorage areas instead of one area currently in place. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 11, 2016. 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 LT Ruth Sadowitz, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535- 4307, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FR Federal Register NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Sec. Section SEFCRI South East Florida Coral Reef Initiative U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis On December 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Study and request for comments (80 FR 75020) advising that we were evaluating an amendment to the Miami Anchorage (33 CFR 110.188) that would divide the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas. The possible modification of the anchorage area was designed in coordination with local stakeholders in an effort to mitigate damage to coral that may be caused by vessels anchoring. Comments provided by these stakeholders, academic research, and environmental reports addressed a number of options to potentially reduce the likelihood of damage to the Florida Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Those documents, which may be found in the docket, influenced this Coast Guard's selection of the anchorage modification proposed in this notice. In response to the Notice of Study, the Coast Guard received four comments. The first comment was from the non-profit organization, Miami Waterkeeper. Miami Waterkeeper supports the modifications to the anchorage area as those modifications would both better protect threatened species and critical coral habitat and still allow for safe navigation. The second comment came from the National Marine Fisheries Service--Habitat Conservation Division (NFMS). NMFS stated that they support relocating the anchorage area in order to reduce continued degradation of the coral reef and, ultimately, allow for restoration of the reef. The third comment was from NOAA. On December 1, 2015, NOAA submitted a comment to verify the coordinates of the possible amended anchorage area listed in the notice. The coordinates for the location of the amended anchorage areas were published incorrectly. The latitudinal coordinates were inadvertently published in the longitude column and vice versa. However, the numerical coordinates published in the chart was correct. The error has been [[Page 28789]] corrected in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The final comment came from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). FDEP commented that the Coast Guard erred when it stated the genesis for the division of the anchorages was a SEFCRI report. While the SEFCRI report was instrumental to the evaluation of the current Miami Anchorage, the two anchorage solution was originally discussed in an academic paper authored by Lauren Waters, a FDEP employee. This paper can be found in the docket. The comments received in response to the notice were positive or addressed non-substantive errors in the notice. The Coast Guard is therefore proceeding with a proposal to revise the Miami Anchorage under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to revise the Miami Anchorage by dividing the anchorage into two separate anchorage areas and clarifying text throughout the regulation. This revision is intended to reduce threats to protected coral without compromising the ability of vessels to anchor safely. Although the two separate anchorages encompass a smaller area, they allow for the facilitation of safe anchorage of both shallow and deep draft vessels. The amended coordinates would establish two anchorages with a combined area of approximately 1.5 square miles thereby reducing the total anchorage area by approximately 3 square nautical miles. The amended anchorage areas would be established with the following coordinates: Small Western Anchorage [Approximate water depths: 45 ft] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Latitude Longitude ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NW Corner............................ 25[deg]47'57.687'' N......... 080[deg]05'37.225'' W. NE Corner............................ 25[deg]47'57.341'' N......... 080[deg]05'26.466'' W. SE Corner............................ 25[deg]46'31.443'' N......... 080[deg]05'27.069'' W. SW Corner............................ 25[deg]46'31.557'' N......... 080[deg]05'37.868'' W. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Large Eastern Anchorage [Approximate water depths: 120 ft] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Latitude Longitude ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NW Corner............................ 25[deg]48'13.841'' N......... 080[deg]04'59.155'' W. NE Corner............................ 25[deg]48'04.617'' N......... 080[deg]04'04.582'' W. SE Corner............................ 25[deg]46'32.712'' N......... 080[deg]04'28.387'' W. SW Corner............................ 25[deg]46'32.767'' N......... 080[deg]04'59.775'' W. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional minor revisions to the Miami Anchorage regulation are also proposed to pluralize the anchorage grounds that would be established and to clarify existing regulation text. 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 NPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This regulatory action determination is based on relatively minor changes to the existing Miami Anchorage regulation. This proposed regulation would create two separate anchorage areas with a combined total of 1.5 square miles of anchorage; while this does reduce the total anchorage area, the ability of shallow and deep draft vessels to safely anchor should not be impacted. This proposed regulation would clarify other regulatory text, but no other substantive changes are proposed. 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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this [[Page 28790]] 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 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 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, FL. (a) The anchorage grounds. (1) Anchorage A. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line beginning at 25[deg]47'57.687'' N., 080[deg]05'37.225'' W., thence east to 25[deg]47'57.341'' N., 080[deg]05'26.466'' W., thence south to 25[deg]46'31.443'' N., 080[deg]05'27.069'' W., thence west to 25[deg]46'31.557'' N., 080[deg]05'37.868'' W., thence back to origin. (2) Anchorage B. All area of the Atlantic Ocean, encompassed by a line beginning at 25[deg]48'13.841'' N., 080[deg]04'59.155'' W., thence east to 25[deg]48'04.617'' N., 080[deg]04'04.582'' W., thence south to 25[deg]46'32.712'' N., 080[deg]04'28.387'' W., thence west to 25[deg]46'32.767'' N., 080[deg]04'59.775'' W., thence back to origin. (b) The rules and regulations. (1) Except in cases of emergency, no vessel shall be anchored in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the entrances to the approach channels leading to the cities of Miami Beach and Miami, Fl., outside of the anchorage grounds defined and established. (2) Any vessel anchoring under circumstances of emergency outside of either anchorage ground shall be shifted to a new berth within the grounds immediately after the emergency ceases. (3) All vessels seeking to anchor shall lie at anchor with as short a cable as conditions will permit. (4) A vessel, upon being notified to move into the anchorage limits or to shift its position on an anchorage ground, must get underway at once or signal for a tug and must change position as directed with reasonable promptness. (5) Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United States so require, the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Miami, Florida, is hereby empowered to shift the position of any vessel anchored on an anchorage ground or outside thereof, or any vessel moored or anchored so as to impede or obstruct vessel movements or obstruct or interfere with range lights. (6) Vessels carrying explosives shall be anchored only under a written permit issued by the Captain of the Port and at such point as she or he may direct. (7) Vessels carrying explosives shall be at all times under the charge or command of a competent person and must display by day a red flag, of not less than 16 square feet, at the masthead or not less than 10 feet above the upper [[Page 28791]] deck if the vessel has no mast; at night a red light shall be displayed in the positions specified for the red flag. (8) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as relieving the owner or person in charge of any vessel from penalties for obstructing navigation, or for obstructing or interfering with range lights, or for not complying with navigation laws in regard to lights, fog signals, or other aids to navigation, or for otherwise violating the law. (9) All vessels desiring to use an Anchorage must notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay Pilots on VHF-FM Channel 12 or 16. (10) All vessels anchored within the anchorage grounds shall maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by an English speaking licensed or credentialed deck officer monitoring VHF-FM Channel 16. This individual shall perform frequent checks of the vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor. (11) Vessels experiencing casualties such as a main propulsion, main steering, or anchoring equipment malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, shall immediately notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via the Coast Guard Sector Miami on VHF-FM Channel 16. (12) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage grounds and direct vessels to depart an anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety. Dated: May 4, 2016. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016-10850 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
![28788 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
addition to its section 6038A reporting and under subpart E of subchapter J of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
record maintenance described in Example 1 chapter 1 of the Code.
of this paragraph (b)(9). I. Table of Abbreviations
* * * * *
(d) * * * In the case of an entity that (e) * * * CFR Code of Federal Regulations
is treated as a reporting corporation by (9) Reporting required under section DHS Department of Homeland Security
6038A. Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this FDEP Florida Department of Environmental
reason of § 301.7701–2(c)(2)(vi) of this Protection
chapter, Form 5472 must be filed at section applies to taxable years ending
FR Federal Register
such time and in such manner as the on or after the date that is 12 months NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
Commissioner may prescribe in forms or after the date of publication of the NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
instructions. Treasury decision adopting these rules § Section
* * * * * as final regulations in the Federal SEFCRI South East Florida Coral Reef
Register. Initiative
PART 301—PROCEDURE AND U.S.C. United States Code
John Dalrymple,
ADMINISTRATION II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement. Basis
■ Par. 4. The authority citation for part
301 continues in part to read as follows: [FR Doc. 2016–10852 Filed 5–6–16; 8:45 am] On December 1, 2015, the Coast
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Guard published a Notice of Study and
request for comments (80 FR 75020)
■ Par. 5. Section 301.7701–2 is advising that we were evaluating an
amended by revising the last sentence of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND amendment to the Miami Anchorage (33
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs SECURITY CFR 110.188) that would divide the
(c)(2)(vi) and (e)(9) to read as follows: anchorage into two separate anchorage
Coast Guard areas. The possible modification of the
§ 301.7701–2 Business entities;
definitions. anchorage area was designed in
33 CFR Part 110 coordination with local stakeholders in
(a) * * * But see paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0729] an effort to mitigate damage to coral that
through (vi) of this section for special
may be caused by vessels anchoring.
rules that apply to an eligible entity that RIN 1625–AA01 Comments provided by these
is otherwise disregarded as an entity
Port of Miami Anchorage Area; Atlantic stakeholders, academic research, and
separate from its owner.
Ocean, Miami Beach, FL environmental reports addressed a
* * * * * number of options to potentially reduce
(c) * * * AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. the likelihood of damage to the Florida
(2) * * * ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Reef in the Miami Anchorage. Those
(vi) Special rule for reporting under documents, which may be found in the
section 6038A—(A) In general. An SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to docket, influenced this Coast Guard’s
entity that is disregarded as separate revise the Miami Anchorage. Under the selection of the anchorage modification
from its owner for any purpose under proposal, the Miami Anchorage would proposed in this notice.
this section is treated as an entity be divided into two separate anchorage In response to the Notice of Study, the
separate from its owner and classified as areas. This action is necessary to reduce Coast Guard received four comments.
a corporation for purposes of section potential damage to threatened coral The first comment was from the non-
6038A if— posed by anchoring vessels. This profit organization, Miami Waterkeeper.
(1) The entity is a domestic entity; proposed revision would update the Miami Waterkeeper supports the
and regulation to clarify the regulatory text modifications to the anchorage area as
(2) One foreign person has direct or and to reflect the establishment of two those modifications would both better
indirect sole ownership of the entity. anchorage areas instead of one area protect threatened species and critical
(B) Definitions—(1) Indirect sole currently in place. We invite your coral habitat and still allow for safe
ownership. For purposes of paragraph comments on this proposed rulemaking. navigation.
(c)(2)(vi)(A)(2) of this section, indirect DATES: Comments and related material The second comment came from the
sole ownership means ownership by must be received by the Coast Guard on National Marine Fisheries Service—
one person entirely through one or more or before July 11, 2016. Habitat Conservation Division (NFMS).
entities disregarded as separate from ADDRESSES: You may submit comments NMFS stated that they support
their owners or through grantor trusts, identified by docket number USCG– relocating the anchorage area in order to
regardless of whether any such 2015–0729 using the Federal reduce continued degradation of the
disregarded entity or grantor trust is eRulemaking Portal at http:// coral reef and, ultimately, allow for
domestic or foreign. www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public restoration of the reef.
(2) Entity disregarded as separate Participation and Request for The third comment was from NOAA.
from its owner. For purposes of this Comments’’ portion of the On December 1, 2015, NOAA submitted
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(B), an entity SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for a comment to verify the coordinates of
disregarded as separate from its owner further instructions on submitting the possible amended anchorage area
is an entity described in paragraph comments. listed in the notice. The coordinates for
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(c)(2)(i) of this section, without regard to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If the location of the amended anchorage
the exceptions provided in paragraphs you have questions about this proposed areas were published incorrectly. The
(c)(2)(ii) though (vi) of this section. rulemaking, call or email LT Ruth latitudinal coordinates were
(3) Grantor trust. For purposes of this Sadowitz, Sector Miami Waterways inadvertently published in the longitude
paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(B), a grantor trust is Management Division, U.S. Coast column and vice versa. However, the
any portion of a trust that is treated as Guard; telephone 305–535–4307, email numerical coordinates published in the
owned by the grantor or another person Ruth.A.Sadowitz@uscg.mil. chart was correct. The error has been
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_28878/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28789
corrected in this notice of proposed The comments received in response to regulation. This revision is intended to
rulemaking (NPRM). the notice were positive or addressed reduce threats to protected coral
The final comment came from Florida non-substantive errors in the notice. The without compromising the ability of
Department of Environmental Protection Coast Guard is therefore proceeding vessels to anchor safely. Although the
(FDEP). FDEP commented that the Coast with a proposal to revise the Miami two separate anchorages encompass a
Anchorage under the authority of 33 smaller area, they allow for the
Guard erred when it stated the genesis
U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33 facilitation of safe anchorage of both
for the division of the anchorages was
CFR 1.05–1 and Department of shallow and deep draft vessels. The
a SEFCRI report. While the SEFCRI Homeland Security Delegation No. amended coordinates would establish
report was instrumental to the 0170.1. two anchorages with a combined area of
evaluation of the current Miami approximately 1.5 square miles thereby
Anchorage, the two anchorage solution III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
reducing the total anchorage area by
was originally discussed in an academic The Coast Guard proposes to revise approximately 3 square nautical miles.
paper authored by Lauren Waters, a the Miami Anchorage by dividing the The amended anchorage areas would be
FDEP employee. This paper can be anchorage into two separate anchorage established with the following
found in the docket. areas and clarifying text throughout the coordinates:
SMALL WESTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 45 ft]
Latitude Longitude
NW Corner ........................................................................ 25°47′57.687″ N .............................................................. 080°05′37.225″ W.
NE Corner ......................................................................... 25°47′57.341″ N .............................................................. 080°05′26.466″ W.
SE Corner ......................................................................... 25°46′31.443″ N .............................................................. 080°05′27.069″ W.
SW Corner ........................................................................ 25°46′31.557″ N .............................................................. 080°05′37.868″ W.
LARGE EASTERN ANCHORAGE
[Approximate water depths: 120 ft]
Latitude Longitude
NW Corner ........................................................................ 25°48′13.841″ N .............................................................. 080°04′59.155″ W.
NE Corner ......................................................................... 25°48′04.617″ N .............................................................. 080°04′04.582″ W.
SE Corner ......................................................................... 25°46′32.712″ N .............................................................. 080°04′28.387″ W.
SW Corner ........................................................................ 25°46′32.767″ N .............................................................. 080°04′59.775″ W.
Additional minor revisions to the This regulatory action determination While some owners or operators of
Miami Anchorage regulation are also is based on relatively minor changes to vessels intending to use the anchorage
proposed to pluralize the anchorage the existing Miami Anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons
grounds that would be established and regulation. This proposed regulation stated in section IV.A above, this
to clarify existing regulation text. would create two separate anchorage proposed rule would not have a
IV. Regulatory Analyses areas with a combined total of 1.5 significant economic impact on any
square miles of anchorage; while this vessel owner or operator.
We developed this proposed rule after does reduce the total anchorage area, the If you think that your business,
considering numerous statutes and ability of shallow and deep draft vessels organization, or governmental
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. to safely anchor should not be impacted. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
Below we summarize our analyses This proposed regulation would clarify and that this rule would have a
based on a number of these statutes and other regulatory text, but no other significant economic impact on it,
Executive orders. substantive changes are proposed. please submit a comment (see
A. Regulatory Planning and Review ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
B. Impact on Small Entities
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 qualifies and how and to what degree
direct agencies to assess the costs and The Regulatory Flexibility Act of this rule would economically affect it.
benefits of available regulatory 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Under section 213(a) of the Small
alternatives and, if regulation is requires Federal agencies to consider Business Regulatory Enforcement
necessary, to select regulatory the potential impact of regulations on Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
approaches that maximize net benefits. small entities during rulemaking. The 121), we want to assist small entities in
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small understanding this proposed rule. If the
importance of quantifying both costs businesses, not-for-profit organizations rule would affect your small business,
and benefits, of reducing costs, of that are independently owned and organization, or governmental
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
harmonizing rules, and of promoting operated and are not dominant in their jurisdiction and you have questions
flexibility. This NPRM has not been fields, and governmental jurisdictions concerning its provisions or options for
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory with populations of less than 50,000. compliance, please contact the person
action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been 605(b) that this proposed rule would not CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will
reviewed by the Office of Management have a significant economic impact on not retaliate against small entities that
and Budget. a substantial number of small entities. question or complain about this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_28878/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28791
deck if the vessel has no mast; at night Smyrna Beach, FL. This proposed rule Smyrna Beach, FL shall open on signal,
a red light shall be displayed in the would change the existing 20 minute except that from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.,
positions specified for the red flag. opening schedule to a 30 minute each day of the week, the draw need
(8) Nothing in this paragraph shall be opening schedule between 7 a.m. and 7 only open on the hour, twenty minutes
construed as relieving the owner or p.m. This modification would provide past the hour and forty minutes past the
person in charge of any vessel from some relief to vehicle traffic congestion hour. The Coast Guard proposes this
penalties for obstructing navigation, or and would have little to no effect on rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C.
for obstructing or interfering with range navigation. The proposed rule will also 499.
lights, or for not complying with add the local bridge name to the III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
navigation laws in regard to lights, fog regulation published in the Code of
signals, or other aids to navigation, or Federal Regulations, George Musson/ The Coast Guard proposes to amend
for otherwise violating the law. Coronado Beach (SR44). We invite your 33 CFR 117.261, paragraph h, regarding
(9) All vessels desiring to use an comments on this proposed rulemaking. the operation of the George Musson/
Anchorage must notify the Coast Guard DATES: Comments and related material
Coronado Beach (SR 44) Bridge, Atlantic
Captain of the Port, via the Biscayne Bay must reach the Coast Guard on or before Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New
Pilots on VHF–FM Channel 12 or 16. July 11, 2016. Smyrna Beach, FL. The proposed
(10) All vessels anchored within the regulation would allow the bridge to
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
anchorage grounds shall maintain a 24– open twice an hour rather than three
identified by docket number USCG– times an hour to reduce vehicle traffic
hour bridge watch by an English
2016–0205 using Federal eRulemaking backups. In addition to changing the
speaking licensed or credentialed deck
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. operating schedule, this regulation
officer monitoring VHF–FM Channel 16.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and would add the local name of this bridge,
This individual shall perform frequent
Request for Comments’’ portion of the George Musson, to the CFR. This
checks of the vessel’s position to ensure
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
the vessel is not dragging anchor. regulation change will not have a
below for instructions on submitting significant impact on navigation in this
(11) Vessels experiencing casualties
comments. area.
such as a main propulsion, main
steering, or anchoring equipment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If As per, 33 CFR 117.261(a) General:
malfunction or which are planning to you have questions on this proposed Public vessels of the United States and
perform main propulsion engine repairs rule, call or email LT Allan Storm with tugs with tows must be passed through
or maintenance, shall immediately the Coast Guard; telephone 904–714– the drawspan of each drawbridge listed
notify the Coast Guard Captain of the 7616, email allan.h.storm@uscg.mil. in this section at anytime. These
Port via the Coast Guard Sector Miami SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proposed changes will meet the
on VHF–FM Channel 16. reasonable needs of vessel traffic
(12) The Coast Guard Captain of the I. Table of Abbreviations passing through the Bridge while taking
Port may close the anchorage grounds CFR Code of Federal Regulations into account the reasonable needs of
and direct vessels to depart an DHS Department of Homeland Security other modes of transportation. Vessels
anchorage during periods of adverse FR Federal Register not requiring an opening may pass at
weather or at other times as deemed NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking any time.
§ Section
necessary in the interest of port safety. IV. Regulatory Analyses
U.S.C. United States Code
Dated: May 4, 2016. We developed this proposed rule after
S.A. Buschman,
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis considering numerous statutes and
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Seventh Coast Guard District. On April 25, 2015, the City of New Below we summarize our analyses
[FR Doc. 2016–10850 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] Smyrna Beach requested that the Coast based on these statutes and Executive
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Guard review the current operating Orders and we also discuss First
schedule for the Coronado Beach Amendment rights of protestors.
(George Musson) Bridge (SR 44) to
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND determine whether a change could be A. Regulatory Planning and Review
SECURITY made to improve vehicle traffic flow in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
the area. The bridge owner, Florida direct agencies to assess the costs and
Coast Guard Department of Transportation, was also benefits of available regulatory
consulted on this issue and it concurred alternatives and, if regulation is
33 CFR Part 117 with the recommendation to change the necessary, to select regulatory
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0205] current schedule requiring an opening approaches that maximize net benefits.
every 20 minutes to a schedule Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
RIN 1625–AA09 requiring an opening every 30 minutes importance of quantifying both costs
all days of the week. and benefits, of reducing costs, of
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; The George Musson Bridge across the harmonizing rules, and of promoting
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile flexibility. This NPRM has not been
Smyrna Beach, FL 845, at New Smyrna Beach, FL is a designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
double leaf bascule bridge. It has a
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. action,’’ under Executive Order 12866.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. vertical clearance of 24 feet in the Accordingly, the NPRM has not been
closed position at mean high water and reviewed by the Office of Management
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. and Budget.
modify the operating schedule that Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR This regulatory action determination
governs the Coronado Beach (George 117.261(h), the Coronado Beach bridge is based on the limited impact that it is
Musson) Bridge across the Atlantic (SR 44), also known as the George anticipated to have on vessel traffic on
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 845, at New Musson Bridge, at mile 845 at New the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_28878/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-05-10 05:18:33
Document Modified: 2016-05-10 05:18:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 11, 2016. | |
| Contact | If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Ruth Sadowitz, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535- 4307, email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 28788 | |
| RIN Number | 1625-AA01 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR