82 FR 20859 - Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FL

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 85 (May 4, 2017)

Page Range		20859-20861
FR Document		2017-09036
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its anchorage regulations to establish a new offshore anchorage area approximately 7 nautical miles northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida. Currently, there is not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean- going vessels arriving at the Port of Jacksonville. Establishing an adequate and dedicated offshore anchorage will alleviate hazardous conditions with vessels anchoring in the common approaches to the St. Johns River. This action is necessary to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation for all vessels transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20859-20861]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09036]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0897]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its anchorage regulations to 
establish a new offshore anchorage area approximately 7 nautical miles 
northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida. Currently, there is 
not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean-
going vessels arriving at the Port of Jacksonville. Establishing an 
adequate and dedicated offshore anchorage will alleviate hazardous 
conditions with vessels anchoring in the common approaches to the St. 
Johns River. This action is necessary to ensure the safety and 
efficiency of navigation for all vessels transiting in and out of the 
Port of Jacksonville. We invite your comments on this proposed 
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before June 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0897 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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard, with the recommendation from the St. Johns Bar 
Pilot Association (SJBPA) and Jacksonville Marine Transportation 
Exchange (JMTX) Harbor Safety Committee, developed the dedicated 
offshore anchorage area approximately 7 nautical miles northeast of the 
St. Johns River inlet, Florida proposed in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM).
    The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to improve the 
navigational safety, traffic management and port security for the Port 
of Jacksonville.
    Currently, there is not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage 
for commercial ocean-going vessels arriving at the port of 
Jacksonville. Vessels have routinely been recommended to anchor 1\1/2\ 
nautical miles northeast of the ``STJ'' entrance buoy. However, many 
mariners are hesitant to anchor in this location due to its proximity 
to the charted danger area, which is related to unexploded ordinances 
on the sea floor. Without a designated charted anchorage area, many 
vessels end up drifting or anchoring in the common approaches to the 
St. Johns River, creating a potential hazardous condition for all 
vessels transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. These 
conditions may worsen with the expected growth in the number of 
vessels, and the likelihood of large vessels calling on Jacksonville in 
the near future.
    In 2013, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville hosted a meeting to 
discuss the establishment of a commercial anchorage off the entrance to 
the St. Johns River. Members from SJBPA, JMTX, Jacksonville Port 
Authority, Florida Docking Masters, Army Corp of Engineers, NOAA, local 
tug companies, and the local Shrimp Producers Association all provided 
input to the proposed anchorage outlined in this notice. Additionally, 
in April 2016, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville conducted a focused 
Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) study for the proposed 
offshore anchorage area. No additional findings were found and no 
comments of concern were received from this WAMS study.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 
U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its anchorage regulations to 
establish an offshore anchorage area approximately seven nautical miles 
northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida. There currently is not 
a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean-going 
vessels arriving at the port of Jacksonville. This action is necessary 
to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation for all vessels 
transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. The anchorage area's 
dimensions are approximately three nautical miles by two nautical miles 
and would encompass approximately six square nautical miles.
    The anchorage boundaries are described, using precise coordinates, 
in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this notice.

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 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the

[[Page 20860]]

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).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that 
there will be minimal impact to routine navigation because the proposed 
anchorage area would not restrict traffic as it is located well outside 
of the established navigation channel. Vessels would still be able to 
maneuver in, around, and through the anchorage.

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 
anchorage area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that 
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action 
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If 
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or 
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves 
establishing one offshore anchorage ground; the overall size of the 
anchorage area will be approximately 6 square nautical miles. The 
anchorage ground is not designated a critical habitat or special 
management area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from 
further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist 
and Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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.

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.

[[Page 20861]]

    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--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

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. Add Sec.  110.184 to read as follows:


Sec.  110.184  Atlantic Ocean, Offshore Jacksonville, FL.

    (a) The anchorage ground. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean 
encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in 
position 30[deg]29.08' N., 81[deg]18.21' W.; thence south to Point 2 in 
position 30[deg]26.06' N., 81[deg]18.21' W.; thence east to Point 3 in 
position 30[deg]26.06' N., 81[deg]16.05' W.; thence north to Point 4 in 
position 30[deg]29.08' N., 81[deg]16.05' W.; thence west back to 
origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) The regulations. (1) Commercial vessels in the Atlantic Ocean 
in the vicinity of the Port of Jacksonville must anchor only within the 
anchorage area hereby defined and established, except in cases of 
emergency.
    (2) Before entering the anchorage area, all vessels must notify the 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 
22A.
    (3) All vessels within the designated anchorage area must maintain 
a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed or credentialed deck officer 
proficient in English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual 
must confirm that the ship's crew performs frequent checks of the 
vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.
    (4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage 
area provided that: Such anchoring does not interfere with the 
operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor 
and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging.
    (5) No vessel may anchor in a ``dead ship'' status (that is, 
propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the 
prior approval of the COTP Jacksonville. 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, must immediately notify the COTP 
Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 22A.
    (6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more 
than 72 hours without the prior approval of the COTP Jacksonville. To 
obtain this approval, contact the COTP Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 
22A.
    (7) The COTP Jacksonville may close the anchorage area and direct 
vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at 
other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety or 
security.
    (8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances 
outside the anchorage area must shift to new positions within the 
anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.

    Dated: April 27, 2017.
S.A. Buschman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-09036 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 85 / Thursday, May 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules 20859

10. FDA Memorandum from J. Smith, the St. Johns River. This action is hazardous condition for all vessels
September 15, 2005. necessary to ensure the safety and transiting in and out of the Port of
11. FDA Memorandum from R. Costantino to efficiency of navigation for all vessels Jacksonville. These conditions may
P. Honigfort, March 31, 2017. transiting in and out of the Port of worsen with the expected growth in the
12. FDA. ‘‘Draft Guidance for Industry:
Preparation of Food Contact
Jacksonville. We invite your comments number of vessels, and the likelihood of
Notifications for Food Contact on this proposed rulemaking. large vessels calling on Jacksonville in
Substances in Contact with Infant DATES: Comments and related material the near future.
Formula and/or Human Milk.’’ December must be received by the Coast Guard on In 2013, Coast Guard Sector
2016. Available at https://www.fda.gov/ or before June 5, 2017. Jacksonville hosted a meeting to discuss
Food/GuidanceRegulation/
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
the establishment of a commercial
GuidanceDocuments anchorage off the entrance to the St.
RegulatoryInformation/ucm528215.htm. identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0897 using the Federal Johns River. Members from SJBPA,
13. FDA. ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Preparation JMTX, Jacksonville Port Authority,
of Food Contact Notifications for Food eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Florida Docking Masters, Army Corp of
Contact Substances: Toxicology
Recommendations.’’ Available at https:// Participation and Request for Engineers, NOAA, local tug companies,
www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ Comments’’ portion of the and the local Shrimp Producers
GuidanceDocuments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
Association all provided input to the
RegulatoryInformation/ucm081825.htm. further instructions on submitting proposed anchorage outlined in this
14. Lumen A., D.R. Mattie, and J.W. Fisher.
comments. notice. Additionally, in April 2016,
‘‘Evaluation of Perturbations in Serum Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville
Thyroid Hormones During Human FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If conducted a focused Waterways
Pregnancy Due to Dietary Iodide and you have questions about this proposed Analysis and Management System
Perchlorate Exposure Using a rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant (WAMS) study for the proposed offshore
Biologically Based Dose-Response Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville,
Model.’’ Toxicological Sciences. anchorage area. No additional findings
Waterways Management Division, U.S. were found and no comments of
133(2):320–41, 2013.
15. FDA Memorandum from G. Patton, P. Coast Guard; telephone 904–714–7616, concern were received from this WAMS
Honigfort, and J. Aungst to email Allan.H.Storm@uscg.mil. study.
Administrative File, March 31, 2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard proposes this
16. Clapp, S., ‘‘FDA Chemist Says Agency’s rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C.
Food Contact Advice is ‘Showing Its I. Table of Abbreviations 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR
Age.’ ’’ Food Chemicals News. 53(30): CFR Code of Federal Regulations 1.05–1; Department of Homeland
11–12, 2011. DHS Department of Homeland Security Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Dated: April 28, 2017. FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Anna K. Abram,
§ Section The Coast Guard proposes to amend
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, U.S.C. United States Code
Legislation, and Analysis. its anchorage regulations to establish an
[FR Doc. 2017–08987 Filed 5–3–17; 8:45 am] II. Background, Purpose, and Legal offshore anchorage area approximately
Basis seven nautical miles northeast of the St.
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Johns River inlet, Florida. There
The Coast Guard, with the currently is not a dedicated deep draft
recommendation from the St. Johns Bar offshore anchorage for commercial
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Pilot Association (SJBPA) and ocean-going vessels arriving at the port
SECURITY Jacksonville Marine Transportation of Jacksonville. This action is necessary
Exchange (JMTX) Harbor Safety to ensure the safety and efficiency of
Coast Guard Committee, developed the dedicated navigation for all vessels transiting in
offshore anchorage area approximately 7 and out of the Port of Jacksonville. The
33 CFR Part 110 nautical miles northeast of the St. Johns anchorage area’s dimensions are
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0897] River inlet, Florida proposed in this approximately three nautical miles by
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). two nautical miles and would
RIN 1625–AA01 The purpose of this proposed encompass approximately six square
rulemaking is to improve the nautical miles.
Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean,
navigational safety, traffic management The anchorage boundaries are
Jacksonville, FL
and port security for the Port of described, using precise coordinates, in
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Jacksonville. the proposed regulatory text at the end
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Currently, there is not a dedicated of this notice.
deep draft offshore anchorage for
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to commercial ocean-going vessels arriving IV. Regulatory Analyses
amend its anchorage regulations to at the port of Jacksonville. Vessels have We developed this proposed rule after
establish a new offshore anchorage area routinely been recommended to anchor considering numerous statutes and
approximately 7 nautical miles 11⁄2 nautical miles northeast of the Executive orders related to rulemaking.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS

northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, ‘‘STJ’’ entrance buoy. However, many Below we summarize our analyses
Florida. Currently, there is not a mariners are hesitant to anchor in this based on a number of these statutes and
dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage location due to its proximity to the Executive Orders.
for commercial ocean-going vessels charted danger area, which is related to
arriving at the Port of Jacksonville. unexploded ordinances on the sea floor. A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Establishing an adequate and dedicated Without a designated charted anchorage Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
offshore anchorage will alleviate area, many vessels end up drifting or Planning and Review) and 13563
hazardous conditions with vessels anchoring in the common approaches to (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
anchoring in the common approaches to the St. Johns River, creating a potential Review) direct agencies to assess the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:03 May 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM 04MYP1
20860 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 85 / Thursday, May 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules

costs and benefits of available regulatory If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In
alternatives and, if regulation is organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions
necessary, to select regulatory jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a
approaches that maximize net benefits and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the
(including potential economic, significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of
environmental, public health and safety please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
effects, distributive impacts, and ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this
equity). Executive Order 13563 qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such
emphasizes the importance of this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the
quantifying costs and benefits, reducing Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble.
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in F. Environment
(Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule
reduce regulation and control regulatory rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland
costs and provides that ‘‘for every one organization, or governmental Security Management Directive 023–01
new regulation issued, at least two prior jurisdiction and you have questions and Commandant Instruction
regulations be identified for elimination, concerning its provisions or options for M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
and that the cost of planned regulations compliance, please contact the person Guard in complying with the National
be prudently managed and controlled listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
through a budgeting process.’’ CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
The Office of Management and Budget not retaliate against small entities that preliminary determination that this
(OMB) has not designated this rule a question or complain about this action is one of a category of actions that
significant regulatory action under proposed rule or any policy or action of do not individually or cumulatively
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. the Coast Guard. have a significant effect on the human
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. C. Collection of Information environment. This proposed rule
As this rule is not a significant involves establishing one offshore
regulatory action, this rule is exempt This proposed rule would not call for anchorage ground; the overall size of the
from the requirements of Executive a new collection of information under anchorage area will be approximately 6
Order 13771. See the OMB the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 square nautical miles. The anchorage
Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). ground is not designated a critical
Implementing Section 2 of the Executive D. Federalism and Indian Tribal habitat or special management area.
Order of January 30, 2017 titled Governments Normally such actions are categorically
‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling A rule has implications for federalism excluded from further review under
Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). under Executive Order 13132, paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2–1 of
This regulatory action determination Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A
is based on the fact that there will be effect on the States, on the relationship preliminary environmental analysis
minimal impact to routine navigation between the national government and checklist and Categorical Exclusion
because the proposed anchorage area the States, or on the distribution of Determination are available in the
would not restrict traffic as it is located power and responsibilities among the docket where indicated under
well outside of the established ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
various levels of government. We have
navigation channel. Vessels would still analyzed this proposed rule under that information that may lead to the
be able to maneuver in, around, and Order and have determined that it is discovery of a significant environmental
through the anchorage. consistent with the fundamental impact from this proposed rule.
B. Impact on Small Entities federalism principles and preemption V. Public Participation and Request for
requirements described in Executive Comments
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of Order 13132.
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Also, this proposed rule does not have We view public participation as
requires Federal agencies to consider tribal implications under Executive essential to effective rulemaking, and
the potential impact of regulations on Order 13175, Consultation and will consider all comments and material
small entities during rulemaking. The Coordination with Indian Tribal received during the comment period.
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Governments, because it would not have Your comment can help shape the
businesses, not-for-profit organizations a substantial direct effect on one or outcome of this rulemaking. If you
that are independently owned and more Indian tribes, on the relationship submit a comment, please include the
operated and are not dominant in their between the Federal Government and docket number for this rulemaking,
fields, and governmental jurisdictions Indian tribes, or on the distribution of indicate the specific section of this
with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities between the document to which each comment
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Federal Government and Indian tribes. applies, and provide a reason for each
605(b) that this proposed rule would not If you believe this proposed rule has suggestion or recommendation.
have a significant economic impact on
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS

implications for federalism or Indian We encourage you to submit
a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please contact the person listed comments through the Federal
While some owners or operators of in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION eRulemaking Portal at http://
vessels intending to transit the CONTACT section. www.regulations.gov. If your material
anchorage area may be small entities, for cannot be submitted using http://
the reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act www.regulations.gov, contact the person
this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires CONTACT section of this document for
vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of alternate instructions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:03 May 03, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM 04MYP1
Document Created: 2017-05-04 01:48:52
Document Modified: 2017-05-04 01:48:52
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 June 5, 2017.
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 [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 20859
RIN Number		1625-AA01
82 FR 20859 - Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FL

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 85 (May 4, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
