82 FR 4229 - Safety zone; Tennessee River, Mile 446.0 to 454.5

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 9 (January 13, 2017)

Page Range		4229-4231
FR Document		2017-00696

The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone for all waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at mile marker 454.5 during periods of high water flow. High water flow is determined by flow rates that have reached or exceeded 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock and dam on the Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. This proposed safety zone is necessary to provide safety for mariners transiting on the Tennessee River during periods of high water flow. Entry into this area will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4229-4231]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1113]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety zone; Tennessee River, Mile 446.0 to 454.5

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone for all 
waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 446.0 and 
ending at mile marker 454.5 during periods of high water flow. High 
water flow is determined by flow rates that have reached or exceeded 
100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock and dam on the 
Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. This proposed safety zone is 
necessary to provide safety for mariners transiting on the Tennessee 
River during periods of high water flow. Entry into this area will be 
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port 
Ohio Valley or 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 January 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1113 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 Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD 
Nashville, Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at 
[email protected].

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
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is proposing to establish a 
safety zone for all waters of the Tennessee River, from mile 446.0 to 
454.5 during periods of high water flow. This proposed safety zone is 
necessary to provide safety for mariners transiting on the Tennessee 
River during periods of high water flow. There have been temporary 
final rules issued in the past establishing a safety zone on the 
Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at mile 
marker 454.5 when flow rates reached or exceeded 100,000 cubic feet per 
second at Chickamauga lock and dam. Examples of these previous 
temporary final rules were published under docket numbers USCG-2013-
0025 and USCG-2011-1148. This proposed rulemaking is also necessary to 
more efficiently effect necessary safety measures during emergent high 
water events in the future by reducing administrative burden and the 
amount of paperwork required for multiple individual rulemakings. The 
Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 446.0 and ending at 454.5 
poses a navigational hazard during periods of high water flow. A high 
water flow determination for this area is established when flow rates 
reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock and 
dam on the Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. The Captain of the 
Port Ohio Valley has determined that additional safety measures are 
necessary to protect all mariners during periods of high water flow. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard

[[Page 4230]]

proposes to establish a permanent safety zone on specified waters of 
the Tennessee River triggered by high water flow. This proposed 
regulation would be in effect whenever flow rates reach or exceed 
100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock and dam on the 
Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority in 33 
U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is proposing to establish a 
safety zone for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile 
marker 446.0 and ending at mile marker 454.5. Vessels or persons would 
not be able to enter into, depart from, or move within this area 
without permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or 
designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or 
passage through the proposed safety zone will be required to request 
permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley, or designated 
representative. They can be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13, 16, or 
through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This proposed 
rule would be effective during periods of high water flow when flow 
rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga lock 
and dam. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley would inform the public 
through broadcast notices to mariners during periods of high water flow 
when the safety zone is established as well as when flow rates fall 
below 100,000 cubic feet per second and the safety zone is no longer in 
effect.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize 
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we 
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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. 
E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, 
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic 
would only be impacted during times of high water which pose dangerous 
navigational hazards when flow rates exceed 100,000 cubic feet per 
second at Chickamauga lock and dam. Moreover, the Coast Guard would 
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about 
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter 
the zone.

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 
safety 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 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 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 above.

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 a safety 
zone lasting only during periods of high water flow measured by 
Chickamauga lock and dam. Normally such actions are categorically 
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure

[[Page 4231]]

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.

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

    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 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. Add Sec.  165.844 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.844  Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Mile 446.0 to 454.5; 
Chattanooga, TN

    (a) Location. All waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile 
marker 446.0 and ending at mile marker 454.5 at Chattanooga, TN.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective during periods of high 
water flow when flow rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per 
second at Chickamauga lock and dam on the Tennessee River at mile 
marker 471.0.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced whenever 
flow rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second at Chickamauga 
lock and dam on the Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. The Captain 
of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the 
public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement period 
for the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of 
this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the 
Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage through the 
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley 
or a designated representative. U. S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley 
may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of 
the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and designated U.S. Coast Guard 
patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include 
commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: January 10, 2017.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2017-00696 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

4230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules

proposes to establish a permanent safety This regulatory action determination D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
zone on specified waters of the is based on the size, location, duration, Governments
Tennessee River triggered by high water and time-of-day of the safety zone. A rule has implications for federalism
flow. This proposed regulation would Vessel traffic would only be impacted under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has
be in effect whenever flow rates reach during times of high water which pose a substantial direct effect on the States,
or exceed 100,000 cubic feet per second dangerous navigational hazards when on the relationship between the national
at Chickamauga lock and dam on the flow rates exceed 100,000 cubic feet per government and the States, or on the
Tennessee River at mile marker 471.0. second at Chickamauga lock and dam. distribution of power and
The Coast Guard proposes this Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue responsibilities among the various
rulemaking under the authority in 33 a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via levels of government. We have analyzed
U.S.C. 1231. VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the this proposed rule under that Order and
zone, and the rule would allow vessels have determined that it is consistent
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule to seek permission to enter the zone. with the fundamental federalism
The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley B. Impact on Small Entities principles and preemption requirements
is proposing to establish a safety zone described in E.O. 13132.
for all waters of the Tennessee River The Regulatory Flexibility Act of Also, this proposed rule does not have
beginning at mile marker 446.0 and 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
ending at mile marker 454.5. Vessels or requires Federal agencies to consider Consultation and Coordination with
persons would not be able to enter into, the potential impact of regulations on Indian Tribal Governments, because it
depart from, or move within this area small entities during rulemaking. The would not have a substantial direct
without permission from the Captain of term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the Port Ohio Valley or designated businesses, not-for-profit organizations the relationship between the Federal
representative. Persons or vessels that are independently owned and Government and Indian tribes, or on the
requiring entry into or passage through operated and are not dominant in their distribution of power and
the proposed safety zone will be fields, and governmental jurisdictions responsibilities between the Federal
required to request permission from the with populations of less than 50,000. Government and Indian tribes. If you
Captain of the Port Ohio Valley, or The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. believe this proposed rule has
designated representative. They can be 605(b) that this proposed rule would not implications for federalism or Indian
contacted on VHF–FM Channel 13, 16, have a significant economic impact on tribes, please contact the person listed
or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio a substantial number of small entities. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Valley at 1–800–253–7465. This While some owners or operators of CONTACT section above.
proposed rule would be effective during vessels intending to transit the safety
periods of high water flow when flow zone may be small entities, for the E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
rates reach or exceed 100,000 cubic feet reasons stated in section IV.A above this The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
per second at Chickamauga lock and proposed rule would not have a of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
dam. The Captain of the Port Ohio significant economic impact on any Federal agencies to assess the effects of
Valley would inform the public through vessel owner or operator. their discretionary regulatory actions. In
broadcast notices to mariners during If you think that your business, particular, the Act addresses actions
periods of high water flow when the organization, or governmental that may result in the expenditure by a
safety zone is established as well as jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity State, local, or tribal government, in the
when flow rates fall below 100,000 and that this rule would have a aggregate, or by the private sector of
cubic feet per second and the safety significant economic impact on it, $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
zone is no longer in effect. please submit a comment (see more in any one year. Though this
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it proposed rule would not result in such
IV. Regulatory Analyses
qualifies and how and to what degree an expenditure, we do discuss the
We developed this proposed rule after this rule would economically affect it. effects of this rule elsewhere in this
considering numerous statutes and Under section 213(a) of the Small preamble.
executive orders (E.O.s) related to Business Regulatory Enforcement
rulemaking. Below we summarize our Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), F. Environment
analyses based on a number of these we want to assist small entities in We have analyzed this proposed rule
statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First understanding this proposed rule. If the under Department of Homeland
Amendment rights of protestors. rule would affect your small business, Security Management Directive 023–01
organization, or governmental and Commandant Instruction
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
jurisdiction and you have questions M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies concerning its provisions or options for Guard in complying with the National
to assess the costs and benefits of compliance, please contact the person Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
available regulatory alternatives and, if listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
regulation is necessary, to select CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will preliminary determination that this
regulatory approaches that maximize not retaliate against small entities that action is one of a category of actions that
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the question or complain about this do not individually or cumulatively
importance of quantifying both costs proposed rule or any policy or action of have a significant effect on the human
and benefits, of reducing costs, of the Coast Guard. environment. This proposed rule
harmonizing rules, and of promoting involves a safety zone lasting only
C. Collection of Information
flexibility. This NPRM has not been during periods of high water flow
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory This proposed rule would not call for measured by Chickamauga lock and
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, a new collection of information under dam. Normally such actions are
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 categorically excluded from further
Office of Management and Budget. (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Jan 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM 13JAP1

Document Created: 2017-01-13 02:44:46
Document Modified: 2017-01-13 02:44:46

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 January 30, 2017.
Contact		If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD Nashville, Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 4229
RIN Number		1625-AA00
CFR Associated		Harbors; Marine Safety; Navigation (water); Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Security Measures and Waterways

82 FR 4229 - Safety zone; Tennessee River, Mile 446.0 to 454.5

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 9 (January 13, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard