Anchorage Grounds; Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore, MD

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Baltimore Harbor anchorage grounds regulation. The proposed changes would reduce the size of three general anchorages, establish one new general anchorage, rename two existing general anchorages, and change the duration a vessel may remain within an anchorage for two existing general anchorages. This proposed rule would ensure that Coast Guard regulations are consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Port of Baltimore Anchorages and Channels civil works project that widened the channel, and provide a higher degree of safety to persons, property and the environment by accurately depicting the anchorage locations. The proposed changes to the regulated uses of the anchorages would support current and future port activity related to the safety of post-Panamax commercial cargo vessels, and would remove vessel security provisions that currently exist in these Baltimore Harbor regulations. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES:

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0181 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 Mr. Ronald L. Houck, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (410) 576-2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

E.O. Executive order

FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

Pub. L. Public Law

§  Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

Anchorage regulation duties and powers were transferred to the Coast Guard in 1967 (32 FR 17726, Dec. 12, 1967). On December 12, 1968, the Fifth Coast Guard District published a final rule in the Federal Register (33 FR 18438) establishing an anchorage area in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland. The anchorage grounds at Baltimore, Maryland are described in 33 CFR 110.158. These anchorage grounds are involved in a federal navigation project under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District. Section 101a(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-53, 113 Stat 269 (1999)) authorized widening of the Dundalk and Seagirt Marine Terminal channels. Widening of the Seagirt Marine Terminal channel occurred in 2015. This dredging widened the limits of existing navigation channels which are used to access key Maryland Port Administration marine terminals located immediately adjacent to the Baltimore Harbor, Maryland anchorage grounds, and put the existing anchorage grounds in the way of the newly expanded navigation channels. To addresses these changes, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, Baltimore, Maryland, worked in coordination with the Port of Baltimore Harbor Safety and Coordination Committee to develop proposed revisions to the affected anchorage boundaries and associated regulations.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce navigational safety risk and support port efficiency in Baltimore Harbor. This proposed rule would designate a new general anchorage ground developed from an existing anchorage ground that is located outside of the established navigation channel in order to align with the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Port of Baltimore Anchorages and Channels civil works project. The Baltimore Harbor anchorage grounds are typically used by deep draft commercial cargo vessels. In order to maximize the availability and use of these important anchorages, this proposed rule would also change the duration for which vessels may remain in these anchorages. This proposed rule would reduce the duration a vessel may remain within Anchorage No. 3 Lower (proposed to be changed to Anchorage No. 3A) and Anchorage No. 4, from 72 hours to 24 hours. Lastly, due to similar provisions within the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) (Pub. L. 107-295) and federal regulations (33 CFR part 104, and 46 CFR chapter 1, subchapters N and O), the vessel security requirements in § 110.158(d) are now redundant and would be removed as part of this proposed rule.

The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Baltimore Harbor, Maryland anchorage grounds as described in 33 CFR 110.158. The general anchorages currently listed in the regulation that would be affected by this proposed rule are Anchorage No. 2, Anchorage No. 3 Upper, Anchorage No. 3 Lower, Anchorage No. 4, Anchorage No. 5 and Anchorage No. 6.

This proposed rule would reduce the sizes of Anchorage No. 2, Anchorage No. 3 Lower, and Anchorage No. 4. These reductions would remove the portions of the anchorage grounds that are in the navigable channel. The area of Anchorage No. 2 would be reduced by approximately 16,330 square yards along its northern limit and approximately 326,770 square yards along its eastern limit. The area of Anchorage No. 3 Lower would be reduced at its eastern limit by 12,560 square yards. The area of Anchorage No. 4 would be reduced at its western limit by 6,000 square yards.

This proposed rule would rename Anchorage No. 3 Lower to Anchorage No. 3A, and rename Anchorage No. 3 Upper to Anchorage No. 3B. This proposed rule would revise Anchorage No. 2 and would create an area called Anchorage No. 3C out of existing anchorage ground from Anchorage No. 2. An area within Anchorage No. 2 that is approximately 500 yards in length and 165 yards in width, and adjacent to Anchorage No. 3 Upper, would become Anchorage No. 3C. This reconfiguration does not provide new space available for anchorage, would not restrict traffic, and is located outside of the established navigation channel. A graphic depicting these changes is included in the docket.

This proposed rule would reduce the duration a vessel may remain within Anchorage No. 3 Lower (proposed to be changed to Anchorage No. 3A) and Anchorage No. 4, from 72 hours to 24 hours. These changes are based on recommendations documented by the Port of Baltimore Harbor Safety and Coordination Committee on September 8, 2010, and the Association of Maryland Pilots. The Port of Baltimore Harbor Safety and Coordination Committee's recommendation is available in the docket. The Coast Guard agrees that the Committee's recommendation addresses the problem of ensuring maximum availability and use of these anchorages. This proposed rule would establish that a vessel may remain within Anchorage No. 3C for no more than 72 hours without permission from the Captain of the Port, to remain consistent with the regulations for Anchorage No. 2.

This rulemaking rule would renumber several paragraphs listed in 33 CFR 110.158, from (a)(3) Anchorage No. 3, Upper, general anchorage, through (a)(8) Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage. All anchorage ground descriptions would be updated to state they are in the waters of the Patapsco River, except for Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage, which would be updated to state it is in the waters of Curtis Bay. Designation of the new Anchorage No. 3C would create a new paragraph, (a)(9) for Anchorage No. 7, Dead ship anchorage. This rulemaking would modify paragraph (c)(3) of the general regulations to remove the reference to a vessel becoming “a menace” because we do not define that term and we don't believe it is needed given other factors already included in that paragraph. We also propose to change the defined term “dangerous cargo” to “certain dangerous cargo” without changing the definition, continuing to incorporate the definition of certain dangerous cargo from 33 CFR 160.202, and aligning terminology used in this proposed rule with that used throughout the rest of 33 CFR 110.158. This rulemaking would remove paragraphs (c)(4) regarding revocable permits for habitual use of an anchorage, and paragraph (d) in their entirety for reasons stated earlier.

The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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 E.O.s.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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 (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

The Coast Guard has determined this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because it would not interfere with existing maritime activity in Baltimore Harbor. Moreover, the proposed changes would reduce navigational safety risk in Baltimore Harbor by: (1) Aligning existing general anchorage boundaries with recent dredging projects that widened the limits of adjacent navigational channels, (2) reducing the duration a vessel may remain within an anchorage to increase availability and usage, and (3) renaming and reconfiguring general anchorages that support a proper naming and numbering convention within the existing anchorage regulation. The reconfiguration of the additional general anchorage does not provide additional anchorage area and would not restrict traffic, as it is developed from an existing anchorage and is located outside of the established navigation channel. As discussed in section III above, this proposed rule would replace the “dangerous cargo” definition with one for “certain dangerous cargo” and remove vessel security provisions that are redundant to other federal regulations.

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.

For the reasons stated in paragraph IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed 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 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 the modification of existing anchorages within the Baltimore Harbor, Maryland anchorage grounds. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(a) and (b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 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, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice .

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 website'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

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.

2. Revise § 110.158 to read as follows: