Disestablishing Special Anchorage Area 2; Ashley River, Charleston, SC, 27000-27002 [E9-13108]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 107 (Friday, June 5, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27000-27002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0852]
RIN 1625-AA01


Disestablishing Special Anchorage Area 2; Ashley River, 
Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the Ashley River 
Anchorage 2 in Charleston, South Carolina. The removal of the anchorage 
would accommodate an expansion to the Ripley Light Yacht Club.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before August 4, 2009. Requests for public meetings must be 
received by the Coast Guard on or before July 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-0852 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Julie Miller, Sector Charleston Office 
of Waterways Management, at (843) 720-3273 or Julie.E.Miller@uscg.mil. 
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0852), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered 
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. 
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered 
received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket 
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body 
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-0852'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter, 
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you 
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period and may change the rule 
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert USCG-2008-0852 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and 
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the 
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor

[[Page 27001]]

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public 
dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 
3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a 
request for a public meeting on or before July 6, 2009, using one of 
the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you 
believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a 
public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Ashley River Properties and the Ripley Light Yacht Club submitted a 
permit with the Army Corps of Engineers to construct additional boat 
slips at the Ripley Light Yacht Club; however, the expansion would 
extend into an area currently designated as the Ashley River Anchorage 
2. Removal of the anchorage would allow for the expansion to continue. 
The marina plans to add additional floating dock space to accommodate 
approximately 200 additional pleasure craft. Ripley Light Yacht Club 
intends to reserve a portion of the new boat slips for transient 
recreational boaters. The remaining anchorage, currently designated 
Ashley River Anchorage 1, remains a viable and convenient location for 
recreational vessel anchorage.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would disestablish the Ashley River Anchorage 2 
set forth in 33 CFR 110.72d(b). The planned expansion of the Ripley 
Light Yacht Club extends into Ashley River Anchorage 2. In order to 
complete the expansion project, the anchorage must be disestablished.
    The proposed rule also would update the name of the marina used in 
describing the remaining anchorage.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The limited geographic area 
impacted by this disestablishment will not restrict the movement or 
routine operation of a large number of commercial or recreational 
vessels in the Ashley River. Furthermore, a second and larger anchorage 
already exists nearby.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. This proposed rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or 
operators of recreational vessels intending to anchor in the Charleston 
harbor. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because the current anchorage is small and 
cannot accommodate many vessels, there is another nearby location in 
which small vessels can anchor, and the marina expansion will 
accommodate at least as many transient vessels as could fit in the 
current anchorage.
    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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Lieutenant Julie Miller, 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.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 27002]]

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction 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 disestablishment of a special anchorage 
area, which is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2 Figure 2-1, 
paragraph 34(f), of the Instruction. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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, 2030, 2035, 2071; 
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

    2. Revise section 110.72d to read as follows:


Sec.  110.72d  Ashley River Anchorage Area, SC.

    The following location is a special anchorage area: The waters 
lying within an area across the Ashley River Channel from the 
Charleston City Marina bounded by the southwest side of the channel 
beginning at latitude 32[deg]46'42.7'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'19.3'' 
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'38.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'24.0'' 
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'32.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'15.5'' 
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'29.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'00.9'' 
W; thence back to the beginning following the southwest boundary of the 
Ashley River Channel. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.

    Dated: May 6, 2009.
R.S. Branham,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. E9-13108 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P