Anchorage; Ashley River Anchorage, Ashley River, Charleston, SC, 26195-26198 [2014-10377]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules
administrator if the plan provides a
notice in accordance with the model
certificate authorized by the Secretary,
appropriately modified and
supplemented as necessary, consistent
with guidance issued by the Secretary.
Use of the model notice is not
mandatory. The model notice reflects
the requirements of this section as they
would apply to single-employer group
health plans and must be modified if
used to provide notice with respect to
other types of group health plans, such
as multiemployer plans or plans
established and maintained by
employee organizations for their
members. In order to use the model
notice, administrators must
appropriately add relevant information
where indicated in the model notice,
select among alternative language, and
supplement the model notice to reflect
applicable plan provisions. Items of
information that are not applicable to a
particular plan may be deleted. Use of
the model notice, appropriately
modified and supplemented, will be
deemed to satisfy the notice content
requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
Signed this 1st day of May, 2014.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. 2014–10416 Filed 5–2–14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0108]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events, Choptank River; Between
Cambridge, MD and Trappe, MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
withdrawing its proposed rule
concerning amendments to the regattas
and marine parades regulations. The
rulemaking was intended to establish
special local regulations during the
swim segment of the ‘‘Choptank Bridge
Swim,’’ a marine event to be held on the
waters of Choptank River between
Cambridge, MD and Trappe, MD on May
10, 2014. The Coast Guard was notified
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
on April 9, 2014 that the event had been
cancelled.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn
on May 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection at the Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. You may also find this docket
on the Internet by going to https://
www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG
2014–0108 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and
then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this notice,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck,
Waterways Management Division,
Sector Baltimore, MD, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone 410–576–2674, email
Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing material in the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 18, 2014, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
‘‘Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events, Choptank River; Between
Cambridge, MD and Trappe, MD’’ in the
Federal Register (79 FR 15068). The
rulemaking concerned the Coast Guard’s
proposal to establish temporary special
local regulations on specified waters of
Choptank River between Cambridge,
MD and Trappe, MD, effective from 9
a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 20, 2014. The
regulated area included all waters of the
Choptank River, from shoreline to
shoreline, within and area bounded on
the east by a line drawn from latitude
38°35′13″ N, longitude 076°02′33″ W,
thence south to latitude 38°33′50″ N,
longitude 076°02′07″ W, and bounded
on the west by a line drawn from
latitude 38°35′37″ N, longitude
076°03′09″ W, thence south to latitude
38°34′25″ N, longitude 076°04′05″ W,
located at Cambridge, MD. The
regulations were needed to temporarily
restrict vessel traffic during the event to
provide for the safety of participants,
spectators and other transiting vessels.
Withdrawal
The Coast Guard is withdrawing this
rulemaking because the event has been
cancelled.
Authority
We issue this notice of withdrawal
under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1233.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26195
Dated: April 16, 2014.
M.M. Dean,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2014–10381 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2013–0819]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage; Ashley River Anchorage,
Ashley River, Charleston, SC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the special anchorage area
located on the Ashley River, in
Charleston, SC. The change is necessary
to accommodate the expansion of the
Charleston City Marina and meet the
requirements of 33 CFR 109.10. The
change will ensure that there is
sufficient space to accommodate vessels
desiring to anchor in the area, while
allowing a sufficient buffer between the
federal channel and special anchorage.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before June 6, 2014. Requests for
public meetings must be received by the
Coast Guard on or before June 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher
Ruleman, Sector Charleston Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard;
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
26196
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules
telephone (843)–740–3184, email
Christopher.L.Ruleman@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. 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.
1. Submitting Comments
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.
You may submit your comments and
material online at 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, 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 as
having been 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 email 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, type the
docket number USCG–2013–0819 in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’
Click on ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ on the
line associated with this rulemaking.
If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
2. 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, type the
docket number USCG–2013–0819 in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rulemaking. 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.
3. 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
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).
4. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one, using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
B. Regulatory History and Information
On April 18, 2011 the Coast Guard
Seventh District published a final rule
establishing a special anchorage area on
the Ashley River in Charleston, South
Carolina in the Federal Register (76 FR
21636). The anchorage area established
is contained in 33 CFR 110.72d.
C. Basis and Purpose
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule is
to relocate and reestablish the Ashley
River Anchorage to accommodate the
approved expansion plans of the
Charleston City Marina. The City
Marina Company received a permit for
the expansion of their marina in August,
2012. The expansion will force the
relocation of the centerline of the
federal channel in the vicinity of the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
marina. The new channel will impede
on the current special anchorage area.
The special anchorage area will need to
be modified to prevent potential
navigational hazards caused by the
proximity of vessels transiting the
channel to vessels anchored in the
special anchorage area. This proposed
rule would also maintain the current
size of the Anchorage, ensuring no
reduction in space for vessels needing to
anchor.
D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would alter the
bounds of the Ashley River anchorage,
while not reducing its size. The new
special anchorage area will encompass
all waters of the Ashley River enclosed
by a line beginning at latitude 32°46′40″
N longitude 79°57′27″ W; thence
continuing north-northeasterly to
latitude 32°46′44″ N longitude 79°57′25″
W; thence continuing southeasterly to
latitude 32°46′40″ N longitude 79°57′22″
W; thence continuing southeasterly to
latitude 32°46′27″ N longitude 79°57′03″
W; thence continuing westsouthwesterly to latitude 32°46′25″ N
longitude 79°57′09″ W; thence
continuing northwesterly to the
beginning point at latitude 32°46′40″ N
longitude 79°57′27″ W.
E. 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 or
executive orders.
1. 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, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order
13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those
Orders. The impacts on routine
navigation are expected to be minimal
because the proposed anchorage area
would not unnecessarily restrict traffic
as they are located outside of the
established navigation channel. Vessels
would be able to maneuver in, around,
and through the anchorage. The
proposed anchorage maintains the same
width as the existing anchorage and
associated special conditions ensure
that navigational concerns are
addressed.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 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 will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule may affect the
following entities, some of which may
be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels wishing to anchor
in or transit the special anchorage area
established by this rule. The rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because the size of the current special
anchorage area will not be reduced and
it will remain in the same vicinity as 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. 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. 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 above. 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.
4. Collection of Information
This proposed rule will not call for a
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
5. Federalism
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
26197
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and determined that this rule
does not have implications for
federalism.
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.
6. Protest Activities
12. Energy Effects
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.
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
7. 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.
8. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks
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.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
14. 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
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule
involves changing the location and size
of a anchorage area as described in
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the
Commandant 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 § 110.72d to read as follows:
11. 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
§ 110.72d
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ashley River, SC.
All waters on the southwest portion of
the Ashley River encompassed within
the following points: beginning at
latitude 32°46′40″ N longitude 79°57′27″
W; thence continuing north-
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
26198
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules
northeasterly to latitude 32°46′44″ N
longitude 79°57′25″ W; thence
continuing southeasterly to latitude
32°46′40″ N longitude 79°57′22″ W;
thence continuing southeasterly to
latitude 32°46′27″ N longitude 79°57′03″
W; thence continuing westsouthwesterly to latitude 32°46′25″ N
longitude 79°57′09″ W; thence
continuing northwesterly to the
beginning point at latitude 32°46′40″ N
longitude 79°57′27″ W. All coordinates
are North American Datum 1983.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
J.H. Korn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard Seventh District.
miles) southwest of the community. The
reference coordinates are 46–18–20 NL
and 118–00–03 WL.
Comments must be filed on or
before May 26, 2014, and reply
comments on or before June 10, 2014.
DATES:
Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve the
petitioner as follows: Brett E. Miller,
8200 Stockdale Highway, M–10, #164,
Bakersfield, California 93311.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2014–10377 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2700.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 14–53; RM–11714; DA 14–
459]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Dayton,
Washington
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document requests
comments on a Petition for Rule Making
filed by Brett E. Miller, proposing the
allotment of Channel 272A at Dayton,
Washington, as the community’s second
local service. A staff engineering
analysis confirms that Channel 272A
can be allotted to Dayton consistent
with the minimum distance separation
requirements of the Commission’s Rules
with a site restriction 3.1 kilometers (1.9
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
14–53, adopted April 3, 2014, and
released April 4, 2014. The full text of
this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC’s
Reference Information Center at Portals
II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractors,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or via email
www.BCPIWEB.com. This document
does not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules
governing permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Nazifa Sawez,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336
and 339.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Washington, is
amended by adding Dayton, Channel
272A.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–10496 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26195-26198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10377]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG-2013-0819]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage; Ashley River Anchorage, Ashley River, Charleston, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the special anchorage area
located on the Ashley River, in Charleston, SC. The change is necessary
to accommodate the expansion of the Charleston City Marina and meet the
requirements of 33 CFR 109.10. The change will ensure that there is
sufficient space to accommodate vessels desiring to anchor in the area,
while allowing a sufficient buffer between the federal channel and
special anchorage.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 6, 2014. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before June 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard;
[[Page 26196]]
telephone (843)-740-3184, email Christopher.L.Ruleman@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. 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.
1. Submitting Comments
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. You may submit your comments and material online at
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, 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 as having been 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 email 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,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0819 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
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.
2. 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,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0819 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.
3. 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 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).
4. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
B. Regulatory History and Information
On April 18, 2011 the Coast Guard Seventh District published a
final rule establishing a special anchorage area on the Ashley River in
Charleston, South Carolina in the Federal Register (76 FR 21636). The
anchorage area established is contained in 33 CFR 110.72d.
C. Basis and Purpose
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to relocate and reestablish the
Ashley River Anchorage to accommodate the approved expansion plans of
the Charleston City Marina. The City Marina Company received a permit
for the expansion of their marina in August, 2012. The expansion will
force the relocation of the centerline of the federal channel in the
vicinity of the marina. The new channel will impede on the current
special anchorage area. The special anchorage area will need to be
modified to prevent potential navigational hazards caused by the
proximity of vessels transiting the channel to vessels anchored in the
special anchorage area. This proposed rule would also maintain the
current size of the Anchorage, ensuring no reduction in space for
vessels needing to anchor.
D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would alter the bounds of the Ashley River
anchorage, while not reducing its size. The new special anchorage area
will encompass all waters of the Ashley River enclosed by a line
beginning at latitude 32[deg]46'40'' N longitude 79[deg]57'27'' W;
thence continuing north-northeasterly to latitude 32[deg]46'44'' N
longitude 79[deg]57'25'' W; thence continuing southeasterly to latitude
32[deg]46'40'' N longitude 79[deg]57'22'' W; thence continuing
southeasterly to latitude 32[deg]46'27'' N longitude 79[deg]57'03'' W;
thence continuing west-southwesterly to latitude 32[deg]46'25'' N
longitude 79[deg]57'09'' W; thence continuing northwesterly to the
beginning point at latitude 32[deg]46'40'' N longitude 79[deg]57'27''
W.
E. 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 or executive orders.
1. 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,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The impacts on routine
navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed anchorage
area would not unnecessarily restrict traffic as they are located
outside of the established navigation channel. Vessels would be able to
maneuver in, around, and through the anchorage. The proposed anchorage
maintains the same width as the existing anchorage and associated
special conditions ensure that navigational concerns are addressed.
[[Page 26197]]
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels wishing to
anchor in or transit the special anchorage area established by this
rule. The rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the size of the current
special anchorage area will not be reduced and it will remain in the
same vicinity as 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.
3. 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. 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 above. 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.
4. Collection of Information
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).
5. Federalism
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
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
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.
11. 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.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. 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 that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves changing the location and size of a anchorage area as
described in figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Commandant
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
0
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.
0
2. Revise Sec. 110.72d to read as follows:
Sec. 110.72d Ashley River, SC.
All waters on the southwest portion of the Ashley River encompassed
within the following points: beginning at latitude 32[deg]46'40'' N
longitude 79[deg]57'27'' W; thence continuing north-
[[Page 26198]]
northeasterly to latitude 32[deg]46'44'' N longitude 79[deg]57'25'' W;
thence continuing southeasterly to latitude 32[deg]46'40'' N longitude
79[deg]57'22'' W; thence continuing southeasterly to latitude
32[deg]46'27'' N longitude 79[deg]57'03'' W; thence continuing west-
southwesterly to latitude 32[deg]46'25'' N longitude 79[deg]57'09'' W;
thence continuing northwesterly to the beginning point at latitude
32[deg]46'40'' N longitude 79[deg]57'27'' W. All coordinates are North
American Datum 1983.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
J.H. Korn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-10377 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
