Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC, 7256-7259 [2016-02621]

Download as PDF 7256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS would have been if, holding constant the benefit formula, work history, and all other relevant factors used to determine benefits, those benefits were attributable to service with any other employer). All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at www.regulations.gov or upon request. Please Note: All comments will be made available to the public. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as Social Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. A public hearing on these proposed regulations has been scheduled for March 22, 2016 beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by March 15, 2016, and an outline of topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by March 15, 2016. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Contact Information For general questions regarding these regulations, please contact the Department of the Treasury MPRA guidance information line at (202) 622– 1559 (not a toll-free number). For information regarding a specific application for a suspension of benefits, please contact the Treasury Department at (202) 622–1534 (not a toll-free number). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: ■ Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1 is added to read as follows: ■ § 1.432(e)(9)–1 Benefit suspensions for multiemployer plans in critical and declining status. (a) through (c) [Reserved] (d) Limitations on suspension. (1) through (7) [Reserved] (8) Additional rules for plans described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)— (i) In general. In the case of a plan that includes the benefits described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, any suspension of benefits under this section shall— (A) First, be applied to the maximum extent permissible to benefits attributable to a participant’s service for an employer that withdrew from the plan and failed to pay (or is delinquent with respect to paying) the full amount of its withdrawal liability under section 4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement with the plan; (B) Second, except as provided by paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, be applied to all other benefits that may be suspended under this section; and (C) Third, be applied to benefits under a plan that are directly attributable to a participant’s service with any employer that has, prior to December 16, 2014— (1) Withdrawn from the plan in a complete withdrawal under section 4203 of ERISA and paid the full amount of the employer’s withdrawal liability under section 4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement with the plan, and (2) Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, assumed liability for providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries of the plan under a separate, single-employer plan sponsored by the employer, in an amount equal to any amount of benefits for such participants and beneficiaries reduced as a result of the financial status of the plan. (ii) Application of suspensions to benefits that are directly attributable to a participant’s service with certain employers—(A) Greater reduction in certain benefits not permitted. A suspension of benefits under this section must not be applied to provide for a greater reduction in benefits PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section than the reduction that is applied to benefits described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(B) of this section. This requirement is satisfied if no participant’s benefits that are directly attributable to service with an employer described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section are reduced more than that participant’s benefits would have been reduced if, holding the benefit formula, work history, and all relevant factors used to compute benefits constant, those benefits were attributable to service with an employer that is not described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section. (B) Application of limitation to benefits of participants with respect to which the employer has not assumed liability. Benefits under a plan that are directly attributable to a participant’s service with an employer described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section include all such benefits without regard to whether the employer has assumed liability for providing benefits to the participant that were reduced as a result of the financial status of the plan as described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of this section. Thus, all benefits under a plan that are directly attributable to a participant’s service with an employer described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section are subject to the limitation in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)(A) of this section, even if the employer has not, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of this section, assumed liability for providing those benefits to participants and beneficiaries of the plan. John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2016–02772 Filed 2–9–16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG–2016–0022] RIN 1625–AA08 Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run on April 2, 2016 from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The Cooper River Bridge Run is a 10–K run across the Arthur Ravenel Bridge. The safety zone is necessary for the safety of the runners and the general public during this event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 26, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2016–0022 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email John.Z.Downing@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard’s authority to establish regulated safety zones and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and the general public during the scheduled event. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of the Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run. The race is VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 scheduled to take place from 7:30 a.m.10:30 a.m. April 2, 2016 Approximately 40,000 runners are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the proposed safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740– 7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the proposed safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and onscene designated representatives. IV. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review 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 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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of three hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7257 authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 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’’ 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. We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will 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 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). E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 7258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 safety zone prohibiting vessel traffic from a limited area surrounding the Cooper River Bridge on the waters of the Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches for a 3 hour period. This rule is categorically excluded from further VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 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. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 PART 165—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. 2. Add a temporary § 165.35T07–0022 to read as follows: ■ § 165.35T07–0022 Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Charleston SC. (a) Location. All waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek Reaches encompassed within the following points: (1) 32°48′32″ N./079°56′08″ W., (2) 32°48′20″ N./079°54′20″ W., (3) 32°47′20″ N./079°54′29″ W., (4) 32°47′20″ N./079°55′28″ W. (b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated representative’’ means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843–740–7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. (d) Enforcement Period. This proposed rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on April 2, 2016. E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules Dated: January 29, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston. additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. [FR Doc. 2016–02621 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9942–02– Region 9] Approval of Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act. These revisions include rescissions of certain statutory provisions, administrative and prohibitory rules, and test methods. The EPA is also proposing to correct certain errors in previous actions on prior revisions to the Arizona SIP and to make certain other corrections. The intended effect is to rescind unnecessary provisions from the applicable SIP and to correct certain errors in previous SIP actions. DATES: Comments must be received by March 14, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2016–0028 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rules Office Chief, at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115, email: steckel.andrew@ epa.gov. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the rescissions from the Arizona SIP, and correcting the errors from previous Arizona SIP rulemakings, in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe the SIP revision and error corrections are not controversial. The rescissions involve statutory and regulatory provisions related to declarations of policy and legal authority, jurisdiction over Indian lands, prohibitory rules, and test methods and performance test specifications. The error corrections relate to an inadvertent listing of a rule on which the EPA did not take action in the Arizona SIP, a typographical error, and erroneous approvals of nonSIP submittals as part of the SIP. A detailed rationale for the approval of the rescissions and the correction of the errors is set forth in the direct final rule. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, see please see the direct final action. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: January 25, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2016–02724 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7259 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0155; FRL–9942–19– Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on June 20, 2013, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. With the exception of the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, for which EPA is proposing to disapprove, EPA is proposing to determine that portions of Mississippi’s infrastructure submission, submitted to EPA on June 20, 2013, satisfy certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. SUMMARY: Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2015–0155, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 0155,’’ Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DATES: E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7256-7259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02621]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0022]
RIN 1625-AA08


Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Cooper River, and Town 
Creek Reaches, Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the 
waters of

[[Page 7257]]

Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South Carolina 
during the Cooper River Bridge Run on April 2, 2016 from 7:30 a.m. to 
10:30 a.m. The Cooper River Bridge Run is a 10-K run across the Arthur 
Ravenel Bridge. The safety zone is necessary for the safety of the 
runners and the general public during this event. This proposed 
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting 
through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless 
authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated 
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before February 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0022 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector 
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 
740-3184, email John.Z.Downing@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
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's 
authority to establish regulated safety zones and other limited access 
areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 
160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
    The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the runners, and 
the general public during the scheduled event.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters 
of the Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches in Charleston, South 
Carolina during the Cooper River Bridge Run. The race is scheduled to 
take place from 7:30 a.m.10:30 a.m. April 2, 2016 Approximately 40,000 
runners are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels 
desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the 
proposed safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by 
telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF 
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to 
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the proposed safety 
zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated 
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization 
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston 
or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of 
the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 
Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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 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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the 
following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a 
total of three hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, 
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without 
authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated 
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the 
enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance 
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by 
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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'' 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. We have 
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This 
rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small 
entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit 
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the 
enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning 
and Review section above, this rule will 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 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).

[[Page 7258]]

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 safety 
zone prohibiting vessel traffic from a limited area surrounding the 
Cooper River Bridge on the waters of the Cooper River and Town Creek 
Reaches for a 3 hour period. This rule is categorically excluded from 
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant 
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 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--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.35T07-0022 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.35T07-0022  Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Charleston 
SC.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Cooper River, and Town Creek 
Reaches encompassed within the following points:

    (1) 32[deg]48'32'' N./079[deg]56'08'' W.,
    (2) 32[deg]48'20'' N./079[deg]54'20'' W.,
    (3) 32[deg]47'20'' N./079[deg]54'29'' W.,
    (4) 32[deg]47'20'' N./079[deg]55'28'' W.

    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast 
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty 
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and 
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the 
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated 
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from 
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the 
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston 
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, or 
remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port 
Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative 
via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization 
to enter, transit through, or remain within the regulated area is 
granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated 
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization 
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston 
or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by 
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene 
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This proposed rule will be enforced from 
7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on April 2, 2016.


[[Page 7259]]


    Dated: January 29, 2016.
G.L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2016-02621 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P