Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC, 64771-64774 [2018-27385]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
PART 220—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 220
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. 1095(f),
1097b(b) and 1079b.
2. Amend § 220.8 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (5),
(f)(2), (5) and (6),
■ b. Adding new paragraph (f)(8); and
■ c. Removing in paragraph (d) the
wording ‘‘inpatient hospital care’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘care.’’
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 220.8
Reasonable charges.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Inpatient institutional and
professional services on or after October
1, 2017. Reasonable charges for
inpatient institutional services provided
on or after October 1, 2017, are based on
either of two methods as determined by
the ASD(HA). The first uses the
CHAMPUS Diagnosis Related Group
(DRG) payment system rates under 32
CFR 199.14(a)(1). Certain adjustments
are made to reflect differences between
the CHAMPUS payment system and
MHS billing solutions. Among these are
to include in the inpatient hospital
service charges adjustments related to
direct medical education and capital
costs (which in the CHAMPUS system
are handled as annual pass through
payments). Additional adjustments are
made for long stay outlier cases. The
second method uses Itemized Resource
Utilization (IRU) rates based on the cost
to provide inpatient institutional
resources. Like the CHAMPUS system,
inpatient professional services are not
included in the inpatient institutional
services charges calculated under either
methodology, but are billed separately
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section. In lieu of either method
described in this paragraph (b), the
method in effect prior to April 1, 2003
(described in paragraph (c) of this
section), may continue to be used for a
period of time after April 1, 2003, if the
ASD(HA) determines that effective
implementation requires a temporary
deferral.
(c) Inpatient institutional and
inpatient professional services before
April 1, 2003. (1) In general. Prior to
April 1, 2003, the computation of
reasonable charges for inpatient
institutional and professional services is
reasonable costs based on diagnosis
related groups (DRGs). Costs shall be
based on the inpatient full
reimbursement rate per hospital
discharge, weighted to reflect the
intensity of the principal diagnosis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
involved. The average charge per case
shall be published annually as an
inpatient standardized amount. A
relative weight for each DRG shall be
the same as the DRG weights published
annually for hospital reimbursement
rates under CHAMPUS pursuant to 32
CFR 199.14(a)(1). The method in effect
prior to April 1, 2003 (as described in
this paragraph (c)), may continue to be
used for a period of time after April 1,
2003, if the ASD(HA) determines that
effective implementation requires a
temporary deferral of the method
described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Identification of professional and
institutional charges. For purposes of
billing third party payers other than
automobile liability and no-fault
insurance carriers, inpatient billings are
subdivided into two categories:
(i) Institutional charges (which refer
to routine service charges associated
with the facility encounter or hospital
stay and ancillary charges).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(2) With respect to inpatient
institutional charges in the Burn Center
at Brooke Army Medical Center, the
ASD(HA) may establish an adjustment
to the rate otherwise applicable under
the payment methodologies under this
section to reflect unique attributes of the
Burn Center.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) The charge for immunizations,
allergin extracts, allergic condition tests,
and the administration of certain
medications when these services are
provided by or through a facility of the
Uniformed Services or a separate
immunizations or shot clinic, are based
either on CHAMPUS prevailing rates or
on IRU rates based on the cost to
provide these items, exclusive of any
costs considered for purposes of any
outpatient visit. A separate charge shall
be made for each immunization,
injection or medication administered.
(6) The charges for pharmacy, durable
medical equipment and supply
resources are based either on
CHAMPUS prevailing rates or on IRU
rates based on the cost to provide these
items, exclusive of any costs considered
for purposes of any outpatient visit. A
separate charge shall be made for each
item provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Ambulatory (outpatient)
institutional services on or after October
1, 2017. Reasonable charges for
institutional facility charges for
ambulatory services provided on or after
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64771
October 1, 2017, are based on any of
three methods as determined by the
ASD(HA). The first uses the CHAMPUS
Ambulatory Payment Classification
(APC) and Ambulatory Surgery Center
(ASC) payment system rates under 32
CFR 199.14(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 32 CFR
199.14(d) respectively. The second uses
a bundled MHS Ambulatory Procedure
Visit (APV) payment system rate charge
reflected by the average cost of
providing an APV exclusive of
professional services. The third method
uses IRU rates based on the cost to
provide ambulatory institutional
resources. Like the CHAMPUS system,
ambulatory professional services are not
included in the ambulatory institutional
facility charges calculated under any of
the three methodologies, but are billed
separately in accordance with paragraph
(e) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 11, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018–27186 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2018–1065]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare
County, NC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone on
the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in
Dare County, North Carolina in support
of demolition of the old Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge. This temporary safety
zone is intended to protect mariners,
vessels, and demolition crews from the
hazards associated with demolishing the
old bridge, and will restrict vessel traffic
on portions of Oregon Inlet near active
demolition work and demolition
equipment. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit vessels or persons from
being in the safety zone. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before January 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
64772
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
2018–1065 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, contact Petty Officer
Matthew Tyson, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC;
telephone: (910) 772–2221, email:
Matthew.I.Tyson@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On November 26, 2018, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation
provided the Coast Guard with details
concerning the demolition of the old
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge from February
1, 2019 through February 29, 2020.
Demolition will not follow a set
schedule due to sea conditions,
equipment needs, and vessel navigation
considerations. In addition, demolition
will take place in two locations at once
due to equipment types and demolition
methods. A moving safety zone is
proposed in Oregon Inlet within 100
yards of active demolition work and
demolition equipment. Demolition work
will take place at various points along
the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which
follows a line beginning at approximate
position 35°46′47″ N, 75°32′41″ W, then
southeast to 35°46′37″ N, 75°32′33″ W,
then southeast to 35°46′09″ N, 75°31′59″
W, then southeast to 35°46′03″ N,
75°31′51″ W, then southeast to
35°46′01″ N, 75°31′40″ W. (NAD 1983)
in Dare County, North Carolina. The
Captain of the Port (COTP) North
Carolina has determined that potential
safety hazards associated with the
demolition would be a concern for
anyone transiting through Oregon Inlet.
The purpose of this rule is to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on the navigable waters in
Oregon Inlet during the demolition of
the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. The
Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP proposes to establish a
moving safety zone to be enforced
during active demolition work from
February 1, 2019 through February 29,
2020. Demolition will not follow a set
schedule due to sea conditions,
equipment needs, and vessel navigation
considerations. In addition, demolition
will take place in two locations at once
due to equipment types and demolition
methods. When the safety zone is active,
the exact times will be announced via
Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least 48
hours prior to enforcement. The moving
safety zone will include all navigable
waters within 100 yards of active
demolition work and demolition
equipment in Oregon Inlet along the old
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which follows
a line beginning at approximate position
35°46′47″ N, 75°32′41″ W, then
southeast to 35°46′37″ N, 75°32′33″ W,
then southeast to 35°46′09″ N, 75°31′59″
W, then southeast to 35°46′03″ N,
75°31′51″ W, then southeast to
35°46′01″ N, 75°31′40″ W. (NAD 1983).
This zone is intended to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on the navigable waters in
Oregon Inlet during the demolition of
the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. No
vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone during the
designated times. There will be
alternative navigation options for vessel
traffic when a moving safety zone covers
all or part of the navigation channel.
The regulatory text we are proposing
appears at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This regulatory action determination
is based on the size, location, and
duration of the proposed safety zone.
Vessel traffic will not be allowed to
enter or transit portions of Oregon Inlet
during active demolition work from
February 1, 2019 through February 29,
2020. The specific enforcement times
for active demolition work will be
broadcast at least 48 hours in advance
and vessels will be able to transit
Oregon Inlet at all other times. The
Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to
Mariners and transmit a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine
channel 16 regarding the safety zone.
There will be alternative navigation
options for vessel traffic when a moving
safety zone covers all or part of the
navigation channel. Vessel traffic in this
portion of Oregon Inlet will fluctuate
between high, medium, and low
depending on the time of the year. This
rule does not allow vessels to request
permission to enter the moving safety
zone covering the active demolition
areas within Oregon Inlet during the
designated times.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the safety
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above,
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
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 Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
involves a 100-yard radius moving
safety zone lasting from February 1,
2019 through February 29, 2020 that
would prohibit entry into a portion of
Oregon Inlet for bridge demolition.
Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table
1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–
001–01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record
of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64773
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–1065 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T05–1065 Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet,
Dare County, NC.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: all navigable waters of
Oregon Inlet, within 100 yards of active
demolition work and demolition
equipment, along the old Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, which follows a line
beginning at approximate position
35°46′47″ N, 75°32′41″ W, then
southeast to 35°46′37″ N, 75°32′33″ W,
then southeast to 35°46′09″ N, 75°31′59″
W, then southeast to 35°46′03″ N,
75°31′51′ W, then southeast to 35°46′01′
N, 75°31′40″ W (NAD 1983) in Dare
County, NC.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section—
Designated representative means a
Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by
the Captain of the Port North Carolina
(COTP) for the enforcement of the safety
zone.
Captain of the Port means the
Commander, Sector North Carolina.
Demolition crews means persons and
vessels involved in support of
demolition.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations governing safety zones in
§ 165.23 apply to the area described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
64774
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(2) With the exception of demolition
crews, entry into or remaining in this
safety zone is prohibited.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone
when this section becomes effective
must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North
Carolina can be reached through the
Coast Guard Sector North Carolina
Command Duty Officer, Wilmington,
North Carolina at telephone number
910–343–3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated
security vessels enforcing the safety
zone can be contacted on VHF–FM
marine band radio channel 13 (165.65
MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the safety zone by
Federal, State, and local agencies.
(e) Enforcement Period. This
regulation will be enforced from
February 1, 2019 through February 29,
2020
(f) Public Notification. The Coast
Guard will notify the public of the
active enforcement times at least 48
hours in advance by transmitting
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–
FM marine channel 16.
Dated: December 7, 2018.
Bion B. Stewart,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the
Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2018–27385 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0728; FRL–9988–01–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans;
California; Plumas County; Moderate
Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
most elements of the state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by California to address Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for
the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in
the Plumas County Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area (‘‘Portola
nonattainment area’’). The SIP revisions
are the ‘‘Portola Fine Particulate Matter
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Dec 17, 2018
Jkt 247001
(PM2.5) Attainment Plan’’ submitted on
February 28, 2017, and the 2019 and
2022 transportation conformity motor
vehicle emission budgets (‘‘budgets’’)
submitted on December 20, 2017. We
refer to these submittals collectively as
the ‘‘Portola PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan.’’ The
EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of the Portola PM2.5
Plan: The 2013 base year emissions
inventories, the reasonably available
control measure/reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT)
demonstration, the attainment
demonstration, the reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstration, the
quantitative milestones, and the budgets
for 2019 and 2021. The EPA is not
proposing any action at this time on the
contingency measures in the Portola
PM2.5 Plan.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
January 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0728 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
John Ungvarsky, at Ungvarsky.john@
epa.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
removed or edited 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
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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Ungvarsky, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for Proposed Action
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Plans
III. Completeness Review of the Portola PM2.5
Attainment Plan
IV. Review of the Portola PM2.5 Plan
V. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Proposed Action
Under section 109 of the CAA, the
EPA has established NAAQS for certain
pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts
periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be
revised or whether new NAAQS should
be established. The EPA sets the
NAAQS for criteria pollutants at levels
required to protect public health and
welfare.1 Particulate matter is one of the
criteria pollutants for which the EPA
has established health-based standards.
The CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control particulate
matter emissions.
Particulate matter includes particles
with diameters that are generally 2.5
microns or smaller (PM2.5) and particles
with diameters that are generally 10
microns or smaller (PM10). It contributes
to effects that are harmful to human
health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation
and ecosystems. Individuals particularly
sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung
disease, and children.2 PM2.5 can be
emitted by sources directly into the
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle
(‘‘primary PM2.5’’ or ‘‘direct PM2.5’’) or
can be formed in the atmosphere
(‘‘secondary PM2.5’’) as a result of
various chemical reactions among
precursor pollutants from sources such
as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and ammonia.3
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the
NAAQS for particulate matter to add
new standards for PM2.5.4 The EPA
established primary and secondary
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5.
The annual standard was set at 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)
1 For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ national
ambient air quality standards are those determined
by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health.
‘‘Secondary’’ standards are those determined by the
EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated
with the presence of such air pollutant in the
ambient air. CAA section 109(b).
2 78 FR 3086, 3088 (January 15, 2013).
3 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/
002bF, October 2004.
4 62 FR 38652.
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64771-64774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27385]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2018-1065]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone on the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North
Carolina in support of demolition of the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge.
This temporary safety zone is intended to protect mariners, vessels,
and demolition crews from the hazards associated with demolishing the
old bridge, and will restrict vessel traffic on portions of Oregon
Inlet near active demolition work and demolition equipment. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit vessels or persons from being in the
safety zone. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
[[Page 64772]]
2018-1065 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://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, contact Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina,
Wilmington, NC; telephone: (910) 772-2221, email:
Matthew.I.Tyson@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On November 26, 2018, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation provided the Coast Guard with details concerning the
demolition of the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge from February 1, 2019
through February 29, 2020. Demolition will not follow a set schedule
due to sea conditions, equipment needs, and vessel navigation
considerations. In addition, demolition will take place in two
locations at once due to equipment types and demolition methods. A
moving safety zone is proposed in Oregon Inlet within 100 yards of
active demolition work and demolition equipment. Demolition work will
take place at various points along the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge,
which follows a line beginning at approximate position 35[deg]46'47''
N, 75[deg]32'41'' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'37'' N, 75[deg]32'33''
W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'09'' N, 75[deg]31'59'' W, then southeast
to 35[deg]46'03'' N, 75[deg]31'51'' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'01''
N, 75[deg]31'40'' W. (NAD 1983) in Dare County, North Carolina. The
Captain of the Port (COTP) North Carolina has determined that potential
safety hazards associated with the demolition would be a concern for
anyone transiting through Oregon Inlet.
The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the
marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during the
demolition of the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP proposes to establish a moving safety zone to be enforced
during active demolition work from February 1, 2019 through February
29, 2020. Demolition will not follow a set schedule due to sea
conditions, equipment needs, and vessel navigation considerations. In
addition, demolition will take place in two locations at once due to
equipment types and demolition methods. When the safety zone is active,
the exact times will be announced via Broadcast Notices to Mariners at
least 48 hours prior to enforcement. The moving safety zone will
include all navigable waters within 100 yards of active demolition work
and demolition equipment in Oregon Inlet along the old Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, which follows a line beginning at approximate position
35[deg]46'47'' N, 75[deg]32'41'' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'37'' N,
75[deg]32'33'' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'09'' N, 75[deg]31'59'' W,
then southeast to 35[deg]46'03'' N, 75[deg]31'51'' W, then southeast to
35[deg]46'01'' N, 75[deg]31'40'' W. (NAD 1983). This zone is intended
to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the
navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during the demolition of the old
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the safety zone during the designated times. There will be
alternative navigation options for vessel traffic when a moving safety
zone covers all or part of the navigation channel. The regulatory text
we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will
not be allowed to enter or transit portions of Oregon Inlet during
active demolition work from February 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020.
The specific enforcement times for active demolition work will be
broadcast at least 48 hours in advance and vessels will be able to
transit Oregon Inlet at all other times. The Coast Guard will issue a
Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. There will be
alternative navigation options for vessel traffic when a moving safety
zone covers all or part of the navigation channel. Vessel traffic in
this portion of Oregon Inlet will fluctuate between high, medium, and
low depending on the time of the year. This rule does not allow vessels
to request permission to enter the moving safety zone covering the
active demolition areas within Oregon Inlet during the designated
times.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions
[[Page 64773]]
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a 100-yard radius moving
safety zone lasting from February 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020
that would prohibit entry into a portion of Oregon Inlet for bridge
demolition. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.T05-1065 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-1065 Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of Oregon Inlet, within 100 yards of active demolition work and
demolition equipment, along the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which
follows a line beginning at approximate position 35[deg]46'47'' N,
75[deg]32'41'' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'37'' N, 75[deg]32'33'' W,
then southeast to 35[deg]46'09'' N, 75[deg]31'59'' W, then southeast to
35[deg]46'03'' N, 75[deg]31'51' W, then southeast to 35[deg]46'01' N,
75[deg]31'40'' W (NAD 1983) in Dare County, NC.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section--
Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the
enforcement of the safety zone.
Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina.
Demolition crews means persons and vessels involved in support of
demolition.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones
in Sec. 165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
[[Page 64774]]
(2) With the exception of demolition crews, entry into or remaining
in this safety zone is prohibited.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes
effective must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through
the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington,
North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the
safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13
(165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
(e) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced from
February 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020
(f) Public Notification. The Coast Guard will notify the public of
the active enforcement times at least 48 hours in advance by
transmitting Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.
Dated: December 7, 2018.
Bion B. Stewart,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2018-27385 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P