Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from Hobcaw Yacht Club to Charleston Harbor Marina and from the coast of Mount Pleasant to 150 yards offshore during the Lowcountry Splash swimming event. A temporary safety zone is necessary to prevent commercial or recreational boating traffic from transiting the racecourse. This temporary safety zone will allow the swimmers to safely participate in the event without interfering with vessel traffic.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety Office Charleston, 196 Tradd St., Charleston, SC 29401. The Marine Safety Office maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, Start Printed Page 21703as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at The Marine Safety Office Charleston between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTJG Matthew Meskun, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Charleston, South Carolina, at (843) 720-3240.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP Charleston 05-036), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
If, as we anticipate, we make this temporary final rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, we will explain in that publication, as required by 5 U.S.C. (d)(3), our good cause for doing so.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to The Marine Safety Office Charleston at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.
Background and Purpose
This regulation is needed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters because of the inherent dangers associated with an open-water swimming event on a highly utilized body of water. The event will take place from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on May 21, 2005. The event sponsor will provide 30-40 kayaks to keep swimmers on course and assist the Coast Guard in patrolling the area. This rule creates an area that will prohibit non-participant vessels from entering the regulated area during the event without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This Coast Guard Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina, proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in order to provide a safe area for this swimming event. The event will take place from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on May 21, 2005. The safety zone will have patrol vessels to enforce the zone and the event sponsor will provide 30 to 40 kayaks in order to assist the swimmers and ensure they are staying within the designated areas. The safety zone is necessary to protect the swimmers from the dangers of vessel traffic in the vicinity of the race. Marine Safety Office Charleston will notify the maritime community when the safety zone is in effect via a broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by actual notice from on-scene security assets enforcing the zone.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary, because the safety zone will only be in effect for a limited time and for a limited area.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., May 21, 2005. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the rule will only be in effect for a limited time and for a limited area. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the waterway around the safety zone.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Start Printed Page 21704
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
2. Add new temporary § 165.T07-036 to read as follows:
(a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from the Hobcaw Yacht Club to the Charleston Harbor Marina and from the coast of Mount Pleasant to 150 yards offshore.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, anchoring, mooring or transiting the Regulated Area is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on May 21, 2005.
Dated: April 18, 2005.
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Charleston, South Carolina.
[FR Doc. 05-8351 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P