Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to create a temporary safety zone in the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from Hobcaw Yacht Club to Charleston Harbor Marina along the coast of Mount Pleasant, SC, to approximately 150 yards offshore, during the Lowcountry Splash swimming event on June 24, 2006. A safety zone is necessary to prevent commercial or recreational boating traffic from interfering with swimmers on the racecourse. This rule provides for the safety of swimmers and vessels transiting the area.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 19, 2006.
You may mail comments and related material to, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Division, Charleston, South Carolina 29401. Comments and material received from the public, as 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 U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Office between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Warrant Officer James J. McHugh, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Division, (843) 724-7647.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 06-070), 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.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Chief Warrant Officer James J. McHugh, 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
The Lowcountry Splash is a 2.4 mile open water swimming event in the Wando River and Charleson Harbor, parallel to Mt. Pleasant, SC 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 in a highly transited body of water. The event sponsor will provide 20-30 kayaks to keep swimmers on course and assist the Coast Guard in patrolling the area. This rule creates a regulated 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 rule allows the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina, to establish a temporary safety zone in order to provide for a safe area for the swimming event. The safety zone will have patrol vessels to enforce the zone and the event sponsor will provide 20 to 30 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 commercial and recreational vessel traffic in the vicinity of the race. Sector Charleston will notify the maritime community of periods during which these safety zones will be in effect via a broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by having on-scene assets inform vessel traffic as necessary.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit Start Printed Page 28836or anchor in a portion of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from 7:00 a.m. to 11 a.m., June 24, 2006.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact Chief Warrant Officer James J. McHugh, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Division, at (843) 724-7647. 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 effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
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 proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this is a temporary safety zone.
A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded 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.T07-70 to read as follows:
(a) Regulated Area. The waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor from Hobcaw Yacht Club, in approximate position 32°49.324 N 079°53.813 W, South along the coast Start Printed Page 28837of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., to Charleston Harbor Marina, approximate position 32°47.198 N 079°54.639 W and encompasses an area 150 yards offshore between the two points.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations of § 165.23 of this part, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, anchoring, mooring or transiting the Regulated Area unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
(c) Dates. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on June 24, 2006.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston, South Carolina.
[FR Doc. 06-4628 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U