Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 21633 

Dated: April 11, 2011. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9181 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0852] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Disestablishing Special Anchorage 

Area 2; Ashley River, Charleston, SC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

disestablishing the special anchorage, 

referred to as Ashley River Anchorage 2, 

in Charleston, South Carolina. The 

removal of Ashley River Anchorage 2 

would accommodate an expansion of 

the Ripley Light Yacht Club. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2008–0852 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2008–0852 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Lieutenant Julie Blanchfield, 

Sector Charleston Office of Waterways 

Management, Coast Guard; telephone 

843–740–3184, e-mail 

Julie.E.Blanchfield@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On June 5, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Disestablishing Special 

Anchorage Area 2; Ashley River, 

Charleston, SC in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 27000). We received six 

submissions, with a total of 24 

comments on the proposed rule. No 

public meetings were requested, and a 

public meeting was not held. 

Basis and Purpose 

Under 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 

1.05–1; and the Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 

0170.1, the Coast Guard may establish 

special anchorage areas. A special 

anchorage area is a designated water 

area within which vessels sixty-five feet 

(20 meters) or less in length are not 

required to: (1) Sound signals required 

by Rule 35 of the Inland Navigation 

Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035); or (2) exhibit the 

white anchor lights or shapes required 

by Rule 30 of the Inland Navigation 

Rules (33 U.S.C. 2030). 

Ashley River Properties and the 

Ripley Light Yacht Club submitted a 

permit application to the Army Corps of 

Engineers to construct an additional 200 

slips for pleasure craft at the Ripley 

Light Yacht Club in Charleston, South 

Carolina. The proposed expansion 

would encompass most of the area 

currently designated as Ashley River 

Anchorage 2. Removal of Ashley River 

Anchorage 2 would be necessary before 

the Ripley Light Yacht Club expansion 

can commence. There are, however, 

several other locations where vessels 

currently anchored at Ashley River 

Anchorage 2 may relocate. 

Background 

In 1983, the Port of Charleston had no 

designated special anchorage areas. 

Subsequently, two anchorage areas were 

designated. However, no distinction was 

made between anchorage for 

commercial and recreational vessels; 

either type of vessel could anchor in the 

two designated anchorages. These two 

anchorage areas did not provide a 

sufficient area for large commercial 

vessels, and they did not prevent both 

large commercial vessels and small 

recreational vessels from competing for 

the same anchorage grounds. 

In 1984, the Coast Guard published a 

final rule (49 FR 26587) establishing the 

four currently designated commercial 

anchorage areas in the Port of 

Charleston under 33 CFR 110.173. The 

Coast Guard also established a special 

anchorage area adjacent to the 

Charleston Peninsula on the Ashley 

River. This special anchorage area on 

the Ashley River existed until the Coast 

Guard issued a final rule in 1996 (61 FR 

40993) converting the special anchorage 

area into two special anchorage areas: 

Ashley River Anchorage 1 and Ashley 

River Anchorage 2. The special 

anchorage area was converted to 

accommodate an expansion to the 

George M. Lockwood Municipal Marina, 

currently known as The City Marina. 

Ashley River Anchorage 2 is the smaller 

of the two special anchorage areas 

established in 1996. 

In 2008, Ashley River Properties and 

the Ripley Light Yacht Club submitted 

a permit to the Army Corps of Engineers 

to construct 200 additional boat slips at 

the Ripley Light Yacht Club. The 

proposed expansion encompasses most 

of the area currently designated as 

Ashley River Anchorage 2. The Ripley 

Light Yacht Club expansion will 

accommodate significantly more vessels 

than can currently safely anchor in 

Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

The Ripley Light Yacht Club intends 

to reserve several of the 200 additional 

slips for transient recreational boaters. 

Additionally, transient slips are 

available at the Ripley Light Yacht Club, 

The City Marina, and Anchorage 1 

remains a viable and convenient 

location for recreational vessels to 

anchor. Finally, recreational vessels 

may anchor in other areas of the Port of 

Charleston so long as they comply with 

applicable Navigation Rules and do not 

pose a navigational hazard while 

anchored. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received six 

submissions, containing a total of 24 

comments, regarding the NPRM. 

Abandoned and Sunken Vessels 

One comment stated that due to the 

considerable amount of abandoned and 

sunken vessels within the larger 

remaining anchorage, Ashley River 

Anchorage 1 will not be able to 

accommodate vessels currently 

anchored in Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

Three comments recommended Ashley 

River Anchorage 2 not be disestablished 

until abandoned and sunken vessels in 

the two special anchorage areas were 

removed. The Coast Guard understands 

that Ashley River Properties will 

remove all abandoned and sunken 

vessels in both special anchorage areas 

prior to commencing the Ripley Light 

Yacht Club expansion. The removal of 

abandoned and sunken vessels would 

provide additional space in Ashley 

River Anchorage 1. After abandoned 

and sunken vessels have been removed 

from Ashley River Anchorage 1, Ashley 

River Anchorage 1 will be able to 

accommodate all of the vessels currently 

in Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

Additionally, this rule does not require 

vessels to leave the location where they 

are currently anchored. This rule merely 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
21634 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

disestablishes Ashley River Anchorage 

2. Vessels may still remain anchored in 

their current location so long as they 

comply with applicable Navigation 

Rules and do not pose a navigational 

hazard while anchored. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard made no changes to the 

final rule based on these comments. 

One comment suggested that by 

disestablishing Ashley River Anchorage 

2, the Coast Guard would be 

encouraging the abandonment of vessels 

in alternate locations. The Coast Guard 

does not establish special anchorage 

areas to facilitate the abandonment of 

vessels, nor should special anchorage 

areas be used in such a manner. 

Additionally, there are several other 

locations where vessels currently 

anchored at Ashley River Anchorage 2 

may relocate, including Ashley River 

Anchorage 1. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

made no changes to the final rule based 

on this comment. 

Two comments expressed concern 

that: (1) Some persons who currently 

anchor their vessels at Ashley River 

Anchorage 2 may not be able to afford 

to pay for a slip rental in the Port of 

Charleston; (2) there are few 

inexpensive places in the Charleston 

area to anchor; and (3) Ashley River 

Anchorages 1 and 2 should be 

protected. The Coast Guard is not 

reducing the number of free or low-cost 

anchoring locations by removing Ashley 

River Anchorage 2. The Coast Guard 

understands that, as part of the Ripley 

Light Yacht Club expansion project, 

Ashley River Properties will be 

removing abandoned and sunken 

vessels from both special anchorage 

areas. Removal of these abandoned and 

sunken vessels in Ashley River 

Anchorage 1 will provide additional 

space for those vessels currently 

anchored at Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

Moreover, vessels may still anchor in 

other areas in the Port of Charleston at 

no cost so long as they comply with 

applicable Navigation Rules and do not 

pose a navigational hazard while 

anchored. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

does not believe that disestablishing 

Ashley River Anchorage 2 will prevent 

mariners from anchoring their boats 

nearby. There are several nearby 

locations where vessels currently 

anchored in Ashley River Anchorage 2 

may relocate, including Ashley River 

Anchorage 1. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

made no changes to the final rule based 

on these comments. 

One comment stated that Ashley 

River Anchorage 1 is much more 

exposed to prevailing wind and weather 

than Ashley River Anchorage 2 and, 

therefore, is more suitable to larger 

vessels than Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. Ashley River Anchorage 1 is 

not much more exposed to prevailing 

wind and weather than Ashley River 

Anchorage 2. In fact, the two anchorages 

are within 200 yards of one another. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard made no 

changes to the final rule based on this 

comment. 

Two comments stated that the area 

between Ripley Light Yacht Club and 

the Ashley River Marina will become 

overly congested by vessel traffic 

because of the Ripley Light Club 

expansion. The Coast Guard believes 

that disestablishing Ashley River 

Anchorage 2 will not increase vessel 

congestion in this area. The removal of 

Ashley River Anchorage 2 and the 

abandoned and sunken vessels 

contained in the anchorage will actually 

increase space for vessels to maneuver. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard made no 

changes to the final rule based on these 

comments. 

Ripley Light Yacht Club Marina 

Expansion 

Two comments stated that because 

the proposed expansion extends into the 

anchorage, the construction permit 

should have been denied. The Coast 

Guard does not have authority to 

approve or disapprove the Ripley Light 

Club expansion, and the Ripley Light 

Yacht Club marina expansion 

permitting process is not within the 

scope of this final rule. Comments 

regarding the issuance of the Ripley 

Light Yacht Club marina expansion 

permit should be submitted to Federal, 

State, and local agencies handling the 

permit application, including the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the South 

Carolina Office of Coastal Resource 

Management. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard made no changes to the final rule 

based on these comments. 

One comment stated that the Ripley 

Light Yacht Club is not similar to other 

yacht clubs and is more like a business. 

The name and business practices of the 

Ripley Light Yacht Club are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the 

Coast Guard made no changes to the 

final rule based on this comment. 

One comment stated that the 

proposed rule benefits the private 

financial gain of the developer at the 

expense of numerous small entities. The 

Coast Guard disagrees that 

disestablishing Ashley River Anchorage 

2 would impose costs on small entities. 

There are several nearby locations 

where vessels currently anchored in 

Ashley River Anchorage 2 may relocate 

at no additional cost. 

One comment stated that the 

developer has no riparian rights to the 

land beneath Ashley River Anchorage 2, 

and that the proposed rule would give 

Federal property to a private entity. This 

comment is outside the scope of the 

final rule. By disestablishing Ashley 

River Anchorage 2, the Coast Guard is 

not conferring any Federal property 

rights on any private entity. Therefore, 

the Coast Guard made no changes to the 

final rule based on this comment. 

One comment stated that an 

environmental study should be 

conducted to analyze the environmental 

effects of the marina expansion. While 

the permit process for the marina 

expansion may require an 

environmental review, the Coast Guard 

has determined that the 

disestablishment of the Ashley River 

Anchorage 2 is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The 

Environment section below discusses 

this categorical exclusion determination 

in detail. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

made no changes to the final rule based 

on these comments. 

One comment stated that under the 

Background and Purpose and 

Discussion of Proposed Rule sections of 

the NPRM, the Coast Guard indicated 

that the proposed marina expansion will 

‘‘extend into’’ Ashley River Anchorage 2, 

when the expansion actually completely 

encompasses the existing anchorage. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with the 

comment that the expansion will 

completely encompass Ashley River 

Anchorage 2. However, the Coast Guard 

has amended the preamble to state that 

the expansion will ‘‘encompass most of 

the area currently designated as Ashley 

River Anchorage 2.’’ 

Local Enforcement of Anchorage 

One comment suggested the creation 

of an association of interested citizens 

that could monitor and assist in 

maintaining Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

This comment is outside the scope of 

the regulation. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard made no changes to the final rule 

based on this comment. 

Two comments recommended that 

jurisdiction over Ashley River 

Anchorage 1 and 2 should be turned 

over to the local government to establish 

and enforce. To the extent this comment 

suggests the creation of local 

ordinances, the suggestion is outside the 

Coast Guard’s authority, and the Coast 

Guard does not believe this 

recommendation affects the 

disestablishment of Ashley River 

Anchorage 2. Additionally, a proposal 

to disestablish Ashley River Anchorage 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 21635 

1 would require a separate rulemaking. 

At this time, the Coast Guard does not 

have any intention of disestablishing 

Ashley River Anchorage 1. Therefore, 

the Coast Guard made no changes to the 

final rule based on these comments. 

Relocation of the Ashley River Channel 

Two comments stated that The City 

Marina may attempt to have the existing 

channel relocated westward due to 

insufficient water depths at The City 

Marina. As such, The City Marina will 

soon be submitting a permit that would 

affect both anchorages. These 

commenters recommended the Coast 

Guard abandon this rulemaking until 

The City Marina submits the permit. 

The Coast Guard does not believe the 

proposal by The City Marina should 

have any impact on disestablishing 

Ashley River Anchorage 2. While 

relocation of the channel could impact 

the location of part of Ashley River 

Anchorage 1, it should not reduce the 

overall anchorage space. In any event, 

the Coast Guard will consider proposals 

affecting Ashley River Anchorage 1 

separately. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

made no changes to the final rule based 

on these comments. 

Notice and Comments Regarding the 

Proposed Rule 

One comment stated that Marine 

Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) 31– 

09, announcing the proposed rule, was 

not distributed to every vessel currently 

moored in Ashley River Anchorage 2 

until July 10, 2009. The Coast Guard 

provided notice of the NPRM by several 

means. First, on June 1, 2009, the Coast 

Guard posted MSIB 31–09 on the 

Internet at http://homeport.uscg.mil. 

Second, on June 1, 2009, the Coast 

Guard e-mailed MSIB 31–09 to 

subscribers of a Coast Guard sponsored 

e-mail list server, which is available for 

free to the public at http://cgls.uscg.mil/ 

mailman/listinfo/secchas-msib. Third, 

the NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27000). 

Fourth, the Coast Guard distributed 

MSIB 31–09 to all vessels in Ashley 

River Anchorage 2. Such notification 

efforts exceed standard outreach efforts 

for Federal Register publications and 

satisfy the notice requirement set forth 

in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553). 

One comment requested that the 

Coast Guard consider extending the 

August 4, 2009 deadline for public 

comments. The Coast Guard did not 

receive this request to extend the 

comment period until August 3, 2009, 

the day prior to the end of the comment 

period, and did not believe it necessary 

to extend the comment period. 

After considering all the comments, 

the Coast Guard made no changes to the 

proposed rule. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

This 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, 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. 

The economic impact of this rule is 

not significant because of the following 

reasons: (1) The limited geographic area 

impacted by disestablishing Ashley 

River Anchorage 2 will not restrict or 

otherwise significantly impact the 

movement or routine operation of a 

large number of commercial or 

recreational vessels in the Ashley River; 

and (2) vessels currently located in 

Ashley River Anchorage 2 may relocate 

to Ashley River Anchorage 1, a larger 

anchorage nearby, or other areas of the 

Port of Charleston, where they may 

anchor at no cost, so long as they 

comply with applicable Navigation 

Rules and do not pose a navigational 

hazard while anchored. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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 rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

recreational vessels intending to anchor 

in the Port of Charleston, Ripley Light 

Yacht Club, and The City Marina. This 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons: (1) Ashley 

River Anchorage 2 is small and cannot 

accommodate many vessels; (2) 

recreational vessels that currently 

anchor at Ashley River Anchorage 2 

may anchor at many other nearby 

locations, including Ashley River 

Anchorage 1, Ripley Light Yacht Club, 

or The City Marina, all of which are 

located nearby; and (3) after the 

expansion is completed, the Ripley 

Light Yacht Club will be able to 

accommodate significantly more 

transient vessels than could fit in 

Ashley River Anchorage 2. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM we offered to assist small 

entities in understanding the rule so 

that they could better evaluate its effects 

on them and participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 

1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

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 rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
21636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this 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. 

Technical Standards 

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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(f), of the Instruction, because it 

involves disestablishing a special 

anchorage area. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

not required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 110.72d to read as follows: 

§ 110.72d Ashley River, SC. 

All waters on the southwest portion of 

the Ashley River encompassed within 

the following points: beginning at 

32°46′42.7′′ N, 79°57′19.3′′ W; thence 

southwest to 32°46′38.0′′ N, 79°57′24.0′′ 

W; thence southeast to 32°46′32.0′′ N, 

79°57′15.5′′ W; thence southeast to 

32°46′29.0′′ N, 79°57’00.9′′ W; thence 

back to origin following the southwest 

boundary of the Ashley River Channel. 

All coordinates are North American 

Datum 1983. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

William D. Baumgartner, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9255 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket Number USCG–2011–0243] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the Cass 

Street Drawbridge across the Illinois 

Waterway, mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois. 

The deviation is necessary to allow 

participants in an 8K run to cross the 

bridge. This deviation allows the bridge 

to be maintained in the closed-tonavigation position for three hours. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on May 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0243 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0243 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Eric A. Washburn, Bridge 

Administrator, Coast Guard; telephone 

(314) 269–2378, e-mail 

Eric.Washburn@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone (202) 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

requested a temporary deviation for the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES