Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29081 

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. 

K. Energy Effects 

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 

although it is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, it 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, and the 

Administrator of OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated it as a significant energy 

action. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, 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. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration (REC) 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. This proposed rule would be 

categorically excluded under paragraph 

L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01(series). 

Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations 

that are editorial or procedural. We seek 

any comments or information that may 

lead to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 105 

Maritime security, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

For the reasons listed in the preamble, 

the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 

CFR part 105 as follows: 

PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 105 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04– 

11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 105.253, as proposed to be 

added August 23, 2018 at 81 FR 57712, 

by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 105.253 Risk Group classifications for 

facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Beginning August 23, 2018: 

Facilities that receive vessels 

certificated to carry more than 1,000 

passengers. 

(2) Beginning August 23, 2018: 

Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous 

Cargoes (CDC) in bulk and transfer such 

cargoes from or to a vessel. 

(3) Beginning August 23, 2021: 

Facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but 

do not transfer it from or to a vessel. 

(4) Beginning August 23, 2021: 

Facilities that receive vessels carrying 

CDC in bulk but, during the vessel-tofacility interface, do not transfer it from 

or to the vessel. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Karl L. Schultz, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13345 Filed 6–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket Number USCG–2015–1118] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Grounds; Lower 

Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend the regulations for Hampton 

Roads, Virginia and adjacent water 

anchorage grounds by establishing a 

new, deep-water anchorage ground and 

relocating an existing anchorage ground 

near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower 

Chesapeake Bay. Maritime 

infrastructure improvements and growth 

in both size and volume of vessel traffic 

entering the port, including large and 

deep-draft vessels have prompted this 

proposed rulemaking to ensure that the 

Hampton Roads Anchorage Grounds 

continue to safely and effectively 

support current and future deep-draft 

vessel anchorage demands. We moved 

the proposed locations of the anchorage 

grounds in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) further offshore 

than the potential locations we 

identified in an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) we 

published in 2016. We did so based on 

our review and analysis of public 

comments on the ANPRM and the 

results of an environmental study 

referenced in our preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration for this 

NPRM. We propose to establish an 

Anchorage R that is further offshore of 

Cape Charles, VA, and to relocate the 

existing Anchorage Q (Quarantine 

Anchorage) south of its current location 

to a more secluded location on the 

southern Chesapeake Bay. The intended 

effect of this proposed rulemaking is to 

protect the environment, facilitate the 

safe navigation of maritime commerce 

and national defense assets, and more 

safely and effectively support 

commercial vessel anchoring 

requirements on the Lower Chesapeake 

Bay. We invite your comments on this 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before July 17, 2018. Additionally, 

the Coast Guard will hold several public 

meetings to allow the public the 

opportunity to provide comment. The 

first public meeting will be held on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
29082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Monday, June 25, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 

7 p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting 

Room, 235 E Plume Street, Norfolk, VA 

23510. Two public meetings will be 

held on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at Cape 

Charles Civic Center, 500 Tazwell 

Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the first 

meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 

p.m. and the second meeting will be 

held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2015–1118 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email CDR Ken 

Kostecki, Sector Hampton Roads 

Prevention Chief, 757–668–5536, email 

HamptonRoadsWaterway@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

AIS Automated Information System 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

COTP Captain of the Port 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DOD Department of Defense 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

MD Maryland 

NM Nautical Miles 

§ Section 

NPRM Notice of proposed rule-making 

PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VA Virginia 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On April 19, 2016, the Coast Guard 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rule-making (ANPRM) in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 22939) to solicit 

public comments on amending certain 

anchorage regulations in Hampton 

Roads for the possible creation of a new 

anchorage in the lower Chesapeake Bay 

near Cape Charles, VA. We received 35 

comment letters in response to the 

ANPRM. On June 27, 2016, we 

published a 45-day extension and 

announced two public meetings (81 FR 

41487). On August 16, 2016, we 

announced one additional meeting and 

reopened the comment period (81 FR 

54531). We scheduled the meetings to 

receive comments on the ANRPM to 

allow for greater public involvement. 

The meetings were held in— 

• Norfolk, VA, on July 19, 2016; 

• Melfa, VA, on July 20, 2016; and 

• Cape Charles, VA, on August 17, 

2016. 

At the three public meetings, we 

heard from 20 speakers and we received 

a total of 35 individual comment letters. 

On December 16, 2016, the Coast Guard 

issued a news release to inform the 

public that a review of comments and 

the environmental study would be 

conducted. In November 2017, the Coast 

Guard completed its environmental 

review. In January 2018, the Center for 

Disease Control, the U.S. Navy Fleet 

Forces Command, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic 

provided comments identifying and 

addressing adverse impacts from the 

proposed anchorage establishment. 

The purpose of this NPRM is to solicit 

comments on proposed rulemaking for 

establishing a federal commercial 

anchorage ground, Anchorage R, 3 

nautical miles (NM) west of Cape 

Charles, VA and relocating the existing 

quarantine anchorage ground currently 

off Cape Charles, VA to a more secluded 

location in the lower Chesapeake Bay 

that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans 

Island, VA. With the increasing trend of 

larger and deeper-draft ships calling 

within Virginia and Maryland, our 

efforts to improve navigation safety of 

both national defense and commercial 

vessels and to protect the environment 

can be accomplished by providing an 

anchorage of adequate size, depth and 

capacity. 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking are 

found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to propose, establish, and define 

regulatory anchorage grounds. 

III. Discussion of Comments on ANRPM 

This section provides a detailed 

discussion of the public comments 

received during the ANPRM’s comment 

period and public meeting. We received 

35 comment letters in response to the 

ANPRM. In addition, we hosted three 

public meetings to provide another 

forum for obtaining public feedback on 

the ANRPM. 

Twenty-three comments were 

received from the public meetings. 

Comments submitted to the online 

docket and received at the public 

meeting aligned into five categories: 

Environmental concerns, local economy 

and tourism, safety and security 

compliance concerns, view shed 

concerns, and anchorage proponent. 

Copies of the public meeting sign-in 

sheets and written comments received 

are available for viewing in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. Commenters 

represented a wide range of individuals 

and entities, including State and local 

government officials, port authorities, 

representatives of affected industries, 

such as maritime, port, and other 

facilities, and private citizens. The 

comments received from these parties 

helped to inform the proposal in this 

NPRM. 

1. Environmental Concerns 

We received 22 comments opposing 

the anchorage location due to 

environmental concerns, such as light 

and noise pollution and potential vessel 

discharge. In the ANPRM, we inquired 

about the possible establishment of a 

deep-water anchorage ground west of 

Cape Charles, VA on the Chesapeake 

Bay. These comments on the ANPRM 

combined with the results of our 

environmental study caused us to move 

the anchorages we are proposing in this 

NPRM further offshore. The Coast Guard 

has prepared a preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration (REC) for 

this NPRM and has made a preliminary 

determination that the proposed 

Anchorage R and new Quarantine 

Anchorage do not cumulatively or 

individually have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 

Also, we noted that there are existing 

laws and regulations in place to govern 

behavior of mariners and vessels related 

to these concerns about the release of 

pollutants. In terms of the discharge of 

pollutants, our regulations in 33 CFR 

part 151 and the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships implement 

provisions of the International 

Convention for Prevention of Pollution 

from Ships and subject violators to 

penalties. Also, the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972, 

(33 U.S.C. 1221, 1223, 1228, 1232 et 

seq.) and PWSA-implementing 

regulations help us ensure vessel 

compliance with all applicable 

standards, vessel operating 

requirements, vessel conditions for 

entry into port and enforcement 

provisions. In addition, 46 U.S.C. 

subtitle II, part B, specifically 3305, 

3307, and 3714, authorize and call for 

merchant vessel inspections and 

examinations. Foreign-flagged vessels 

are subject to Port State Control 

examinations to ensure compliance with 

applicable marine pollution, sewage, 

waste, and safety and security laws and 

regulations. Additionally, under current 

COTP procedures, Sector Hampton 

Roads has instituted a random and 

unannounced spot check program for 

any vessel, foreign or U.S. flagged, 

anchored off of Cape Charles to ensure 

regulatory compliance. 

Under 33 CFR 110.168(c)(8) and (9), 

the COTP may prescribe specific 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29083 

conditions for vessels preventing them 

from being in a dead ship status, (that 

is, control unavailable for normal 

operations) while in an anchorage 

ground, without prior approval of the 

COTP. Under § 160.216 of this chapter, 

vessels experiencing casualties, such as 

main propulsion, main steering or 

anchoring equipment malfunction, or 

which are planning to perform main 

propulsion engine repairs or 

maintenance, must immediately notify 

the Coast Guard COTP. Under § 160.111 

of this chapter, the Coast Guard COTP 

may direct a vessel to depart the 

anchorage during periods of severe 

weather or at other times as deemed 

necessary in the interest of port safety. 

During these adverse weather 

conditions, under § 110.168(c)(8) and (9) 

of this chapter the vessel operator in an 

anchorage ground must comply with all 

severe weather precautionary measures 

directed by the COTP to include but not 

limited to having additional anchors 

ready for letting go and standing a 

continuous and live anchor watch. 

To further enhance the safety of the 

waters of the Chesapeake Bay, the 

Quarantine Anchorage was relocated to 

a more secluded location to provide an 

additional layer of protection should a 

hazardous condition exist onboard the 

vessel. 

2. Local Economy and Tourism 

Sixteen comments received were 

opposed to the anchorage due to the 

proximity to the shore and its impact to 

the commercial and recreational boaters 

that use the Cape Charles City Channel, 

also known as the Cherrystone Inlet 

Channel. In this NPRM, the Coast Guard 

shifted the anchorage 3 NM from the 

coastline and into deeper water keeping 

Cherry Stone Channel Inlet, connected 

to Cape Charles, VA, open to workboats, 

fishing vessels, and recreational boats 

transiting this inlet to support the local 

economy and tourism. Also, by moving 

the anchorage north of an existing 

regulated navigation area, 33 CFR 

165.501, this will direct vessels to no 

longer routinely anchor offshore Bulters 

Bluff, Kiptopeke State Park Beach, 

Jackspot at the Sunset Beach and 

Chesapeake Bay Resort and Beach Club 

but instead to use a dedicated anchorage 

ground. This will move the lights from 

ships anchored there further offshore. 

Although boaters would be allowed to 

fish in the proposed anchorage ground, 

we would strongly discourage crab pot 

fishing as we would around any places 

vessels anchor because lines may get 

caught or cut by the anchors and 

propellers of vessels anchoring. 

Mariners deciding to fish in the 

anchorage ground would do so at the 

risk of their lines or other fishing gear 

getting snagged or cut by anchor lines or 

propellers. Fishing vessels would also 

need to comply with the provisions 

outlined in the Navigation Rules of the 

Road (see 33 CFR part 83). 

An additional commenter opposed 

the anchorage contemplated in the 

ANPRM requesting that if the ships 

could not anchor closer to Norfolk than 

they should anchor at sea until they are 

called to port. The Coast Guard cannot 

direct vessels to anchor greater than 12 

NM offshore or to stay at sea where they 

could become exposed to unsafe 

environmental weather conditions. 

However, in this NPRM, the proposed 

anchorage is being shifted further west 

from Cape Charles, VA and will now be 

regulated, enhancing the overall safety 

and security of both vessels and the 

public. 

3. Safety and Security Compliance 

Concerns 

Ten comments were received 

regarding vessel safety and crewmember 

security. Under 33 CFR part 160, 

subpart C, in general, U.S. vessels in 

commercial service and foreign vessels 

entering port must provide a Notice of 

Arrival to the Coast Guard. The vessel’s 

Notice of Arrival is vetted by numerous 

federal agencies to ensure compliance 

with applicable safety and security laws 

prior to the vessel and its crews entering 

U.S. waters. Speaking specifically to 

foreign crewmembers, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) screen and 

provide escort protocol for those 

individuals who are seeking to go 

ashore. All crewmembers must remain 

onboard the vessel unless clearance 

from CBP has been obtained prior to 

going ashore. 

4. View From Shore Concerns 

A total of six comments were received 

opposing the anchorage due to the 

negative impact anchored vessels could 

have on the view from shore and 

diminished property values. The Coast 

Guard considered these comments to 

find an alternate anchorage area. Based 

on exposure to weather, tug and barge 

traffic density, and navigational safety 

concerns for areas west of Chesapeake 

Channel due to drafts between 25 feet 

and 35 feet with numerous shoals, the 

proposed alternative areas were 

considered unsafe for deep draft vessels 

to anchor. To mitigate the issues 

associated with the view shed, the Coast 

Guard moved the anchorage to 3 NM 

offshore vice the original 1.5 NM and as 

far west as 500 yards from the 

Chesapeake Channel. Directly east of 

Cape Charles heading north towards the 

Cherry Stone Camp Grounds, the 

anchorage gets progressively narrower 

to reduce the overall number of vessels 

offshore that would be viewed on the 

horizon. 

5. Anchorage Proponent 

Three responses were received in 

support of a new, deep-water anchorage 

due to the growing maritime 

infrastructure in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. With the support of the 

anchorage, there were also 

recommendations to review the existing 

anchorages within the lower 

Chesapeake Bay, to maintain the 

original anchorage proposal, and to 

expand the boundaries of the anchorage 

proposal. The existing anchorages will 

not be reviewed for this rulemaking. 

The need to adjust the anchorage to 

include deep water to the north of the 

proposed area was suggested and 

incorporated into this adjusted 

proposal. Various mariner subject 

matter experts were consulted to ensure 

navigation safety of both anchored 

vessels and vessels transiting near the 

proposed Anchorage R and the 

proposed Quarantine Anchorage. With 

limited availability of a deep draft 

anchorage in the existing naval 

anchorages, this anchorage proposal is 

anticipated to enhance the navigation 

safety of the port and more safely and 

effectively support commercial vessel 

anchoring requirements on the Lower 

Chesapeake Bay. 

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a new Anchorage R and relocate the 

existing Quarantine Anchorage. This 

proposal reflects our consideration of all 

comments received from the ANPRM 

and the Record of Environmental 

Consideration. We believe this will 

more effectively establish a new deepwater anchorage ground for commercial 

vessels to support the new and 

projected growth in maritime commerce 

vessel traffic throughout the Port of 

Virginia. The approximate depths of the 

proposed new Anchorage R will be 

located in naturally deep water with 

charted depths between 25 and 101 feet. 

The average depth of the northern half 

of the anchorage is between 45 and 101 

feet. The average depth of the southern 

half of the anchorage is between 25 and 

45 feet. 

The 7.9 NM long eastern boundary of 

the proposed Anchorage R is located 3 

NM to the west of landside Cape 

Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake 

Bay. The southernmost boundary is 3.9 

NM, and runs parallel with, and 500 

yards north of the existing Regulated 

Navigation Area (33 CFR 165.501) 

connected along the SE to S coordinates 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
29084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

listed in the proposed regulatory 

language below. The western boundary 

of the anchorage grounds runs parallel 

along, and no less than 500 yards east 

of York Spit Channel for 13.9 NM to 

include the 11.2 NM between lighted 

buoy 24 and lighted buoy 38 and then 

continues to the northeast for 2.7 NM 

north of lighted buoy 38, connected 

along the listed S, SW and NW 

coordinates. The final northern most 

boundary is 0.6 NM connected by the 

listed NW and NE coordinates. 

The Coast Guard proposes moving the 

existing Quarantine Anchorage 

(Anchorage Q), from the current 

location 3.5 NM to the west of landside 

of Cape Charles, VA, and east of York 

Spit Channel between lighted buoys 36 

to 38, relocating it 6 NM southwest of 

Fishermans Point, VA. The new location 

runs 625 yards west of York Spit 

Channel between buoys 16 and 18. The 

eastern boundary of proposed 

Anchorage Q runs parallel to York Spit 

Channel for 2.2 NM, connected by the 

NE and SE coordinates as outlined in 

the proposed regulatory language. The 

southernmost boundary is 1.3 NM from 

the emergency restricted area outside 

the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, 

connected by the listed SE and SW 

coordinates. The westernmost boundary 

is 2.2 NM, connected by the listed SW 

and NW coordinates. The northernmost 

boundary is 450 yards southwest of 

York River Entrance Channel and runs 

for 1.3 NM, connected by the listed NW 

and NE coordinates. 

The regulatory text we are proposing, 

including the coordinates mention 

above, appears at the end of this 

document. You may find a drawing of 

the proposed anchorage grounds in the 

docket. Look for Illustration of 

Contemplated Anchorage ‘‘R’’ and 

‘‘Quarantine’’ Anchorage. 

V. 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 

historical vessel traffic data pertaining 

to the proposed anchorage locations. 

The regulation would ensure 

approximately 18 square miles of 

anchorage grounds are designated to 

provide a necessary commercial deep 

draft anchorage and enhance the 

navigational safety of large naval and 

commercial vessels transiting within the 

lower Chesapeake Bay. In reviewing 

historical Automated Information 

System (AIS) track line data of vessel 

transits, the proposed Anchorages 

Quarantine and R areas are safe 

locations for vessels to anchor in a 

minimally trafficked section of the 

Chesapeake Bay while maintaining a 

more appropriate safe distance from 

shore. 

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 use the anchorage 

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. The towns and 

communities along the western coast of 

Eastern Shore of Virginia have an 

economy based on tourism and 

numerous small entities and businesses. 

The anchorage will regulate and move 

vessels who are currently anchoring in 

the general vicinity away from the shore 

and beaches, lessening impacts these 

small entities may currently experience. 

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 explaining 

why you think it qualifies and how and 

to what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 29085 

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 M16475.1 

(series) OM, which guides 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 amending the regulations for 

Hampton Roads and adjacent water 

anchorages by establishing an 

anchorage, Anchorage R, 3 NM west of 

Cape Charles, VA and relocating the 

existing Quarantine Anchorage, 

Anchorage Q, to a more secluded 

position that is 6 NM southwest of 

Fishermans Point, VA. Normally, such 

actions are categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraphs L59(a) 

and L59(b) 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. 

VI. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy/ 

docket, visit http://

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 http://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. 

We plan to hold three public meetings 

to receive oral comments on this NPRM, 

one in Norfolk, VA and two in Cape 

Charles, VA. The first public meeting 

will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, 

from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Slover Public 

Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume 

Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. Two public 

meetings will be held on July 10, 2018 

at Cape Charles Civic Center, 500 

Tazwell Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the 

first meeting will be held from 1 p.m. 

to 3 p.m. and the second meeting will 

be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. For 

information on facilities or services for 

individuals with disabilities or to 

request special assistance at the public 

meeting, contact the person named in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, above. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 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, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department 

Homeland Security Delegation No 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 110.168, add introductory text 

in paragraph (a), revise paragraph (a)(6), 

and add paragraph (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and 

adjacent waters. 

(a) Anchorage Grounds. All 

coordinates in this section for anchorage 

grounds are based on North American 

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

* * * * * 

(6) Anchorage Q. Quarantine 

Anchorage. The waters bound by a line 

connecting the following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

37°05′40′′ N 076°08′12′′ W 

37°05′40′′ N 076°07′19′′ W 

37°03′46′′ N 076°05′58′′ W 

37°03′46′′ N 076°06′51′′ W 

(7) Anchorage R. The waters all 

within the Chesapeake Bay, bound by a 

line connecting the following points: 

Latitude Longitude 

37°19′10′′ N 076°05′00′′ W 

37°12′00′′ N 076°05′00′′ W 

37°09′08′′ N 076°08′19′′ W 

37°11′23′′ N 076°08′49′′ W 

37°19′10′′ N 076°05′46′′ W 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Meredith Austin, 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13439 Filed 6–19–18; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0304; FRL–9979– 

70—Region 3] 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

Allegheny County Health Department, 

Withdrawal of Section 112(l) 

Delegation Authority for the Chemical 

Accident Prevention Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is notifying the public 

that Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) has completed the 

regulatory process for voluntary 

withdrawal from EPA’s delegation of 

authority to enforce the chemical 

accident prevention regulations, and 

EPA is proposing to modify 

amendments indicating that ACHD does 

not have delegated authority to 

implement and enforce the regulatory 

requirements. EPA is also notifying the 

public that each facility subject to the 

previously approved ACHD delegated 

chemical accident prevention program 

is required to maintain continuous 

compliance with applicable 

requirements. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0304 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

duke.gerallyn@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS