[Federal Register: August 1, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45190-45192]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01au03-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD07-03-110]
RIN 1625-AA01
Special Anchorage Area; Okeechobee Waterway, St. Lucie River,
Stuart, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to extend the special anchorage area
that begins on the Okeechobee Intracoastal Waterway between mile
markers 7 and 8 on the St. Lucie River in Stuart, Florida to include 17
additional moorings. This proposed rule would improve safety for
vessels anchoring within and transiting through this high traffic area
and also reduce negative impacts on the ecosystem by providing a
designated safer area for vessels to anchor.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 30, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Aids to Navigation Branch, 909 SE. First
Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Aids to Navigation Branch, maintains the public docket for
this rulemaking. 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 Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, Aids
to Navigation Branch, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe Embres, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Aids to Navigation Branch, at (305) 415-6750.
SUPPLEMENTARY 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 (CGD07-03-
110), 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
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, please enclose a 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Aids to Navigation Branch, 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
The City of Stuart has asked the Coast Guard to extend the current
special anchorage field that begins on the Okeechobee Intracoastal
Waterway between mile markers 7 and 8 on the St. Lucie River. The City
would like to extend the anchorage area by adding 9.73 acres and
installing 17 additional moorings. The proposed rule is intended to
reduce the risk of vessel collisions by enlarging the current anchorage
area and to provide notice to mariners of the additional 9.73 acres.
This proposed rule would allow vessels 65 feet in length and under to
anchor without exhibiting anchor lights as required by the navigation
rules at 33 CFR 109.10. The City of Stuart has coordinated with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding this
proposal. The DEP determined that properly managed mooring and
anchorage fields located in appropriate areas will encourage vessels to
utilize them for safety purposes, and, as a side benefit, the ecosystem
will incur less detrimental impacts.
Regulatory Evaluation
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.
[[Page 45191]]
Small Entities
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, because the moorings are limited in number
and size (17 moorings totaling 9.73 acres).
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 (Public Law 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
proposed 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
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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).
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
requirements 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 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. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an
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.
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 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.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of
the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' 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 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, 2030, 2035 and
2071; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 and 33
CFR 1.05-1(g).
2. Section Sec. 110.73c is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.73c Okeechobee Waterway, St. Lucie River, Stuart, FL.
The following is a special anchorage area: Beginning on the
Okeechobee Intracoastal Waterway between mile marker 7 and 8 on the St.
Lucie River, bounded by a line beginning at 27[deg]12'06.583'' N,
80[deg]15'33.447'' W; thence to 27[deg]12'07.811'' N,
80[deg]15'38.861'' W; thence to
[[Page 45192]]
27[deg]12'04.584'' N, 80[deg]15'41.437'' W; thence to
27[deg]11'49.005'' N, 80[deg]15'44.796'' W; thence to
27[deg]11'47.881'' N, 80[deg]15'38.271'' W; thence to 27[deg]11'46.82''
N, 80[deg]15'37.9647'' W; thence to 27[deg]11'43.49'' N,
80[deg]15'40.74'' W; thence to 27[deg]11'40.44'' N, 80[deg]15'44.64''
W; thence to 27[deg]11'41.40'' N, 80[deg]15'47.70'' W; thence to
27[deg]11'42.51'' N, 80[deg]15'49.36'' W; thence to 27[deg]11'47.99''
N, 80[deg]15'44.78'' W; thence to the point of beginning. All
coordinates reference Datum NAD:83.
Dated: July 22, 2003.
H.E. Johnson, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 03-19647 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P