[Federal Register: December 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74536-74537]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de03-30]
[[Page 74536]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD09-03-284]
RIN 2115-AA01
Special Anchorage Area; Madeline Island, WI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to enlarge the existing special
anchorage area in Madeline, Wisconsin. This action is being taken at
the request of the La Pointe Yacht Club, which, due to low water
levels, has lost usable anchorage space. This proposed rule would make
additional space available within the special anchorage area.
DATES: Comments must be received March 23, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (map), Ninth Coast Guard
District, 1240 E. Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060, or deliver
them to room 2069 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (216)
902-6056.
Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District Marine Safety Office
maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments, and
documents indicated in this preamble, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or copying at room 2069, Ninth
Coast Guard District, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Michael Gardiner, Chief,
Marine Safety Analysis and Policy Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District
Marine Safety Office, at (216) 902-6056.
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 (CGD09-03-
284), 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 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Chief, Marine Safety Analysis and
Policy Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District Marine Safety Office 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 Information
On April 1, 2003, the La Pointe Yacht Club, Inc. requested that the
Coast Guard initiate a rulemaking to increase the size of the Madeline
Island, Wisconsin special anchorage area as described in 33 CFR
110.77b. The Commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District is publishing
this notice of proposed rulemaking to request comments on the proposed
enlargement of this special anchorage area.
The request to increase the size of this special anchorage area is
based on four factors. First, the number of boats using the anchorage
has increased resulting in a crowding of boats, causing some to anchor
outside the anchorage area boundaries. Second, several years of low
water have caused boats to move outside the current anchorage area
boundaries to find safe depths. Third, boats with drafts deeper then 3
feet cannot safely use the current defined area. Finally, the existing
seaward boundary intersects the inside of the fairway leading into the
Madeline Island Marina basin.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would change the boundaries to the following: all
water within a line connecting the points starting at 46[deg]46'44.8''
N, 090[deg]47'14.0'' W; then south south-westerly to 46[deg]46'35.5''
N, 090[deg]47'17.0'' W; then south south-easterly to 46[deg]46'27'' N,
090[deg]47'12.8'' W; then east south-easterly to 46[deg]46'22.6'' N,
090[deg]46'58.8'' W; then following the shoreline back to the starting
point. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD
83). This would extend the anchorage area boundary approximately 300
feet further at the outer most point.
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.
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. This proposed rule only slightly increases
the special anchorage area. Normal vessel traffic would not transit
this area due to the shallow depths. In addition, vessel traffic can
safely pass around this special anchorage area.
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 the Ninth Coast Guard District
Marine Safety Office, at 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio,
44199.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the
[[Page 74537]]
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. Though 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 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
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reason set out 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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g). Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Revise Sec. 110.77b to read as follows:
Sec. 110.77b Madeline Island, Wisconsin
All waters off of La Pointe Harbor, Madeline Island, Wisconsin,
encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at
46[deg]46'44.8'' N, 090[deg]47'14.0'' W; then south south-westerly to
46[deg]46'35.5'' N, 090[deg]47'17.0'' W; then south south-easterly to
46[deg]46'27'' N, 090[deg]47'12.8'' W; then east south-easterly to
46[deg]46'22.6'' N, 090[deg]46'58.8'' W; then following the shoreline
back to the starting point (NAD 83).
Dated: December 15, 2003.
Ronald F. Silva,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 03-31728 Filed 12-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P