[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45190-45192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19647]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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