[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74536-74537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31728]



[[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