Safety Zone; St. Lucie River, Stuart, Florida, 16630-16632 [2019-07769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16630
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 53, Fuselage.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by reports of
cracking in the webs of the stub beams at
certain fuselage stations, and cracking of the
stub beam at fuselage station 685 at the
inboard end of the upper chord and the
outboard end of the lower chord. We are
issuing this AD to address such cracking,
which, if not corrected, could result in the
loss of structural integrity of the airframe
during flight, collapse of the main landing
gear, and failure of the pressure deck.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1364,
Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018, within
120 days after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the stub beams and stub beam webs
for any cracking or existing repairs, and do
all applicable on-condition actions, using a
method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 Through
6 Airplanes
Except as specified by paragraph (i) of this
AD: At the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1364,
Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018, do all
applicable actions identified as ‘‘RC’’
(required for compliance) in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1364, Revision 1, dated October 25,
2018.
District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9ANM-LAACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair,
modification, or alteration required by this
AD if it is approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has
been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings.
To be approved, the repair method,
modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of
the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as specified by paragraph (i) of
this AD: For service information that
contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of
paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD
apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including
substeps under an RC step and any figures
identified in an RC step, must be done to
comply with the AD. If a step or substep is
labeled ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ then the RC
requirement is removed from that step or
substep. An AMOC is required for any
deviations to RC steps, including substeps
and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in
accordance with the operator’s maintenance
or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures, can
still be done as specified, and the airplane
can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(i) Exceptions to Service Information
Specifications
(1) For purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements of this AD:
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1364, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018,
uses the phrase ‘‘the revision 1 issue date of
this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires using
‘‘the effective date of this AD,’’ except where
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1364,
Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018, uses the
phrase ‘‘the original issue date of this service
bulletin’’ in a note or flag note.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1364, Revision 1, dated October 25,
2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the
repair before further flight using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(k) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–
5324; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
galib.abumeri@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd.,
MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740 5600;
telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with
14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards
Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
April 10, 2019.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
[FR Doc. 2019–07937 Filed 4–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2019–0208]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; St. Lucie River, Stuart,
Florida
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of the St. Lucie
River in Stuart, Florida. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life
on these navigable waters east of the
Roosevelt/U.S. Route 1 Bridge during
the Stuart Air Show on July 4, 2019. The
proposed rulemaking would prohibit
vessels and persons from entering the
safety zone unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Miami (COTP). We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before May 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2019–0208 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Omar Beceiro,
Sector Miami Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone
305–535–4317, email omar.beceiro@
uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On March 27, 2019, Stuart Airshow
Inc. notified the Coast Guard that it
would be sponsoring the Stuart Airshow
from 6 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on July
4, 2019. The air show would be
conducted east of the Roosevelt/U.S.
Route 1 Bridge in the St. Lucie River in
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Stuart, Florida. The COTP has
determined that potential hazards
associated with the air show would be
a safety concern for anyone within the
safety zone.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within the safety zone
during and after the scheduled event.
The Coast Guard is proposing this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP proposes to establish a
safety zone from 6:00 p.m. through 7:30
p.m. on July 4, 2019. The safety zone
would cover certain navigable waters
within the St. Lucie River beginning
approximately 400 yards east of the
Roosevelt/U.S. Route 1 Bridge in Stuart,
FL. The duration of the safety zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the scheduled air
show. No vessels or persons would be
permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative.
The regulatory text we are proposing
appears at the end of this document.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. 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, duration,
and time-of-day of the safety zone.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely
transit around this safety zone, which
would affect a small-designated area of
the St. Lucie River for approximately 90
minutes during the evening when vessel
traffic is normally low. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would notify mariners of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
the safety zone through a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine
channel 16 and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.
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 transit the safety
zone 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.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16631
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
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 M16475.1D,
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 a safety zone lasting
approximately 90 minutes that would
prohibit entry to all vessels and persons
during the event. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) 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
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
16632
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
V. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
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 https://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.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0208 to
read as follows:
■
§ 165.T07–0208 Safety Zone; St. Lucie
River, Stuart, Florida
(a) Location: The following
coordinates define the temporary safety
zone located in the St. Lucie River,
Stuart, FL. All waters of St. Lucie River
contained within the following points:
commencing at 27°12′24″ N, 080°15′21″
W; thence southeast to 27°12′21″ N,
080°14′48″ W; thence southwest to
27°12′06″ N, 080°14′50″ W; then
northwest to 27°12′10″ N, 080°15′23″ W;
thence northeast to origin. All
coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
(b) Definition: The term ‘‘designated
representative’’ means Coast Guard
Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and
other officers operating Coast Guard
vessels, and Federal, state, and local
officers designated by or assisting the
COTP in the enforcement of the
regulated area.
(c) Regulations. (1) No person or
vessel will be permitted to enter, transit,
anchor, or remain within the regulated
area unless authorized by COTP or a
designated representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit, anchor, or remain within
the regulated area may contact the
COTP by telephone at 305–535–4313, or
a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16 to request
authorization. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the
COTP or a designated representative.
(d) Enforcement Period. This rule will
be enforced from 6:00 p.m. through 7:30
p.m. on July 4, 2019.
[FR Doc. 2019–07769 Filed 4–19–19; 8:45 am]
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
Jkt 247001
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
Dated: April 12, 2019.
M.M. Dean,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Miami.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 190130032–9324–01]
RIN 0648–XG758
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
Summer-Run Steelhead in Northern
California as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request
for information, and initiation of status
review.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list
Northern California (NC) summer-run
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as an
Endangered distinct population segment
(DPS) under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned
action may be warranted. We will
conduct a status review of NC summerrun steelhead to determine if the
petitioned action is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to this species from any
interested party.
DATES: Scientific and commercial
information pertinent to the petitioned
action must be received by June 21,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by
‘‘Northern California summer-run
steelhead Petition (NOAA–NMFS–
2019–0003),’’ by either of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20190003, click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Protected
Resources Division, West Coast Region,
NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite
#1100, Portland, OR 97232. Attn: Gary
Rule.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16630-16632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07769]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2019-0208]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; St. Lucie River, Stuart, Florida
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain navigable waters of the St. Lucie River in Stuart,
Florida. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters east of the Roosevelt/U.S. Route 1 Bridge during
the Stuart Air Show on July 4, 2019. The proposed rulemaking would
prohibit vessels and persons from entering the safety zone unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami (COTP). We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0208 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://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 Omar Beceiro, Sector Miami Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 305-535-4317, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On March 27, 2019, Stuart Airshow Inc. notified the Coast Guard
that it would be sponsoring the Stuart Airshow from 6 p.m. through 7:30
p.m. on July 4, 2019. The air show would be conducted east of the
Roosevelt/U.S. Route 1 Bridge in the St. Lucie River in
[[Page 16631]]
Stuart, Florida. The COTP has determined that potential hazards
associated with the air show would be a safety concern for anyone
within the safety zone.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within the safety zone during and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 6:00 p.m. through
7:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019. The safety zone would cover certain
navigable waters within the St. Lucie River beginning approximately 400
yards east of the Roosevelt/U.S. Route 1 Bridge in Stuart, FL. The
duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled air
show. No vessels or persons would be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.
IV. 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, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would
affect a small-designated area of the St. Lucie River for approximately
90 minutes during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would notify mariners of the safety zone
through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 and
the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
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 transit the
safety zone 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.
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.
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 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 M16475.1D, 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 a safety zone lasting
approximately 90 minutes that would prohibit entry to all vessels and
persons during the event. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) 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
[[Page 16632]]
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://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 https://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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Add a temporary Sec. 165.T07-0208 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-0208 Safety Zone; St. Lucie River, Stuart, Florida
(a) Location: The following coordinates define the temporary safety
zone located in the St. Lucie River, Stuart, FL. All waters of St.
Lucie River contained within the following points: commencing at
27[deg]12'24'' N, 080[deg]15'21'' W; thence southeast to 27[deg]12'21''
N, 080[deg]14'48'' W; thence southwest to 27[deg]12'06'' N,
080[deg]14'50'' W; then northwest to 27[deg]12'10'' N, 080[deg]15'23''
W; thence northeast to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
(b) Definition: The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP
in the enforcement of the regulated area.
(c) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel will be permitted to
enter, transit, anchor, or remain within the regulated area unless
authorized by COTP or a designated representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit, anchor, or
remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at
305-535-4313, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel
16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
(d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 6:00 p.m.
through 7:30 p.m. on July 4, 2019.
Dated: April 12, 2019.
M.M. Dean,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2019-07769 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
