[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77655-77657]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de06-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD08-06-023]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area; Atchafalaya River, Berwick Bay,
Berwick Bay, LA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove both paragraph (f)(4) and
the note located at the end of the section from 33 CFR 165.811. Coast
Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Berwick Bay has determined that the
Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) Bridge visual displays are no longer
necessary due to updated VTS technologies and procedures that actively
inform towing vessels that the rules of 33 CFR 165.811 are in effect at
the time of entry into the VTS. This action will relieve the owner of
the SPRR Bridge and the Coast Guard from maintaining antiquated visual
displays and related equipment.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpw), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA
70130-3310. The Eighth Coast Guard District's Waterways 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, are part of docket [CGD08-
06-023] and are available for inspection or copying at The Hale Boggs
Federal Building, 500 Poydras Street (RM 1230), New Orleans, LA 70130-
3310, between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Brian Hofferber
or Chief Warrant Officer Edgardo Estrada, Eighth Coast Guard District's
Waterways Branch, at telephone 504-671-2326.
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 [CGD08-06-
023], 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
81/2 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. However, you may
submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard
District's Waterways Branch address under ADDRESSES explaining why one
would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting 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
BNSF Railway Company, the owner of the Southern Pacific Railroad
(SPRR) Bridge, has requested to change visual displays requirements for
the SPRR Bridge set forth in 33 CFR 165.811. In September 2005, the
visual displays atop the SPRR Bridge were destroyed by Hurricane Rita
and have not been restored. Prior to their destruction, the visual
displays consisted of two vertically arranged red balls by day and two
vertically arranged flashing white lights by night. The displays were
maintained by the bridge owner and were activated upon direction by the
Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Berwick Bay during high water
periods as specified in 33 CFR 165.811. Prior to the current
implementation of VTS Berwick Bay, the use of visual displays on the
SPRR Bridge served as the primary means of advising towing vessels that
the provisions of 33 CFR 165.811 were in effect, or were anticipated to
be placed into effect, in order to reduce the risk of mishaps involving
towing vessels and the local bridges crossing the waterway. The
destruction of the displays by Hurricane
[[Page 77656]]
Rita and the subsequent request by BNSF Railway Company for their
discontinuance prompted discussion within the Coast Guard as to the
necessity of the visual displays. Coast Guard VTS Berwick Bay concluded
that the visual displays are antiquated and no longer serve as a
primary means to advise towing vessels that the requirements of 33 CFR
165.811 are in effect. VTS Berwick Bay now directly advises mariners as
to which navigation rules are in effect at the time of the vessel entry
into the VTS regulated navigation area.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Berwick Bay has determined
that the SPRR Bridge visual displays required by 33 CFR 165.811(f)(4)
are no longer necessary due to updated VTS technologies and procedures.
Towing vessels subject to 33 CFR 165.811 during high water periods are
now required to check into VTS Berwick Bay before the SPRR Bridge
displays become visible during transit. Upon entry, subject vessels are
advised directly by the VTS as to which regulations are in effect.
Removal of subpart (f)(4) eliminates antiquated visual display
requirements from 33 CFR 165.811 as the primary means of notice and
relieves the owner of the SPRR Bridge from continued maintenance costs.
Vessels which are not subject to 33 CFR 165.811(f)(4) need not be
informed that the requirements of the regulated navigation area are in
effect, but may request such information at any time from the Berwick
Bay Vessel Traffic Center (VTC) via telephone or VHF-FM 11, 13, or 16;
from VHF-FM radio Broadcast Notices to Mariners; or from the current
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' river gauge readings (published on the
Internet).
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.
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.
This proposed rule eliminates existing visual display requirements
from a list of notice requirements under 33 CFR 165.811(f) which have
been superseded by improved procedures for notification. This proposed
rule change neither imposes any additional costs to the public nor
eliminates significant benefits.
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 is neutral to all business
entities as it changes the means by which all vessel operators are
provided notice from a visual display to direct advisories from VTS
Berwick Bay.
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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the individuals listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
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. Though this proposed rule will 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 affect 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
[[Page 77657]]
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.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' is not required for this rule. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to
categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
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
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sec. 165.811 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 165.811, remove paragraph (f)(4) and the note located
at the end of the section.
Dated: December 4, 2006.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-22153 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P