Regulated Navigation Area; Atchafalaya River, Berwick Bay, Berwick Bay, LA, 77655-77657 [E6-22153]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 7. On page 52899, second column, § 1.987–2(c)(9), paragraph (ii)(B) of Example 1, last line, the language ‘‘section 988 to X as a result of the loan.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘section 988 to X as a result of the disregarded loan.’’ 8. On page 52899, third column, § 1.987–2(c)(9), paragraph (ii)(A) of Example 3, line 3, the language ‘‘Federal tax purposes and therefore is a’’ is corrected to read ‘‘Federal income tax purposes and therefore is a’’. 9. On page 52900, first column, § 1.987–2(c)(9), paragraph (ii)(C) of Example 4, line 3, the language ‘‘regarded for U.S. Federal tax purposes. As a’’ is corrected to read ‘‘regarded for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. As a’’. 10. On page 52900, second column, § 1.987–2(c)(9), paragraph (ii)(A) of Example 7, line 1, the language ‘‘(ii) Analysis. (A) For Federal tax purposes’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(ii) Analysis. (A) For Federal income tax purposes’’. 11. On page 52901, third column, § 1.987–2(d)(2), line 3, the language ‘‘described in section 988(c)(1)(i) and (ii)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘described in section 988(c)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)’’. § 1.987–3 [Corrected] 12. On page 52902, third column, § 1.987–3(e)(2), line 5, the language ‘‘described in section 988(c)(1)(A)(i) and’’ is corrected to read ‘‘described in section 988(c)(1)(B)(i) and’’. 13. On page 52904, first column, § 1.987–3(f) Example 3., the fourth line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ‘‘section and § 1.987–1(c)(3) ÷8,000 × $1=’’ is corrected to read ‘‘section and § 1.987–1(c)(3) (÷8[n1],000 × $1=’’. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS § 1.987–6 [Corrected] 14. On page 52911, first column, § 1.987–6(c) Example, lines 5 through 10 from the bottom of the column, the language ‘‘of this section, Sf7,500 (Sf750,000/Sf1,000,000 × Sf10,000) of the section 987 gain will be treated as foreign source general limitation income which is not subpart F income and Sf2,500 (Sf250,000/Sf1,000,000 × Sf10,000) will’’ is corrected to read ‘‘of this section, Sf7,500 ((Sf750,000/ Sf1,000,000) × Sf10,000) of the section 987 gain will be treated as foreign source general limitation income which is not subpart F income and Sf2,500 VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:37 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 ((Sf250,000/Sf1,000,000) × Sf10,000) will’’. Cynthia E. Grigsby, Senior Federal Register Liaison Officer, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6–22169 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 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 Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 77655 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 E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1 77656 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:37 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Environment 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. § 165.811 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (Water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways. 20:37 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 [Amended] 2. In § 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 RIN 1024–AD38 National Park System Units in Alaska National Park Service, Interior. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS or Service) is proposing to revise the special regulations for the NPSadministered areas in Alaska to update provisions governing subsistence use of timber, seaweed collection, river management, ORV use, fishing and camping. The revision would also update definitions, prohibit using motorized vehicles to herd wildlife, and establish wildlife viewing distances in several park areas. DATES: Comments must be received by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number 1024–AD38 (RIN), by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail NPS at: akro_regulations@nps.gov. Use RIN 1024–AD38 in the subject line. • Mail: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. • Fax: (907) 644–3805. All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN. For PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 77657 additional information see ‘‘Public Participation’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Park Service, Victor Knox, Deputy Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Telephone: (907) 644–3501. E-mail: akro_regulations@nps.gov. Fax: (907) 644–3816. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Each park area in Alaska has a compendium consisting of the compiled designations, closures, openings, permit requirements, and other provisions established by the Superintendent under the discretionary authority granted in 36 CFR 1.5 and elsewhere in regulations. It is the policy of the NPS to review these provisions on a regular basis for possible addition to the general and special park regulations in part 13. The group of provisions proposed here are additions or changes to individual park regulations in part 13, subparts HW. Where these provisions have applicability to several or all Alaska park areas, they generally are proposed for addition to part 13, subparts A-F. The following proposed regulations have resulted from the current review of compendium provisions. Additionally, several proposed changes to the part 13 regulations unrelated to the compendium review are included as indicated. We are consolidating all routine proposed changes in a single rulemaking document for administrative efficiency and to encourage broader participation in the rulemaking process. Each proposal is identified in the Section-by-Section Analysis that follows. As used within this document, the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and ‘‘us’’ refer to the National Park Service. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 13.1 Definitions The definition for the term ‘‘adequate and feasible access’’ is proposed for deletion. This term, which does not currently appear in part 13, is a remnant of the NPS regulations for access to inholdings which were deleted in 1986 and moved to the Department of Interior’s regulations in Title 43. The NPS definition has been superseded by the similar definition now found at 43 CFR 36.10(a)(1). This proposed change is a non-substantive administrative correction without regulatory effect. The definition of ‘‘National Preserve’’ is proposed for modification. The definition of National Preserve incorrectly identifies the ‘‘Alagnak Wild E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77655-77657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22153]


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

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