Regulated Navigation Area; Atchafalaya River, Berwick Bay, Berwick Bay, LA, 27740-27741 [E7-9497]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27740-27741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9497]



[[Page 27740]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations pertaining to the 
Atchafalaya River, Berwick Bay, Berwick Bay, LA, navigation area. Coast 
Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Berwick Bay determined that the 
Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) Bridge visual displays were 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 relieves both the owner of 
the SPRR Bridge and the Coast Guard from maintaining antiquated visual 
displays and related equipment.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: 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 U.S. Coast Guard District Eight, 500 Poydras 
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130-3396 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer Edgardo Estrada, 
Eighth Coast Guard District's Waterways Branch, at telephone 504-671-
2326. Please cite [CGD08-06-023].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On December 27, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Atchafalaya River, Berwick 
Bay, Berwick Bay, LA'' in the Federal Register (71 FR 77657). We 
received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting 
was requested and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    BNSF Railway Company, the owner of the Southern Pacific Railroad 
(SPRR) Bridge, requested a change to the visual display 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 
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 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 towing vessels as to which 
navigation rules are in effect at the time of the vessel entry into the 
VTS regulated navigation area.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This final 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 is unnecessary.
    This amended 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 amended 
rule 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 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.
    This amended rule is neutral to all business entities as it merely 
changes the means of notification by which towing vessel operators 
within the regulated navigation area are provided notice that the 
provisions of 33 CFR 165.811 are or are anticipated to be in effect. 
Henceforth, all operators will be notified by VTS Berwick Bay rather 
than by visual displays. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 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 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 rule will 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

[[Page 27741]]

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does 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 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.

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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this amended 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 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, 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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]

0
2. In Sec.  165.811, remove paragraph (f)(4) and the note located at 
the end of the section.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-9497 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P