Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Regulated Navigation Area; Atchafalaya River, Berwick Bay, Berwick Bay, LA

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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.

Start Further Info

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.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

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 Start Printed Page 77656Rita 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 Start Printed Page 77657energy 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.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Start Part

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Start Authority

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.

End Authority
[Amended]

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

Start Signature

Dated: December 4, 2006.

J.R. Whitehead,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

End Signature End Part End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. E6-22153 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P