Coast Guard, DHS.
By this final rule, the Coast Guard is making non-substantive changes to the address of delivery for all private mail to the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Center as it appears in Coast Guard regulations. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.
This rule is effective February 8, 2007.
Any comments and material received from the public will be made part of docket, USCG-2006-26953, and will be available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this amendment, call Commander Hung Nguyen, Executive Officer, United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, telephone 202-475-3406. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this amendment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that this technical amendment is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because the amendment only makes non-substantive mailing address changes. These changes will have no substantive effect on the public; therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The office of the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Center will change their procedure for receiving private courier mail, resulting in the need for an address change in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Because this amendment makes only address changes, we expect the economic impact to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
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.
It is not expected that this amendment will have a significant economic impact on any small entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this technical amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This amendment calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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 amendment 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 amendment will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this amendment elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This amendment 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 amendment 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 amendment under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This amendment 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 amendment 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.
We have analyzed this amendment 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” Start Printed Page 5931under 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.
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 amendment does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and DHS Management Directive 5100.1, which guide 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, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (34)(a) excludes regulatory actions that are editorial or procedural, such as those updating addresses. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction, an Environmental Analysis Check List and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this technical amendment.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects
End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 104—VESSEL SECURITYEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. Amend § 104.400, by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(b) The VSP must be submitted to the Commanding Officer (MSC), USCG Marine Safety Center, 1900 Half Street, SW., Suite 1000, Room 525, Washington, DC 20024 for visitors. Send all mail to Commanding Officer (MSC), United States Coast Guard, JR10-0525, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, in a written or electronic format. Information for submitting the VSP electronically can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/HQ/MSC. Owners or operators of foreign flag vessels that are subject to SOLAS Chapter XI-1 or Chapter XI-2 must comply with this part by carrying on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate that certifies that the verifications required by Section 19.1 of part A of the ISPS Code (Incorporated by reference, see § 101.115 of this subchapter) have been completed. As stated in Section 9.4 of the ISPS Code, part A requires that, in order for the ISSC to be issued, the provisions of part B of the ISPS Code need to be taken into account.
PART 120—SECURITY OF PASSENGER VESSELSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
3. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
4. Amend § 120.305, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) You must submit two copies of each Vessel Security Plan required by § 120.300, or of any Terminal Security Plan or annex required or permitted under § 120.303 or § 128.305 of this chapter, to the Commanding Officer (MSC), USCG Marine Safety Center, 1900 Half Street, SW., Suite 1000, Room 525, Washington, DC 20024 for visitors. Send all mail to Commanding Officer (MSC), United States Coast Guard, JR10-0525, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, for examination at least 60 days before embarking passengers on a voyage described in § 120.100.
Dated: January 30, 2007.
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E7-2100 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P