Coast Guard, DHS.
This rule makes non-substantive changes throughout our regulations. The purpose of this rule is to make conforming amendments and technical corrections to reflect the renaming of Sector Seattle to Sector Puget Sound as part of the Coast Guard reorganization.
This final rule is effective August 5, 2010.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0351 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0351 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.”Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Lt. Matthew Jones, Coast Guard; telephone 206-220-7110, e-mail Matthew.firstname.lastname@example.org. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), the Coast Guard finds this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds notice and comment procedure are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) as this rule consists only of corrections and editorial, organizational, and conforming amendments and these changes will have no substantive effect on the public.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Basis and Purpose
This rule makes technical and editorial corrections to Title 33 parts 3 and 165 in the Code of Federal Regulations. This rule does not create any substantive requirements.
Discussion of Rule
This rule revises 33 CFR parts 3 and 165 to reflect changes in Coast Guard internal organizational structure. Sector Seattle has been disestablished and Sector Puget Sound has been established in its place. This rule revises 33 CFR Parts 3 and 165 to reflect the Sector name change in current regulations. This rule is a technical revision reflecting changes in agency procedure and organization, and does not indicate new authorities.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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. Because this rule involves non-substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures, it will not impose any additional costs on the public.
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.
We estimate this rule will not impose any additional costs and should have little or no impact on small entities because the provisions of this rule are technical and non-substantive, and will have no substantive effect on the public and will impose no additional costs. 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).
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 (adjusted for inflation) 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 cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.Start Printed Page 47212
Civil Justice Reform
This 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 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.
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.
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.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (a) of the Instruction. This rule involves regulations which are editorial and/or procedural, such as those updating addresses or establishing application procedures. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects
- Marine Safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and record keeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 3—COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONESEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. In § 3.65-10, revise the introductory text to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Sector Puget Sound's office is located in Seattle, WA. The boundaries of Sector Puget Sound's Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
4. In § 165.1327(a), remove the phrase “Sector Seattle” and add, in its place, the phrase “Sector Puget Sound”.End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-19326 Filed 8-3-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P