27740 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 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 

■ 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. 

§ 165.811 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are 

finalized for the communities listed 

below. These modified BFEs will be 

used to calculate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

their contents. 

DATES: The effective dates for these 

modified BFEs are indicated on the 

following table and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

for the listed communities prior to this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Section, Mitigation 

Division, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below of the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

BFEs have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Mitigation Division 

Director of FEMA resolved any appeals 

resulting from this notification. 

The modified BFEs are not listed for 

each community in this notice. 

However, this final rule includes the 

address of the Chief Executive Officer of 

the community where the modified 

BFEs determinations are available for 

inspection. 

The modified BFEs are made pursuant 

to section 206 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

For rating purposes, the currently 

effective community number is shown 

and must be used for all new policies 

and renewals. 

The modified BFEs are the basis for 

the floodplain management measures 

that the community is required to either 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

to remain qualified for participation in 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

These modified BFEs, together with 

the floodplain management criteria 

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the 

minimum that are required. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES