Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1133 

process for the non-tax administration 

purpose of marketing: (i) a RAL or a 

substantially similar product or service; 

(ii) a RAC or a substantially similar 

product or service; or (iii) audit 

insurance or a substantially similar 

product or service. 

Proposed Effective Date 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

anticipate that these new proposed rules 

would apply for returns filed on or after 

January 1st of the year following the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register as final or temporary 

regulations. 

Request for Comments 

Before a notice of proposed 

rulemaking is issued, consideration will 

be given to any written comments (a 

signed original and eight (8) copies) or 

electronic comments that are submitted 

timely to the IRS. All comments will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying. 

Specifically, comments are 

encouraged on the following questions: 

1. If RALs and certain other products 

create a direct financial incentive for 

preparers to inflate tax refunds, are 

there alternative approaches that would 

eliminate or reduce this incentive? 

2. If the marketing of RALs and 

certain other products exploit or have 

the potential to exploit certain 

taxpayers, is the approach described in 

this ANPRM better viewed as protecting 

taxpayers from exploitation or as 

restricting taxpayers’ ability to control 

their tax return information? If the 

latter, is there an alternative approach 

that would address the concerns 

described above? 

3. Should RACs be treated the same 

way as RALs and audit insurance, or do 

RACs present lesser concerns? 

4. Are there other products that 

present significant concerns for tax 

compliance or taxpayer exploitation that 

should be addressed by regulation? 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking is Dillon 

Taylor, formerly of the Office of the 

Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration). For further 

information, contact Lawrence Mack of 

the Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Procedure and Administration) at 202–

622–4940 (not a toll-free call). 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 08–2 Filed 1–3–08; 8:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–0195] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Waters Surrounding 

U.S. Forces Vessel SBX–1, HI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a permanent 500-yard moving 

security zone around the U.S. Forces 

vessel SBX–1 during transit within the 

Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This 

zone is necessary to protect the SBX–1 

from threats associated with vessels and 

persons approaching too close during 

transit. Entry of persons or vessels into 

this security zone would be prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port (COTP). 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

February 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2007–0195 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: 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–

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at 

(808) 842–2600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2007–0195), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES, 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

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. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time, 

click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter 

the docket number for this rulemaking 

(USCG–2007–0195) in the Docket ID 

box, and click enter. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Sector 

Honolulu at the address under 

ADDRESSES explaining why one would 

be beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a separate notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1 will 

enter the Honolulu Captain of the Port 

Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for 

maintenance at least once each year. 

The SBX–1 is easy to recognize because 

it contains a large white object shaped 

like an egg supported by a platform that 

is larger than a football field. The 

platform in turn is supported by six 

pillars similar to those on large oildrilling platforms. 

The Coast Guard’s reaction to such 

transits thus far has been to await a final 

voyage plan and then establish a 

security zone using a temporary final 

rule applicable to that particular voyage. 

Such action diminishes the public’s 

opportunity for formal comment and 

imposes a pressing administrative 

burden each time the SBX–1 arrives. 

This permanent SBX–1 security zone 

proposal affords solicitation of public 

comments and promotes relief from the 

emergency rulemakings currently 

necessary to protect these transits. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Our proposed security zone would be 

established permanently. It would be 

automatically activated, meaning it 

would be subject to enforcement, 

whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX–

1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the 

Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) 

Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70–10). The security 

zone would include all waters 

extending 500 yards in all directions 

from the SBX–1, from the surface of the 

water to the ocean floor. 

The security zone would move with 

the SBX–1 while it is in transit. The 

zone would become fixed around the 

SBX–1 while it is anchored, positionkeeping, or moored, and it would 

remain activated until the SBX–1 either 

departs U.S. navigable waters within the 

Honolulu COTP zone or enters the 

Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area 

established by Executive Order 8987 (6 

FR 6675, December 24, 1941). 

The general regulations governing 

security zones contained in 33 CFR 

165.33 would apply. Entry into, transit 

through, or anchoring within the zone 

while it is activated and enforced would 

be prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP or a designated representative 

thereof. Any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, 

and any other COTP representative 

permitted by law, could enforce the 

zone. The COTP could waive any of the 

requirements of this rule for any person, 

vessel, or class of vessel upon finding 

that application of the security zone is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purpose of maritime security. Vessels or 

persons violating this rule would be 

subject to the penalties set forth in 33 

U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. 

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. 

The Coast Guard expects 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 expectation is based on the limited 

duration of the zone, the constricted 

geographic area affected by it, and its 

ability to move with the protected 

vessel. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule will 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 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We expect that there will be 

little or no impact to small entities due 

to the narrowly tailored scope of this 

proposed security zone. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they could better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking 

process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 

1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

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 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 

either preempts State law or imposes 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 expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of the rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1135 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed 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 proposed 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 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 

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 is 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, 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 this action is not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 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 proposes to 

amend 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(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. 

2. A new § 165.1411 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1411 Security zone; waters 

surrounding U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1, HI. 

(a) Location. The following area, in 

U.S. navigable waters within the 

Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 

33 CFR 3.70–10), from the surface of the 

water to the ocean floor, is a security 

zone: All waters extending 500 yards in 

all directions from U.S. Forces vessel 

SBX–1. The security zone moves with 

the SBX–1 while it is in transit and 

becomes fixed when the SBX–1 is 

anchored, position-keeping, or moored. 

(b) Regulations. The general 

regulations governing security zones 

contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry 

into, transit through, or anchoring 

within, this zone while it is activated, 

and thus subject to enforcement, is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative thereof. 

(c) Suspension of Enforcement. The 

Coast Guard will suspend enforcement 

of the security zone described in this 

section whenever the SBX–1 is within 

the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 

FR 6675). 

(d) Informational notice. The Captain 

of the Port of Honolulu will cause notice 

of the enforcement of the security zone 

described in this section to be made by 

broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX–

1 is easy to recognize because it 

contains a large white object shaped like 

an egg supported by a platform that is 

larger than a football field. The platform 

in turn is supported by six pillars 

similar to those on large oil-drilling 

platforms. 

(e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer, and any other Captain of the 

Port representative permitted by law, 

may enforce the security zone described 

in this section. 

(f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port 

may waive any of the requirements of 

this rule for any person, vessel, or class 

of vessel upon finding that application 

of the security zone is unnecessary or 

impractical for the purpose of maritime 

security. 

(g) Penalties. Vessels or persons 

violating this rule are subject to the 

penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 

50 U.S.C. 192. 

Dated: December 6, 2007. 

V.B. Atkins 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Honolulu. 

[FR Doc. E8–19 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 294 

RIN 0596–AC62 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Applicability to the 

National Forests in Idaho 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), is 

proposing to establish a State-specific 

rule to provide management direction 

for conserving and enhancing the 

roadless characteristics for designated 

roadless areas in Idaho. The agency is 

particularly interested in receiving 

public input regarding the following 

topics: to what extent should the Forest 

Service allow building roads for the 

purpose of conducting limited forest 

health activities in areas designated as 

backcountry; are the limitations on sale 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS