60944 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

vessels are required to report their 

arrival pursuant to § 4.2, CBP 

regulations (19 CFR 4.2). 

Generally, foreign-flag yachts entering 

the United States are required to comply 

with the laws applicable to foreign 

vessels arriving at, departing from, and 

proceeding between ports of the United 

States. However, as provided in 

§ 4.94(b), CBP regulations (19 CFR 

4.94(b)), CBP may issue cruising 

licenses to pleasure vessels from certain 

countries if it is found that yachts of the 

United States are exempt from formal 

entry and clearance procedures (e.g., 

filing manifests, obtaining permits to 

proceed and paying entry and clearance 

fees) in those countries. 

If a foreign-flag yacht is issued a 

cruising license, the yacht, for a stated 

period not to exceed one year, may 

arrive and depart from the United States 

and to cruise in specified waters of the 

United States without entering and 

clearing, without filing manifests and 

obtaining or delivering permits to 

proceed, and without the payment of 

entrance and clearance fees, or fees for 

receiving manifests and granting 

permits to proceed, duty on tonnage, 

tonnage tax, or light money. Upon 

arrival at each port in the United States, 

the master of a foreign-flag yacht with 

a cruising license must report the fact of 

arrival to the appropriate CBP office. A 

list of countries whose yachts are 

eligible for cruising licenses is set forth 

in § 4.94(b). 

By an undated letter received on May 

1, 2007, the Department of State 

informed the Chief, Cargo Security, 

Carriers and Immigration Branch, CBP, 

that the British Embassy has advised 

that the listing for Great Britain in 

§ 4.94(b) requires updating. The 

Department of State recommends that 

the reference in § 4.94(b) for Great 

Britain be revised to read as follows: 

United Kingdom and the Dependencies: 

the Anguilla Islands, the Isle of Man, the 

British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, 

and the Turks and Caicos Islands. 

Additionally, the Department of State 

recommends that Saint Vincent and the 

Grenadines; and Saint Kitts and Nevis 

(formerly the Federation of Saint 

Christopher and Nevis) be listed 

separately from the United Kingdom as 

they are now independent countries. 

The Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers 

and Immigration Branch has found, 

based on the information provided, that 

the reciprocity required in § 4.94(b) has 

been established with respect to the 

above-referenced countries effective 

May 1, 2007. Accordingly, under the 

authority of 46 U.S.C. 60504, yachts 

from the above-referenced countries 

used only for pleasure may arrive at and 

depart from the ports of the United 

States and cruise in the waters of the 

United States without payment of any 

duties or fees. The list of countries in 

§ 4.94(b) is being revised in this final 

rule document as discussed above. The 

authority to amend this section of the 

CBP regulations has been delegated to 

the Chief, Trade and Commercial 

Regulations Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade. 

Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed 

Effective Date 

Because these amendments merely 

implement a statutory requirement and 

confer a benefit upon the public, CBP 

has determined that notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary pursuant to 

section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B)). Further, for the same 

reasons, good cause exists for 

dispensing with a delayed effective date 

under section 553(d)(3) of the APA (5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 12866 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This 

amendment does not meet the criteria 

for a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

specified in Executive Order 12866. 

Signing Authority 

This document is being issued by CBP 

in accordance with § 0.1(b)(1) of the 

CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(b)(1)). 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 4 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Maritime carriers, Vessels, Yachts. 

Amendments to the CBP Regulations 

■ For the reasons set forth above, part 4 

of title 19 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (19 CFR part 4) is amended 

as set forth below. 

PART 4—VESSELS IN FOREIGN AND 

DOMESTIC TRADES 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 4 and the specific authority for 

§ 4.94 continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 

1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 

501, 60105. 

* * * * * 

Section 4.94 also issued under 19 

U.S.C. 1441; 46 U.S.C. 60504; 

* * * * * 

§ 4.94 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 4.94, the list of countries in 

paragraph (b) is amended by removing 

the words ‘‘Great Britain (including 

Turks and Caicos Islands; St. Vincent 

(including the territorial waters of the 

Northern Grenadine Islands), the 

Cayman Islands, the St. ChristopherNevis-Anguilla Islands and the British 

Virgin Islands)’’ and adding, in 

appropriate alphabetical order, the 

words ‘‘Saint Vincent and the 

Grenadines’’, ‘‘Saint Kitts and Nevis,’’ 

and ‘‘United Kingdom and the 

Dependencies: the Anguilla Islands, the 

Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands, 

the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and 

Caicos Islands’’. 

Dated: October 9, 2008. 

Joanne R. Stump, 

Chief, Trade and Commercial Regulations 

Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade. 

[FR Doc. E8–24523 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 938 

[PA–152–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–2008–0019] 

Pennsylvania Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final Rule; rescission of a 

modified required amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing a 

rescission of a required amendment that 

we imposed, in modified form, upon the 

Pennsylvania regulatory program (the 

‘‘Pennsylvania program’’) under the 

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). We had modified a previous 

version of the required amendment, 

which we originally imposed in 1991. 

The United States Court of Appeals for 

the Third Circuit, and the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania, on remand from the 

Third Circuit, set aside our termination 

of the 1991 required amendment. We 

are rescinding the modified required 

amendment because under those court 

actions, no action on our part was 

necessary to implement the Courts’ 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 60945 

Division, Telephone: (717) 782–4036, email: grieger@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program 

II. The Modified Required Amendment 

III. The Basis for Rescission of the Modified 

Required Amendment 

IV. OSM’s Decision 

V. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Pennsylvania 

Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of the Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the 

Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. 

From 1982 until 2001, Pennsylvania’s 

bonding program for surface coal mines, 

coal refuse reprocessing operations and 

coal preparation plants, was funded 

under an Alternative Bonding System 

(ABS), which included a central pool of 

money (Surface Mining Conservation 

and Reclamation Fund) used for 

reclamation, to supplement site-specific 

bonds posted by operators for each mine 

site. This pool was funded by a per-acre 

reclamation fee paid by operators of 

permitted sites. 

In 1991, our oversight activities 

determined that Pennsylvania’s ABS 

contained unfunded reclamation 

liabilities for backfilling, grading, and 

revegetation and we determined that the 

ABS was financially incapable of 

abating or treating pollutional 

discharges from bond forfeiture sites 

under its purview. As a result, on May 

31, 1991, we imposed the required 

amendment codified at 30 CFR 

938.16(h), 56 FR 24687. That 

amendment required Pennsylvania to 

demonstrate that the revenues generated 

by its collection of the reclamation fee 

would assure that its Surface Mining 

Conservation and Reclamation Fund 

(Fund) could be operated in a manner 

that would meet the ABS requirements 

contained in 30 CFR 800.11(e). After a 

decade of trying to address the problems 

with the ABS, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) terminated the ABS in 2001 

and began converting active surface coal 

mining permits to a Conventional 

Bonding System (CBS) or ‘‘full-cost’’ 

bonding program. This CBS requires a 

permittee to post a site specific bond in 

an amount sufficient to cover the 

estimated costs to complete reclamation 

in the event of bond forfeiture. 

OSM published a final rule on 

October 7, 2003 removing the required 

amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h) on the 

basis that the conversion from an ABS 

to a CBS rendered the requirement to 

comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e) moot. 

Subsequent to these OSM actions, a 

lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District 

Court for the Middle District Court of 

Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Federation 

of Sportsmen’s Clubs Inc. (PFSC) et al. 

v. Norton No. 1:03–CV–2220. The 

district court ruled in OSM’s favor, but 

was reversed by the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

Subsequently, on November 1, 2007, the 

District court set aside our October 7, 

2003, termination of the 1991 required 

amendment. The appellate court’s 

decision is discussed in the section 

below. 

You can find background information 

on the Pennsylvania program, including 

the Secretary’s findings, the disposition 

of comments, and conditions of 

approval in the July 30, 1982, Federal 

Register (47 FR 33050). You can also 

find later actions concerning 

Pennsylvania’s program and program 

amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 

938.13, 938.15 and 938.16. 

II. The Modified Required Amendment 

On August 2, 2007, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

decided PFSC v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 

337 (3rd Cir. 2007). At issue, relevant to 

this notice, was whether OSM properly 

terminated the requirement that 

Pennsylvania demonstrate that its 

Surface Mining Conservation and 

Reclamation Fund was in compliance 

with 30 CFR 800.11(e). 

The Third Circuit concluded: ‘‘while 

it is true that the ‘ABS Fund’ continues 

to exist in name, it no longer operates 

as an ABS, that is, as a bond pool, to 

provide liability coverage for new and 

existing mining sites.’’ 497 F.3d at 349. 

However, the Court went on to conclude 

that ‘‘800.11(e) continues to apply to 

sites forfeited prior to the CBS 

conversion.’’ Id. at 353. In commenting 

further on 30 CFR 800.11(e), the Court 

stated ‘‘The plain language of this 

provision requires that Pennsylvania 

demonstrate adequate funding for mine 

discharge abatement and treatment at all 

ABS forfeiture sites.’’ Id. at 354. 

Because the Third Circuit in PFSC v. 

Kempthorne, Id., reversed the District 

Court, which had upheld our 

termination of the 1991 required 

amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h), we 

decided to impose a modified version of 

amendment ‘‘(h),’’ which we believed 

was fully consistent with the rationale 

of the Third Circuit’s decision while 

accounting for circumstances which had 

changed since 1991. Issuance of this 

modified required amendment was 

announced in the July 8, 2008, Federal 

Register at 73 FR 38918. It is this 

modified version of the required 

amendment that we are hereby 

rescinding in this action. 

III. The Basis for Rescission of the 

Modified Required Amendment 

After we published the modified 

version of 30 CFR 938.16(h), the 

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s 

Clubs, along with the other Plaintiffs, 

filed a Motion to Reopen, to Substitute 

Party, and for Contempt in the matter of 

PFSC v. Kempthorne, No. 1:03–CV–2220 

(M.D. Pa.). The Plaintiffs alleged that the 

Federal Defendants were in contempt of 

the district court’s November 1, 2007, 

order on remand from the Third Circuit 

decision in PFSC v. Kempthorne, 497 

F.3d 337 (3rd Cir. 2007), because they 

revised 30 CFR 938.16(h) from its 1991 

form. The Plaintiffs contend that the 

Federal Defendants disobeyed the 

district court’s order, which the 

Plaintiffs claim did not authorize any 

modification to the required 

amendment. PFSC v. Kempthorne, No. 

1:03–CV–2220 (M.D. Pa.) (Motion to 

Reopen, to Substitute Party, and for 

Contempt filed July 16, 2008) 

In order to resolve the matter of the 

contempt proceeding, and without 

admitting any liability with respect to 

the Plaintiffs’ allegations put forth in 

said proceeding, we have decided to 

rescind the revised version of the 

required amendment at 30 CFR 

938.16(h). Thus, any potential conflict 

with the district court’s November 1, 

2007, Order on Remand, which set aside 

our decision to remove the 1991 

required amendment, is hereby 

removed. 

IV. OSM’s Decision 

Based on the above discussion, we 

hereby rescind the required amendment 

at 30 CFR 938.16(h), as it was revised in 

the July 8, 2008, Federal Register at 73 

FR 38918. 

This rule is being issued without prior 

public notice or opportunity for public 

comment. The Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) 

provides an exception to the notice and 

comment procedures when an agency 

finds there is good cause for dispensing 

with such procedures on the basis that 

they are impracticable, unnecessary or 

contrary to the public interest. In view 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
60946 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

of the litigation and court order, we 

have determined that under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for 

dispensing with the notice of proposed 

rulemaking and public comment 

procedures for this rule. For the same 

reason, we believe there is good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA to 

have the rule become effective on a date 

that is less than 30 days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register. 

This rescission is being made effective 

immediately in order to encourage 

Pennsylvania to bring its program into 

conformity with the Federal standards 

without undue delay. Consistency of 

State and Federal standards is required 

by SMCRA. 

V. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that, to the extent 

allowable by law, this rule meets the 

applicable standards of Subsections (a) 

and (b) of that Section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

because each program is drafted and 

promulgated by a specific State, not by 

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), 

decisions on proposed State regulatory 

programs and program amendments 

submitted by the States must be based 

solely on a determination of whether the 

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and 

its implementing Federal regulations 

and whether the other requirements of 

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have 

been met. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that 

State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Government 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects 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. 

The basis for this determination is that 

our decision is on a State regulatory 

program and does not involve a Federal 

program involving Indian lands. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a 

proposed State regulatory program 

provision does not constitute a major 

Federal action within the meaning of 

Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). A determination has 

been made that such decisions are 

categorically excluded from the NEPA 

process (516 DM 8.4.A). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State 

amendment that is the subject of this 

rule is based on counterpart Federal 

regulations for which an economic 

analysis was prepared and certification 

made that such regulations would not 

have a significant economic effect upon 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that 

existing requirements previously 

promulgated by OSM will be 

implemented by the State. In making the 

determination as to whether this rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, the Department relied upon the 

data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, geographic 

regions, or Federal, State, or local 

government agencies; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose a cost of 

$100 million or more in any given year 

on any governmental entity or the 

private sector. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, Appalachian Region. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended 

as set forth below: 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 60947 

PART 938—PENNSYLVANIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 938 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 

§ 938.16 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 938.16, remove paragraph (h). 

[FR Doc. E8–24477 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 706 

Certifications and Exemptions Under 

the International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

is amending its certifications and 

exemptions under the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) 

has determined that Unmanned Surface 

Vehicles with hull numbers 

11MUC0601, 11MUC0602, 11MUC0603 

and 11MUCO604, are vessels of the 

Navy which, due to their special 

construction and purpose, cannot fully 

comply with certain provisions of the 72 

COLREGS without interfering with their 

special function as naval vessels. The 

intended effect of this rule is to warn 

mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS 

apply. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 15, 

2008 and is applicable beginning 16 

June 2008). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. 

Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), 

Office of the Judge Advocate General, 

Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson 

Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy 

Yard, DC 20374–5066, telephone 202– 

685–5040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 

1605, the Department of the Navy 

amends 32 CFR Part 706. This 

amendment provides notice that the 

Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), 

under authority delegated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, has certified that 

Unmanned Surface Vehicles with hull 

numbers 11MUC0601, 11MUC0602, 

11MUC0603 and 11MUCO604 are 

vessels of the Navy which, due to their 

special construction and purpose, 

cannot fully comply with the following 

specific provisions of 72 COLREGS 

without interfering with its special 

function as a naval ship: Rule 21(a), 

pertaining to the position of the 

masthead light or lights being located 

over the fore and aft centerline of the 

vessel; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), 

pertaining to the placement of the 

masthead light or lights above and clear 

of all other lights and obstructions; Rule 

27(b)(i), pertaining to the placement of 

three all-round lights in a vertical line 

and Annex I, paragraph 2(i)(ii), 

pertaining to the vertical separation of 

the Restricted Maneuvering Light Array 

lights. The Deputy Assistant Judge 

Advocate General (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law) has also certified that the 

lights involved are located in closest 

possible compliance with the applicable 

72 COLREGS requirements. 

Moreover, it has been determined, in 

accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 

701, that publication of this amendment 

for public comment prior to adoption is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to public interest since it is 

based on technical findings that the 

placement of lights on this vessel in a 

manner differently from that prescribed 

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s 

ability to perform its military functions. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), and 

Vessels. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND 

EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE 

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR 

PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 

1972 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 706 

continues to read: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 

■ 2. Section 706.2 is amended as 

follows: 

■ A. In Table Two, by adding, at the end 

of the table under the ‘‘Vessel’’ category, 

the following entry for Unmanned 

Surface Vehicles with hull numbers 

11MUC0601, 11MUC0602, 11MUC0603 

and 11MUCO604: 

■ B. In Table Four, Paragraph Sixteen by 

adding, at the end of the table under the 

‘‘Vessel’’ category, the following entry 

for Unmanned Surface Vehicles with 

hull numbers 11MUC0601, 

11MUC0602, 11MUC0603 and 

11MUCO604: 

■ C. In Table Four by adding new 

paragraphs 23 and 24: 

§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of 

the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 

33 U.S.C. 1605. 

* * * * * 

Vessel Number 

Masthead 

lights, distance to 

stbd of 

keel in meters; Rule 

21(a) 

Forward 

anchor 

light, distance 

below flight 

dk in meters: § 2(k), 

Annex I 

Forward 

anchor 

light, number of; 

Rule 

30(a)(i) 

AFT anchor light, 

distance 

below flight 

dk in meters; Rule 

21(e), Rule 

30(a)(ii) 

AFT anchor light, 

number of; 

Rule 

30(a)(ii) 

Side lights, 

distance 

below flight 

dk in meters; § 2(g), 

Annex I 

Side lights, 

distance 

forward of 

forward 

masthead 

light in meters; § 3(b), 

Annex I 

Side lights, 

distance 

inboard of 

ship’s 

sides in 

meters; 

§ 3(b), 

Annex I 

USV .... 11MUC0601, 11MUC0602, 11MUC0603, 

11MUC0604.

0.40 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

* * * * * Table 4 

* * * * * 

16. * * * 

Vessel Number 

Obstruction angle 

relative ship’s 

headings 

USV ........................................ 11MUCO601, 11MUCO602, 11MUC0603, 11MUC0604 ....................................................... 271° thru 278°. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES