[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62435-62437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25141]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 162
[Docket No. USCG-2011-1086]
RIN 1625-AB84
Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule redefines the geographical points described in our
regulations, which demarcate an area of the Detroit River in which
certain vessels are restricted to speeds not greater than 12 statute
miles per hour.
DATES: This rule will be effective November 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2011-1086]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may
visit the Docket Management Facility, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention Department, Sector
Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9508, email
Adrian.F.Palomeque@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V.
[[Page 62436]]
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Regulatory History and Information
On May 8, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPMR) entitled Inland Waterways Navigation
Regulations (77 FR 27007). We received 1 comment. Specifically, Lake
Carriers' Association (LCA) submitted a letter on May 15, 2012 in which
LCA offered its full support for this rulemaking as proposed in the
NPRM. No other comments were received. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.
B. Basis and Purpose
As discussed in the aforesaid NPRM, representatives from LCA, the
Lakes Pilots Association, the International Shipmasters Association,
and the Canadian Shipowners Association previously made a request of
the Coast Guard regarding 33 CFR Part 162. Particularly, these groups
requested that the Coast Guard amend, via federal rulemaking, 33 CFR
162.138(a)(1)(ii), which requires vessels on the Detroit River north of
the Detroit River Light to operate at no more than 12 statute miles per
hour. In response to that request, the Coast Guard's Ninth District
Commander, in consultation with the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit, Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Canadian
Coast Guard, assessed the necessity and utility of the aforementioned
regulatory provision and determined that the southern point of the
restricted speed area in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) should be relocated
to a point approximately 2.5 statute miles to the north at the D33
stationary light. The reasoning for the Ninth District Commander's
decision is discussed in the following paragraph.
The speed restriction in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) requires vessels
on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light to operate at no
more than 12 statute miles per hour. This restriction serves two
purposes. First, it is intended to prevent collisions and groundings.
(See 33 CFR 162.130(a)). Second, it is intended to limit wake damage to
vessels and shore structures (See 60 FR 35701-01). Because the Detroit
River Light is several miles into Lake Erie and because the channel
between the Detroit River Light and the D33 stationary light is roughly
twelve-hundred feet wide, the Ninth District Commander has determined
that limiting speed south of the D33 stationary light is not necessary
to prevent wake damage or to prevent collisions and groundings. Thus,
33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii), as currently written, serves as an
unnecessary restriction on vessel operations. Moreover, this
unnecessary restriction is exacerbated by the fact that upbound vessels
must decelerate well in advance of the Detroit River Light in order to
attain the maximum speed at the light itself.
Pursuant to the authority contained in the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act, (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), as delegated to the Commandant of
the Coast Guard via Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1 and to Coast Guard District Commanders pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-
1(e)(1)(vii), the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR
162.138(a)(1)(ii) to alleviate unnecessary restrictions on commercial
vessel operations.
C. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule
As mentioned above, only one comment was received in response to
the NPRM published on May 8, 2012. In that comment, LCA offered its
full support for the proposed rulemaking.
This Final Rule is identical to the rule proposed in that NPRM. As
stated in the NPRM, because 33 CFR 162.138, as currently written,
unnecessarily restricts commercial vessel operations, the Ninth
District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138 to reduce the size of the
restricted speed area currently delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii).
Particularly, this rule relocates the southern point of the restricted
speed area from its current location at the Detroit River Light to a
new location near the D33 stationary light.
D. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude
that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because
relocating the southern point of the restricted speed area delineated
in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) will lessen navigation restrictions on the
public and on private industry. Thus, we anticipate that it will not
adversely affect the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the
following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners
and operators of vessels intending to transit between the Detroit River
Light and the D33 stationary. However, the relocation of the southern
point of the restricted speed area delineated in 33 CFR
162.138(a)(1)(ii) will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it will lessen navigation
restrictions on the public and private industry.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
In keeping with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist
small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above.
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
[[Page 62437]]
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.
4. Collection of Information
This rule does not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Energy Effects
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
12. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
13. Environment
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 determined
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 involves amendments to navigation regulations
and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the
Commandant Instruction. A Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) and
a preliminary environmental analysis checklist are 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 162
Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 162 as follows:
PART 162--INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 162 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sec. 162.138 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 162.138(a)(1)(ii), remove the words ``Detroit River Light''
and in their place add the words ``D33 stationary light in the Detroit
River entrance''.
Dated: October 1, 2012.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-25141 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P