[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3273-3274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01304]
[[Page 3273]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 83
[Docket No. USCG-2017-1002]
Inland Navigation Rules; Technical Amendment
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes technical, non-substantive amendments to
remove the word ``danger'' from the Coast Guard's Inland Navigation
Rule regarding Maneuvering and Warning Signals, to align this
regulation with the International Maritime Organization's International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 24, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email LCDR M. J. Walter, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1565,
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Basis, Purpose, and Good Cause Exception to Notice and Comment
Requirements
This rule makes technical, non-substantive changes in 33 CFR 83.34,
``Maneuvering and warning signals (Rule 34),'' to provide greater
clarity and align this regulation with the International Maritime
Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS). This rule does not create or change any
substantive requirements. This final rule is issued under the authority
of 5 U.S.C. 553; 14 U.S.C. 2(3); 33 U.S.C. 2071 and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule.
The Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are
unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as this rule consists only of
technical and editorial corrections, and that 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 final rule effective upon publication in the Federal
Register.
II. Discussion of Rule
This rule revises 33 CFR 83.34(a)(ii) and 83.34(c)(ii) by removing
the word ``danger.'' After removing the word ``danger'' the remaining
text in each paragraph is ``signal prescribed in paragraph (d) of this
Rule.'' This change will conform this section to the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS), which the
United States has ratified. The word ``danger'', describing ``signal'',
does not appear in Rule 34 of the 72 COLREGS and the Inland Navigation
Rules do not define the term ``danger signal.'' Therefore, to remain
consistent with our 2014 final rule amending the Inland Navigation
Rules to align these regulations as much as possible with the 72
COLREGS (79 FR 37898, July 2, 2014), we are deleting the term
``danger'' from two locations in Sec. 83.34 that were inadvertently
omitted from our 2014 rulemaking. Removal of the word ``danger'' from
this regulation, in addition to alignment with the 72 COLREGS, also
alleviates potential ambiguity. The signal described in Rule 34(d) is
specific to a vessel that does not clearly understand the intentions or
actions of another vessel, or is in doubt if sufficient action is being
taken to avoid collision. It is a signal of warning as the title of
Rule 34 indicates: ``Maneuvering and warning signals.'' Vessels may use
this signal even when ``danger'' is not present.
This rule also changes the heading of part 83 from ``Rules'' to
``Navigational Rules.'' This is a clarifying change only and is
intended to alert the reader about the content of this part of the CFR.
III. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is
not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum ``Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (April 5, 2017). This rule involves non-
substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures; it
will not impose any additional costs on the public. The benefit of the
non-substantive changes is increased clarity of regulations.
B. Small Entities
This rule is not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking and,
therefore is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply
when notice and comment rulemaking is not required.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
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).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new or modified collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
[[Page 3274]]
(``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 Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it does not
have implications for federalism.
F. 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.
G. 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'').
H. 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.
I. 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 would
not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments''), because it would 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.
K. 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.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, 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.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
(COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 and figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) of the Instruction.
This final rule involves amendments to regulations that are editorial.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 83
Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 83 as follows:
PART 83--NAVIGATION RULES
0
1. The authority citation for part 83 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 303, Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1042 (33 U.S.C.
2071); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise the heading for part 83 to read as set forth above.
Sec. 83.34 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 83.34 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(ii), remove the word ``danger''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(ii), remove the word ``danger''.
Katia Kroutil,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-01304 Filed 1-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P