83 FR 3273 - Inland Navigation Rules; Technical Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 16 (January 24, 2018)

Page Range		3273-3274
FR Document		2018-01304
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.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3273-3274]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3273

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND paragraph is ‘‘signal prescribed in identified for elimination, and that the
SECURITY paragraph (d) of this Rule.’’ This change cost of planned regulations be prudently
will conform this section to the managed and controlled through a
Coast Guard International Regulations for Preventing budgeting process.’’
Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS), which The Office of Management and Budget
33 CFR Part 83 the United States has ratified. The word (OMB) has not designated this rule a
‘‘danger’’, describing ‘‘signal’’, does not significant regulatory action under
[Docket No. USCG–2017–1002]
appear in Rule 34 of the 72 COLREGS section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Inland Navigation Rules; Technical and the Inland Navigation Rules do not Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
Amendment define the term ‘‘danger signal.’’ Because this rule is not a significant
Therefore, to remain consistent with our regulatory action, this rule is exempt
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 2014 final rule amending the Inland from the requirements of Executive
ACTION: Final rule. Navigation Rules to align these Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum
regulations as much as possible with the ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive
SUMMARY: This rule makes technical, 72 COLREGS (79 FR 37898, July 2, Order 13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing
non-substantive amendments to remove 2014), we are deleting the term Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
the word ‘‘danger’’ from the Coast ‘‘danger’’ from two locations in § 83.34 Costs’’ (April 5, 2017). This rule
Guard’s Inland Navigation Rule that were inadvertently omitted from involves non-substantive changes and
regarding Maneuvering and Warning our 2014 rulemaking. Removal of the internal agency practices and
Signals, to align this regulation with the word ‘‘danger’’ from this regulation, in procedures; it will not impose any
International Maritime Organization’s addition to alignment with the 72 additional costs on the public. The
International Regulations for Preventing COLREGS, also alleviates potential benefit of the non-substantive changes is
Collisions at Sea, 1972. ambiguity. The signal described in Rule increased clarity of regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective 34(d) is specific to a vessel that does not
clearly understand the intentions or B. Small Entities
January 24, 2018.
actions of another vessel, or is in doubt This rule is not preceded by a notice
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
if sufficient action is being taken to of proposed rulemaking and, therefore is
information about this document call or
avoid collision. It is a signal of warning exempt from the requirements of the
email LCDR M. J. Walter, Coast Guard;
as the title of Rule 34 indicates: Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
telephone 202–372–1565, email cgnav@
‘‘Maneuvering and warning signals.’’ 601–612). The Regulatory Flexibility
uscg.mil.
Vessels may use this signal even when Act does not apply when notice and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘danger’’ is not present. comment rulemaking is not required.
I. Basis, Purpose, and Good Cause This rule also changes the heading of
part 83 from ‘‘Rules’’ to ‘‘Navigational C. Assistance for Small Entities
Exception to Notice and Comment
Requirements Rules.’’ This is a clarifying change only Under section 213(a) of the Small
and is intended to alert the reader about Business Regulatory Enforcement
This rule makes technical, non- the content of this part of the CFR. Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
substantive changes in 33 CFR 83.34, 121, we offer to assist small entities in
‘‘Maneuvering and warning signals III. Regulatory Analyses
understanding this rule so that they can
(Rule 34),’’ to provide greater clarity and We developed this rule after better evaluate its effects on them and
align this regulation with the considering numerous statutes and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast
International Maritime Organization’s Executive orders related to rulemaking. Guard will not retaliate against small
International Regulations for Preventing Below we summarize our analyses entities that question or complain about
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS). based on these statutes or Executive this rule or any policy or action of the
This rule does not create or change any orders. Coast Guard.
substantive requirements. This final rule Small businesses may send comments
is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. A. Regulatory Planning and Review
on the actions of Federal employees
553; 14 U.S.C. 2(3); 33 U.S.C. 2071 and Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory who enforce, or otherwise determine
Department of Homeland Security Planning and Review’’) and 13563 compliance with, Federal regulations to
Delegation No. 0170.1. (‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory the Small Business and Agriculture
We did not publish a notice of Review’’) direct agencies to assess the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
proposed rulemaking for this rule. The costs and benefits of available regulatory and the Regional Small Business
Coast Guard finds that notice and alternatives and, if regulation is Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
comment procedures are unnecessary necessary, to select regulatory Ombudsman evaluates these actions
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as this rule approaches that maximize net benefits annually and rates each agency’s
consists only of technical and editorial (including potential economic, responsiveness to small business. If you
corrections, and that these changes will environmental, public health and safety wish to comment on actions by
have no substantive effect on the public. effects, distributive impacts, and employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast equity). Executive Order 13563 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Guard finds that, for the same reasons, emphasizes the importance of
good cause exists for making this final quantifying both costs and benefits, of D. Collection of Information
rule effective upon publication in the reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, This rule calls for no new or modified
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES

Federal Register. collection of information under the
Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
II. Discussion of Rule Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs U.S.C. 3501–3520.
This rule revises 33 CFR 83.34(a)(ii) agencies to reduce regulation and
and 83.34(c)(ii) by removing the word control regulatory costs and provides E. Federalism
‘‘danger.’’ After removing the word that ‘‘for every one new regulation A rule has implications for federalism
‘‘danger’’ the remaining text in each issued, at least two prior regulations be under Executive Order 13132

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:32 Jan 23, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM 24JAR1
3274 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

(‘‘Federalism’’) if it has a substantial determined that it is not a ‘‘significant ■ a. In paragraph (a)(ii), remove the
direct effect on State or local energy action’’ under that order because word ‘‘danger’’; and
governments and would either preempt it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ■ b. In paragraph (c)(ii), remove the
State law or impose a substantial direct under Executive Order 12866 and is not word ‘‘danger’’.
cost of compliance on them. We have likely to have a significant adverse effect
Katia Kroutil,
analyzed this rule under Executive on the supply, distribution, or use of
Order 13132 and have determined that energy. Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law.
it does not have implications for
L. Technical Standards [FR Doc. 2018–01304 Filed 1–23–18; 8:45 am]
federalism.
The National Technology Transfer BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Advancement Act, codified as a
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires to use voluntary consensus standards in FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory activities unless the COMMISSION
their discretionary regulatory actions. In agency provides Congress, through
particular, the Act addresses actions OMB, with an explanation of why using 47 CFR Part 15
that may result in the expenditure by a these standards would be inconsistent [GN Docket No. 12–268; FCC 15–140]
State, local, or tribal government, in the with applicable law or otherwise
aggregate, or by the private sector of impractical. Voluntary consensus Expanding the Economic and
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or standards are technical standards (e.g., Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
more in any one year. Though this rule specifications of materials, performance, Through Incentive Auctions
will not result in such an expenditure, design, or operation; test methods;
we do discuss the effects of this rule sampling procedures; and related AGENCY: Federal Communications
elsewhere in this preamble. management systems practices) that are Commission.
developed or adopted by voluntary ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
G. Taking of Private Property
consensus standards bodies. This rule effective date.
This rule will not cause a taking of does not use technical standards.
private property or otherwise have Therefore, we did not consider the use SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
taking implications under Executive of voluntary consensus standards. Commission (Commission) is
Order 12630 (‘‘Governmental Actions announcing that three final rules that
and Interference with Constitutionally M. Environment appeared in the Federal Register as part
Protected Property Rights’’). We have analyzed this rule under of the Commission’s rulemaking
Department of Homeland Security Expanding the Economic and
H. Civil Justice Reform Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Management Directive 023–01 and
This rule meets applicable standards Commandant Instruction M16475.lD do not need information collection
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide approval from the Office of Management
Order 12988, (‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’), to the Coast Guard in complying with the and Budget (OMB) and are effective
minimize litigation, eliminate National Environmental Policy Act of immediately. This document is
ambiguity, and reduce burden. 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have consistent with a Report and Order in
concluded that this action is one of a which the Commission stated that it
I. Protection of Children
category of actions that do not would publish a document in the
We have analyzed this rule under individually or cumulatively have a Federal Register announcing OMB
Executive Order 13045 (‘‘Protection of significant effect on the human approval and the effective date of these
Children from Environmental Health environment. This rule is categorically rules.
Risks and Safety Risks’’). This rule is excluded under section 2.B.2 and figure DATES: 47 CFR 15.713(b)(2)(iv),
not an economically significant rule and 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a) of the 15.713(j)(10) introductory text and
would not create an environmental risk Instruction. This final rule involves 15.715(n) published at 81 FR 4969,
to health or risk to safety that might amendments to regulations that are January 29, 2016, are effective on
disproportionately affect children. editorial. January 24, 2018.
J. Indian Tribal Governments List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 83 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This rule does not have tribal Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918, or
Navigation (water), Waterways. via email at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
implications under Executive Order
13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination For the reasons discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
with Indian Tribal Governments’’), preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 Report and Order, GN Docket No. 12–
because it would not have a substantial CFR part 83 as follows: 268, FCC 15–140, published at 81 FR
direct effect on one or more Indian 4969, January 29, 2016, stated that
PART 83—NAVIGATION RULES modifications to section 15.713(b)(2)(iv),
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, 15.713(j)(10) introductory text and
■ 1. The authority citation for part 83
or on the distribution of power and section 15.715(n) would not become
continues to read as follows:
responsibilities between the Federal effective until after the Federal Register
Government and Indian tribes. Authority: Sec. 303, Pub. L. 108–293, 118 publication of the date that OMB
Stat. 1042 (33 U.S.C. 2071); Department of approved the resulting modification of
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES

K. Energy Effects Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
the information collections under the
We have analyzed this rule under ■ 2. Revise the heading for part 83 to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the
Executive Order 13211 (‘‘Actions read as set forth above. effective date of such modifications.
Concerning Regulations That Because subsequent review and
§ 83.34 [Amended]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, consultation with OMB has revealed
Distribution, or Use’’). We have ■ 3. Amend § 83.34 as follows: that there is no existing information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:32 Jan 23, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM 24JAR1
Document Created: 2018-10-26 10:01:30
Document Modified: 2018-10-26 10:01:30
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		This final rule is effective January 24, 2018.
Contact		For information about this document call or email LCDR M. J. Walter, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1565, email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 3273
CFR Associated		Navigation (Water) and Waterways
83 FR 3273 - Inland Navigation Rules; Technical Amendment

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 16 (January 24, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
