Document ID: USCG-2017-1002-0001
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Rule
Title: Inland Navigation Rules; Technical Amendment
Posted Date: 2018-01-24T05:00Z

[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