1625-0043 Final Rule

55272

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

vessel in the regulated area must
comply with instructions from the Coast
Guard or designated representative.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

The regulation in 33 CFR
100.723 will be enforced daily from 8:30
a.m. until 4:00 p.m. November 17
through November 18, 2018.

33 CFR Part 164

DATES:

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 35

If
you have questions about this notice of
enforcement, call or email Petty Officer
Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard: Telephone: 305–535–4317,
Email: [email protected].

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0926]

The Coast
Guard will enforce a special local
regulation for the Fort Lauderdale Grand
Prix of the Seas in 33 CFR 100.723 daily
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. November
17 through November 18, 2018. This
action is being taken to provide for the
safety and security of navigable
waterways during this two-day event.
Our regulation for marine events within
the Seventh Coast Guard District,
§ 100.723, specifies the location of the
special local regulation for the Fort
Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas,
which encompasses certain navigable
waters of the Atlantic Ocean off South
Beach Park in Fort Lauderdale. Only
event sponsor designated participants
and official patrol vessels are allowed to
enter the regulated area. Spectators may
contact the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander or designated
representative to request permission to
pass through the regulated area. If
permission is granted, spectators must
pass directly through the regulated area
at safe speed and without loitering.
In addition to this notice of
enforcement in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will inform the public
through Local Notice to Mariners and
marine information broadcasts at least
24 hours in advance of the enforcement
of the special local regulation.

SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Dated: October 30, 2018.
M.M. Dean,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2018–24055 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

RIN 1625–AC27

Tankers—Automatic Pilot Systems
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard will permit
tankers with automatic pilot systems
that meet certain international standards
to operate using those systems in
shipping safety fairways and traffic
separation schemes specified in 33 CFR
parts 166 and 167, respectively. This
final rule removes the previous
regulatory restriction, updates the
technical requirements for automatic
pilot systems, and promotes the Coast
Guard’s maritime safety and
stewardship (environmental protection)
missions by enhancing maritime safety.
DATES: This final rule is effective
December 5, 2018. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register on December 5,
2018.
ADDRESSES: You may view comments
and related material identified by
docket number USCG–2015–0926 using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document or to
view material incorporated by reference
call or email LCDR Matthew J. Walter,
CG–NAV–2, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone 202–372–1565, email cgnav@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
III. Discussion of the Rule
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

M. Environment

I. Abbreviations
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
COTP Captain of the Port
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and
Information System
FR Federal Register
IEC International Electrotechnical
Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
INS Integrated navigation system
LOD Letter of Deviation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
SBA Small Business Administration
§ Section symbol
TSS Traffic separation scheme
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory
History
Sections 2103 and 3703 of Title 46
U.S.C. provide the legal basis for this
rulemaking. Section 2103 gives the
Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating
discretionary authority to prescribe
regulations to carry out the provisions
for tanker carriage of liquid bulk
dangerous cargoes. Section 3703
requires the Secretary to prescribe
regulations for the operation and
equipping of liquid bulk dangerous
cargoes and other issues related to these
cargoes. Section 4114 of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 requires the Coast
Guard to define the conditions under
which a tank vessel may operate in the
navigable waters with an autopilot
engaged. In Department of Homeland
Security Delegation Nos. 0170.1 (II)(70),
(92.a), and (92.b) and 5110, Revision 01,
the Secretary delegated authority under
these statutes to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard.
The purpose of this rule is to permit
tankers equipped with automatic pilot
systems—also generically known as
‘‘autopilots’’—that meet certain
international standards to operate using
those systems in shipping safety
fairways or traffic separation schemes
(TSS) specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and
167, respectively. In 1993, the Coast
Guard promulgated 33 CFR 164.13,
permitting the use of autopilots.
However, that same year, the Coast
Guard suspended the final rule
provision allowing tankers to use
autopilots in concert with an integrated
navigation system (INS) in TSS and
shipping safety fairways because there
was no performance standard for the
accuracy, integrity, or reliability of INS
(58 FR 36141, July 6, 1993). The
suspension had the effect of prohibiting
the use of any autopilot in fairway or
TSS waters.

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Since then, the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a
voluntary industry consensus standardssetting body, has developed standards
for heading and track control systems.1
The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has adopted
resolutions endorsing these standards,
and has recommended to IMO member
states that they adopt performance
standards ‘‘not inferior to’’ those the
IMO has adopted. The Coast Guard
believes that tanker autopilot systems
that meet the IEC’s standards should be
relieved of the regulatory burden that
prohibits use of these systems in fairway
and TSS waters.
Prohibiting the use of autopilots
creates regulatory burdens for both
industry and the Coast Guard, as tanker
owners and operators must apply for
deviations from the prohibition. The
Coast Guard grants the deviations on a
case-by-case basis and, since 2013, has
issued approximately 35 deviations to
allow tankers to operate specific IEC
and IMO compliant autopilots in
fairway or TSS waters within specific
Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. To
eliminate these unnecessary burdens on
industry and the Coast Guard, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking with a request for comments
titled ‘‘Tankers—Automatic Pilot
Systems in Waters’’ in the Federal
Register on July 11, 2016 (81 FR 44817).
III. Discussion of the Final Rule
This final rule amends 33 CFR 164.13,
which relates to the navigation of
tankers underway. Specifically, this rule
amends 33 CFR 164.13 to allow tankers
equipped with specific IEC-compliant
autopilots to use those systems in
fairway and TSS waters without having
to apply to individual COTPs for
deviations, and without the need for
COTPs to ensure IEC compliance and
issue deviations.
This action will eliminate the current
burdens on industry applying for
deviations and the Coast Guard granting
those deviations that are no longer
necessary because of advances in
technology. Moreover, the Coast Guard
expects that this rule will enhance
maritime safety because the autopilots
in question offer greater precision and
navigational safety than conventional
autopilots, and arguably, even human
1 IEC 62065, First Edition, (2002–03), Maritime
navigation and radiocommunication equipment and
systems—Track control systems—Operational and
performance requirements, methods of testing and
required test results; and IEC 62065, Edition 2.0,
(2014–02). These and all other documents
referenced in this rule are available in the docket
by following the directions in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

steering. Lastly, by incorporating
industry standards, this rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13609
(Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation), which encourages
international regulatory cooperation to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary difference in regulatory
requirements.2
For these reasons, the Coast Guard
adopts, as final, 33 CFR 164.13 as
proposed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking. The Coast Guard also
makes additional changes described in
Section IV of this preamble. These
changes respond to public comment
requesting clarity on specific terms used
in the proposed regulatory text.
Finally, the Coast Guard is removing
a cross-reference to 33 CFR 164.13 in 46
CFR 35.20–45. This cross-reference was
necessary when the two sections had
different information regarding the use
of autopilots. However, it is no longer
necessary with the changes
implemented by this rule.
IV. Discussion of Comments and
Changes
During the public comment period,
the Coast Guard received comments
from 7 commenters, including mariners,
a pilots’ association, a state board of
commissioners of pilots, a company
operating tank vessels, and an
association of companies engaged in
oceangoing shipping. Below we
summarize the comments and provide
our responses.
Three commenters supported
permitting tankers to use autopilots
with appropriate safeguards. The Coast
Guard concurs, and believes § 164.13
provides adequate safeguards because it
requires the continued presence of a
qualified helmsman; prohibits the use of
autopilot in anchorage grounds or
within one-half nautical mile of the U.S.
shore; and imposes conditions for the
use of autopilots in fairway and TSS
waters.
One commenter said that although
autopilots have benefited from advances
in technology since the initial 1993
rulemaking, maintaining a cross track
error of less than 10 meters might not
be sufficient in some pilotage waters.
For these reasons, and because the
notice of proposed rulemaking
estimated annual government cost
savings of approximately $4,600,3 the
commenter recommended the Coast
Guard withdraw the proposed rule.
Regarding a mariner’s use of an
autopilot, the Coast Guard’s position has
not changed. As the Coast Guard stated

in the 1993 final rule,4 vessel masters
and pilots are in the best position to
determine if the use of autopilots is safe
based on the local conditions in the
waters where the rule allows discretion.
This rule does not compel a tanker’s
master or pilot to use an autopilot, and
the Coast Guard is not promoting
indiscriminate use of an autopilot. This
rule is permissive and recognizes that
an autopilot is a navigational tool that,
when used by a prudent mariner under
appropriate circumstances, can assist
the mariner in the safe transit of a
tanker. Because of the improvement in
autopilot technology, the discretion of
masters within the operational limits of
this rule described above, and the fact
that this rule is expected to produce net
benefits, the Coast Guard is
promulgating this rule.
The same commenter suggested that
local COTPs should continue to grant
case-by-case waivers of autopilot
restrictions.
The Coast Guard disagrees. As
addressed in the 1993 final rule,5 it is
in the interest of the mariner and Coast
Guard to minimize the prospect of a
confusing array of rules that may vary
from port to port. The Coast Guard finds
that a single, national rule will facilitate
compliance and not complicate
enforcement.
A different commenter disagreed with
removing the ban, stating that despite
technological advances, computer
malfunctions could still lead to major
disasters. While the Coast Guard
acknowledges that computer
malfunctions and errors can lead to
major disasters, these systems are
hardwired to steering systems and not
intended to be connected to a network.
Additionally, the IEC standard that we
are incorporating conforms to the IMO
performance standards for heading
monitoring; position monitoring;
override functions; manual change over
from track control to manual steering;
and sensor information validation and
failure alarms. Here, a competent person
is still required to be present, thereby
being made aware (by the system, visual
cues and other independent bridge
equipment) of a failure or malfunction
and potentially averting major disasters.
A commenter recommended that the
rule be redrafted to include language
from 46 CFR 35.20–45, which is
applicable to a much broader spectrum
of ship types. The commenter argued
that the ‘‘extra precautions’’ of § 35.20–
45 should also apply to tank vessels
carrying petroleum or chemical
products.

2 (77

4 58

3 81

5 58

PO 00000

FR 26413, May 4, 2013).
FR 44821, footnote 24.

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55273

FR 27633, 27631 (May 10, 1993).
FR 27628.

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

55274

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

The Coast Guard concurs that
requiring a competent person to be
ready to change immediately from
manual steering to autopilot or vice
versa under the supervision of the
officer of the watch when operating in
areas of high traffic density, restricted
visibility, or other hazardous
navigational situations is an appropriate
restriction for the safe use of autopilots
by tank vessels. Currently, when
transiting the navigable waters of the
United States, tankers are never without
officer of the watch supervision, as
referenced in 33 CFR 164.13(c), meaning
that a competent person who can
manually steer the vessel is already on
board and ready to take over should the
need arise. Accordingly, we reference
§ 35.20–45 in § 164.13(d)(2) of this rule.
The Coast Guard also makes a
conforming change to the introductory
language of § 35.20–45.
The same commenter suggested that
the use of autopilots should not be
allowed when operating in restricted
visibility. As indicated above, the Coast
Guard agrees that the restrictions in
§ 35.20–45 are appropriate when
operating in restricted visibility.
However, the Coast Guard does not
agree that the prohibition on autopilot
during restricted visibility applies to
waters not covered under the
restrictions or prohibitions of this rule.
In waters where the Coast Guard does
not have prohibitions or restrictions in
place, autopilot use is best determined
by vessel masters and pilots as the
prevailing conditions dictate.
The same commenter suggested that it
should be possible to establish
immediate manual control of steering at
all times an autopilot is in use. The
Coast Guard agrees that immediate
manual control of steering at all times
an autopilot is in use is necessary, and
the rule already requires it. In order for
a system to meet the referenced
equipment standard, it must be able to
accept a signal from the override
facilities to terminate track control
mode. According to the IMO, this
should be possible at any rudder angle,
under any condition, including any
failure of the track control system.
Because the rule requires compliance
with the IEC standards, including this
prescription as a separate provision in
33 CFR 164.13 would be redundant.
The same commenter also suggested
that a person who is competent to steer
the vessel manually should be required
to be present and ready at all times an
autopilot is in use. The Coast Guard
agrees, and has modified proposed
§ 164.13(d)(2) in this rule to clarify that
a person should be present and ready
‘‘at all times.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

The same commenter suggested that
the Coast Guard should clarify the
meaning of the phrase one-half nautical
mile offshore. The commenter asked if
the Coast Guard meant one-half mile
from the demarcation line or the
headlands, or if the text should have
read one-half mile from land, the
riverbank, or from shoal water.
The Coast Guard agrees with this
statement and has updated
§ 164.13(d)(1) to reference terms defined
elsewhere in the CFR.6
The Coast Guard received comments
from the Board of Commissioners of
Pilots of the State of New York in
opposition to the Coast Guard’s
preemption determination and the use
of autopilots in New York State pilotage
waters, citing the peculiarities of local
waters where special precautionary
measures are required. The American
Pilots’ Association echoed the Board of
Commissioners of Pilots of the State of
New York in its concern regarding
pilotage waters where traffic converges
and special precautionary measures are
required.
As to the preemption determination,
the Coast Guard disagrees that this rule
alters a State’s authority to regulate
pilotage requirements under 46 U.S.C.
8501. This rule does not regulate State
pilots. This rule regulates vessel
equipment and operations—specifically,
navigation equipment. In other words,
this rule will not prohibit or otherwise
interfere with a State’s right to establish
state pilotage requirements. The Coast
Guard has added clarifying language to
its federalism statement in this rule.
As to the use of autopilots within
certain waters, the Coast Guard
recognizes that precautionary measures
are required for areas of special concern.
On certain waters, vessel traffic transits
along straight corridors as prescribed by
charted routing measures (e.g. channels,
fairways, lanes, and others). Vessels
transiting other charted routing
measures (e.g. anchorages,
precautionary areas, and others) behave
less predictably. At times, vessel
convergence areas are in pilotage
waters. Therefore, the Coast Guard has
added a prohibition on the use of
autopilots in precautionary areas, as
defined in 33 CFR 167.5, in addition to
the prohibition in regulated anchorage
areas. We are also adding this
prohibition in response to the comment
suggesting incorporation of restrictions
in 46 CFR 35.20–45, which include
6 This includes the definition of territorial sea
baseline in 33 CFR 2.20, definition of anchorages
per 33 CFR part 110, and the definition of
precautionary areas in 33 CFR 167.5.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

limitations when using autopilots in
hazardous navigational situations.
Although, as stated, this prohibition is
limited to only waters within one-half
nautical mile of shore, regulated
anchorages, and precautionary areas, it
is not an unfettered endorsement to use
track control or heading control systems
in all other waters. Vessel operators
should always assess the risk of
collision, allision, or grounding, and
recognize that it may be imprudent to
use said systems under certain
prevailing circumstances and conditions
such as transiting other areas of
converging traffic, maneuvering close
aboard to other vessels or structures, or
other times of maneuvering various
courses and speeds.
A commenter asked if it was the Coast
Guard’s intent to allow autopilots to
take voyage inputs, such as position and
track information, from systems other
than an Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS).
The Coast Guard understands that
some autopilots may receive voyage
inputs from systems other than an
ECDIS. As long as those other systems
are addressed in the referenced IEC
65065 standard, autopilots may take
voyage inputs from systems other than
an ECDIS. The IEC 65065 standard
prescribes which sensors must be
interfaced with an autopilot. It further
requires those sensors meet an
applicable IMO performance standard.
V. Incorporation by Reference
Material incorporated by reference in
33 CFR 164.13 appears in the
amendment to 33 CFR 164.03. The
Director of the Federal Register has
approved the material in § 164.03 for
incorporation by reference under 5
U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. For
information about how to view this
material, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. Copies of the material are
also available from the sources listed in
§ 164.03. We incorporated the IEC
standard IEC 62065, First Edition (2002–
03) and Edition 2.0 (2014–02).
VI. 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

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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. This rule is considered to
be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action. See OMB’s
Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771,
Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5,
2017).
A combined regulatory analysis and
Threshold Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis follows and provides an
evaluation of the economic impacts
associated with this rule. The

55275

substantive change affecting this
analysis from the proposal to the final
rule was that the Coast Guard updated
its estimates of wage data from 2013 to
2016 data. We calculate that this rule
will result in net cost savings of $76,572
(7-percent discount rate) over a 10-year
period, with annualized net savings of
$10,902 (7-percent discount rate). This
cost saving is achieved through a
reduction in labor costs associated with
requesting letters of deviation (LOD) to
use autopilot under the current
regulatory scheme. This rule will also
result in cost savings for the Coast
Guard by reducing the hourly burden
costs to process and approve the LOD.
The following table provides a summary
of the totals for the rule’s costs, cost
savings, and benefits.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE
Category

Summary

Potentially Affected Population .................................................................

An estimated 9,457 foreign-flagged vessels that are owned by 2,285
companies and 95 U.S.-flagged vessels that are owned by 40 businesses.
$13,072.
$89,644.
$76,572.
$10,902.
* Improve effectiveness without compromising safety.
* Prevent inappropriate use of autopilot and misunderstandings on
when to use it.
* Improved goodwill between regulated public and Coast Guard.
* Enhance maritime safety, because the autopilots in question offer far
greater precision and navigational safety than conventional
autopilots, and arguably, even human steering.

Costs (7% discount rate) (costs only accrue in the first year) .................
10-Year Total Quantified Cost Savings (7% discount rate) .....................
10-Year Net Cost Savings (7% discount rate) .........................................
Annualized Net Savings (7% discount rate, 10 years) ............................
Unquantified Benefits ...............................................................................

This rule revises the existing
regulations regarding navigation on
tankers. It updates the regulations to lift
the suspension on tanker use of
autopilot systems that has been in place
since 1993 and which is no longer
needed. Also, this rule updates the
performance standard for traditional
autopilot systems referenced in 33 CFR
164.13(d). This rule removes an
unnecessary regulatory restriction and
results in an overall cost savings for the
regulated public and the Coast Guard.
Affected Population
Based on the Coast Guard’s MISLE
database, we estimate that this rule
affects approximately 9,457 foreignflagged vessels and approximately 95
U.S.-flagged vessels. The vessels are
owned by 2,285 foreign companies and
40 U.S. companies. No governmental
jurisdictions will be impacted.
Costs
The Coast Guard expects this rule to
result in one-time costs of $13,072 at a
7-percent discount or an undiscounted

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

cost of $13,987. These costs are derived
by regulated entities needing to
communicate to their vessel staff
information about the change—a
regulatory familiarization cost. The
Coast Guard estimates that
approximately 4 minutes (0.067 hours,
rounded) 7 are expended per company
to do so; these communications are
anticipated to be via electronic bulletin
boards or mass distribution email. Labor
costs are estimated at $89.79 per hour
for an operations manager based on a
mean wage rate of $58.70, fully loaded
to account for the cost of employee
7 The duration estimate is based on previous
Coast Guard rules including the proposed rule for
the Revision of Crane regulations (RIN 1625–AB78,
USCG 2011–0992), which had an estimate of 3
minutes to complete a record. The Coast Guard also
used ‘‘49 CFR part 40—Procedures for
Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol
Testing Programs’’ (OMB Control # 2105–0529),
which had an estimate of 0.067 hours to write an
electronic report. These estimates comport with
duration estimates of the proposed and final rules
for Vapor Control Systems (RIN 1625–AB37, USCG–
1999–5150) for similar tasks. No public comments
were received on the estimates during the proposed
rule’s comment period.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

benefits; this estimate is based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Occupational Employment Statistics,
Occupational Employment and Wages
data, for General and Operations
Managers (11–1021, May 2016).8 From
there, the Coast Guard determined that
the total cost of compensation per hour
worked is $27.61. Of the $27.61, $18.05
is wages, resulting in a load factor of
1.5296399 ($27.61 ÷ $18.05) that the
Coast Guard applied to determine the
actual cost of employment to employers
and industry. The Coast Guard rounded
this factor to the nearest hundredth to
8 The reader may review the source data at http://
www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes111021.htm. Also,
please see http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/
oes436014.htm for the wage rate for an
administrative assistant. After adding the load
factor, the wage rate for an administrative assistant
($17.38) is estimated to be $26.59. The wage rate
for an operations manager is estimated to be $89.59,
which is derived from the product of the unloaded
wage rate ($58.70) as found on the BLS website as
noted in this footnote and the load factor (1.53
rounded). Unrounded numbers were used in
calculations.

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

55276

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

1.53 for presentation in this document.9
As derived by the summation of the
equations, the calculations appear as
follows: [0.067 hours × $89.79 marine

operations manager wage rate × (2,285
foreign-flagged vessel owners/operators
+ 40 U.S.-flagged vessel owners/
operators)] × 7-percent discount rate.

Unrounded numbers were used for the
calculation. Table 2 presents the
estimated cost of compliance with this
rule.

TABLE 2—TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF REGULATORY FAMILIARIZATION
Discounted
7%
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year

Discounted
3%

Undiscounted

1 ..........................................................................................................................................
2 ..........................................................................................................................................
3 ..........................................................................................................................................
4 ..........................................................................................................................................
5 ..........................................................................................................................................
6 ..........................................................................................................................................
7 ..........................................................................................................................................
8 ..........................................................................................................................................
9 ..........................................................................................................................................
10 ........................................................................................................................................

$13,072
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

$13,580
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

$13,987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total ......................................................................................................................................
Annualized ...................................................................................................................................

13,072
1,861

13,580
1,592

13,987
1,399

No public comments were received on
the Coast Guard’s estimated duration of
tasks and on its estimated wage rates
during the proposed rule’s public
comment period.
The Coast Guard has not estimated a
cost to comply with the documents
incorporated by reference (IEC’s
standards IEC 62065, 2014–02; IMO
Resolution MSC.74(69), Annex 2.). The
Coast Guard has not estimated a cost for
these provisions because manufacturers
participate in the development of the
standards at IEC and are aware of the
changes to standards. As a result, they
have been producing equipment to meet
the standard already. Typically,
manufacturers begin to make
manufacturing modifications even
before such changes are formally
adopted. This rule will not require
owners and operators to acquire the
standards; they will not need the
standard in hand to be in compliance.
Owners and operators need to only look
for evidence from manufacturers that
products meet or exceed the standard
before purchase. Such evidence may
include product documentation such as
user guide and warranty information.
For these reasons, the Coast Guard has
not included a cost for these provisions.

No equipment is required by this rule.
As well, some parts of the affected
population will experience no cost
increase due to this rule, since some
vessels do not use autopilot under the
conditions noted in this rule; therefore,
they have no costs. No further action is
required by these parties. Only 40 U.S.flagged vessel owners and operators and
approximately 2,285 foreign vessel
owners and operators are impacted; for
these owners and operators, they will
incur a cost only if they need to
communicate to staff the rule changes
on the use of autopilots.
The rule will result in cost savings for
the regulated public and the Coast
Guard. The rule will prevent
unnecessary inquiries such as phone
calls and emails to the Coast Guard
regarding regulations and the filing and
Coast Guard’s processing of LODs. With
regard to the first cost savings, the Coast
Guard estimates that it spends a
collective 20 hours annually at 1 hour
per call on average fielding calls from
the regulated public seeking
clarification of the intent of the existing
regulations. This rule will eliminate this
labor cost for the regulated public and
the Coast Guard.10 This time would be

better spent on other Coast Guard
missions. To estimate these costs, the
Coast Guard used publicly available
data as found in the Commandant
Instruction titled ‘‘Reimbursable
Standard Rates.’’ 11 Labor costs are
estimated for the Coast Guard at $92 for
a Lieutenant Commander.12 This figure
represents a wage rate with a fully
loaded labor factor of 1.85 for uniformed
Coast Guard positions.13 For the
regulated public, the wage rate for a lead
engineer is estimated to be $105.81 per
hour, based on a load factor applied to
the BLS wage data as noted earlier. The
unloaded wage rate for an engineering
manager is $69.17 and the load factor is
1.53 (rounded).14 The total cost savings
from the elimination of inquiries to
Coast Guard is estimated at $1,840 per
year and $2,116 annually for the
regulated public.
Coast Guard Cost Savings: $92
Lieutenant Commander × 1 hour × 20
calls per year = $1,840.
Regulated Public Cost Savings:
$105.81 engineering manager × 1 hour ×
20 calls per year = $2,116.
In addition, this rule saves the
regulated public and the Coast Guard
labor costs associated with the filing
and processing of annual LODs. This
precludes the need for the regulated

9 This load factor is calculated specifically for
production, transportation, and material moving
occupations, All Workers, Private Industry (Series
ID: CMU2010000520000D, CMU2010000520000P
and CMU2020000520000D, CMU2020000520000P),
2016, 1st Quarter. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
ect/data.htm as accessed on January 4, 2018 and
May 3, 2017).
10 Collectively, 20 hours annually multiplied by
wage rate for lead engineer. The Government’s cost
is estimated by the equation 20 hours annually
multiplied by the wage rate for Coast Guard
Lieutenant Commander (O–4).

11 The Instruction is dated March 29, 2017 and is
numbered COMDTINST 7310.1R. Enclosure 2 lists
the relevant data. The Instruction may be found on
https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/PDFs/
urg/Ch2/2017-CI_7310_1R.pdf?ver=2017-08-15124924-597. For the proposed rule, a previous
version of the Instruction numbered COMDTINST
7310.1P was used.
12 See https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/
docs/PDFs/urg/Ch2/2017-CI_7310_1R.pdf?ver=
2017-08-15-124924-597. See Enclosure 2 for ingovernment rate of an O–4 officer and a GS–11
employee.

13 The load factor for uniformed positions was
based on the Coast Guard’s analysis of
compensation and benefits of Coast Guard enlisted
and commissioned personnel based on data found
in http://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/
Documents/ActiveDutyTables/2018%20Pay%20
Table.pdf?ver=2018-02-02-160202-810 and
Commandant Instruction R.
14 This is the wage rate for 11–9041 Architectural
and Engineering Managers as found at http://
www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes119041.htm and as
accessed on May 1, 2017. As noted earlier, a load
factor of 1.53 was applied.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

Cost Savings

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
public to file an LOD. In doing so, it also
precludes the need for the Coast Guard
to process the LOD and respond to it.
The Coast Guard estimates that each
LOD requires a given marine business to
expend 1.7 hours of an engineering
manager’s time and 0.5 hour of an
administrative assistant’s time to
prepare and submit the LOD. These
precluded costs will be incurred
annually and will be calculated by the
sum of the products of the loaded wage
rates and labor duration estimates times
the number of requests per year
(($89.79/hour operations manager’s
wage rate × 1.7 hours) + ($26.59/hour
admin assistant’s wage rate × 0.5 hours)
× 35 submittals).15
In turn, we estimate that the Coast
Guard spends 0.6 hours of a Lieutenant
Commander’s time; and 0.5 hour of an
administrative assistant’s time to

process, review, and respond to each
LOD request.16 The loaded wage rates
for these positions are: $92 per hour for
a Lieutenant Commander (O–4); $61 per
hour for an administrative assistant
(GS–11). These wage rates may be found
in Commandant Instruction 7310.1R,
Reimbursable Standard Rates, (ingovernment rates found in enclosure 2).
The wages for the regulated public were
noted earlier in this section.
To estimate these cost savings, we
requested data from Coast Guard sectors
on their experience with processing
LODs. Based on that review, we
estimated the number of LOD requests
to be approximately 35 annually,17
which will be precluded by this rule.
Coast Guard also reviewed previous
Coast Guard regulatory analyses for the
labor costs of the regulated public for
filing waiver requests. Our estimated

55277

durations for labor for the regulated
public and for the Coast Guard are based
on Coast Guard experience with LOD
requests as well as an existing
information collection entitled ‘‘Ports
and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR
Subchapter P’’ (RIN 1625–0043, 1625–
0043); the Coast Guard’s proposed rule
for cranes (RIN 1625–AB78, USCG–
2011–0992); and the proposed and final
rules for Vapor Control Systems (RIN
1625–AB37, USCG–1999–5150). We
used the existing information collection
1625–0043 to obtain the estimates of
existing tasks; we used the information
collections for cranes and vapor control
systems to estimate tasks that were not
in 1625–0043, but were similar to the
tasks of these information collections.
Table 3 provides the details.

TABLE 3—SOURCE OF PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ESTIMATES
Task in final rule
Prepare paperwork and file
an LOD.
Support by admin staff of
preparation of LOD.
Prepare response to LOD
request. (USCG).
Support by admin staff of
LOD response. (USCG).
Write notification of regulatory change.
Write notification of regulatory change.
Write notification of regulatory change.
Write notification of regulatory change.
Make inquiries to USCG ......
Respond to public inquiries
(USCG).

Source
1625–0043 Ports
Subchapter P.
1625–0043 Ports
Subchapter P.
1625–0043 Ports
Subchapter P.
1625–0043 Ports
Subchapter P.
1625–AB37 Vapor

Task

Duration

and Waterways Safety—Title 33

Same .................................

1.7 hours.

and Waterways Safety—Title 33

Same .................................

0.5 hour.

and Waterways Safety—Title 33

Same .................................

0.6 hour.

and Waterways Safety—Title 33

Same .................................

0.5 hour.

Control Systems .............................

Complete a record; document training.
Complete a record; record
a test.
Write an electronic report;
document testing record;
write a release.
Communicate regulatory
change19.
............................................
............................................

0.12 hour; 0.03 hour.

1625–AB78 Cranes .......................................................
2105–0529 ‘‘49 CFR Part 40 Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs’’18.
1625–AC02 Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and
Standards.
........................................................................................
........................................................................................

0.03 hour.
0.067 hour; 0.13 hour;
0.067 hour.
0.5 hour.
1 hour.
1 hour.

The Coast Guard estimates that the
regulated public spends approximately
2.2 hours to prepare the paperwork and
to file an LOD. This hourly total is
calculated as follows:
35 waivers annually × [1.7 hours ×
wage rate for engineering manager + 0.5
hour × wage rate for an administrative
assistant] = $5,808.
In addition, we estimate that the Coast
Guard spends 1.1 hours in total for each

LOD. This hourly total is calculated as
follows:
35 waivers annually × [0.6 hour ×
wage rate for Lt. Commander + 0.5 hour
× wage rate for Coast Guard
administrative assistant] = $3,000.
We received no comments on these
estimates during the proposed rule’s
comment period. The total cost savings
from the elimination of the need for an
LOD is estimated at $5,808 per year for

the regulated public and $3,000
annually for Coast Guard. Adding the
costs of preparing and filing an LOD to
the costs of inquiries which were noted
earlier, the total costs savings per year
would be $4,840 for Coast Guard and
$7,924 for the regulated public.
Table 4 presents the estimated cost
savings of this final rule.

15 Wage data may be found from the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics. (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/
may/oes111021.htm and http://www.bls.gov/oes/
2016/may/oes436014.htm). The load factor used
was 1.53 (rounded). Unrounded numbers were used
in the calculation. Please see previous discussion
for more information on how the load factor was
determined.

16 The duration estimates are based on existing
OMB approved information collection entitled Ports
and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P
(OMB Control number 1625–0043). No public
comments were received on these estimates.
17 This number comports with an estimate
provided by the Chamber of Shipping of America

to the docket. Readers should see https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-20150926-0008 as verification.
18 Title 49 CFR 40.33(b) through (e), 40.25(a),
40.25(f), 40.33(f).
19 Preparing an email or electronic bulletin board
notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

55278

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—TOTAL COST SAVINGS BY YEAR
Cost savings to the regulated public
Year

Annualized
7%

1 ....................................
2 ....................................
3 ....................................
4 ....................................
5 ....................................
6 ....................................
7 ....................................
8 ....................................
9 ....................................
10 ..................................
10-Year ..........................
Annualized .....................

¥$7,405
¥6,921
¥6,468
¥6,045
¥5,650
¥5,280
¥4,935
¥4,612
¥4,310
¥4,028
¥55,654
¥7,924

Annualized
3%

Undiscounted

¥$7,693
¥7,469
¥7,251
¥7,040
¥6,835
¥6,636
¥6,443
¥6,255
¥6,073
¥5,896
¥67,592
¥7,924

This rule results in a net cost savings
of $76,572 (7-percent discount rate for a
10-year period) because the estimated
cost savings exceed the costs of the rule.
Costs are incurred only in Year 1. The

¥$7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥7,924
¥79,238
¥7,924

Cost savings to the government
Annualized
7%
¥$4,523
¥4,227
¥3,950
¥3,692
¥3,450
¥3,225
¥3,014
¥2,817
¥2,632
¥2,460
¥33,991
¥4,840

Annualized
3%

Total estimated cost savings

Undiscounted

¥$4,699
¥4,562
¥4,429
¥4,300
¥4,175
¥4,053
¥3,935
¥3,820
¥3,709
¥3,601
¥41,282
¥4,840

¥$4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥4,840
¥48,395
¥4,840

net cost savings of this rule are
calculated by subtracting the total cost
of the rule ($13,072, 7-percent discount)
from the total cost savings ($89,644, 7percent discount). These cost savings

Annualized
7%
¥$11,928
¥11,148
¥10,419
¥9,737
¥9,100
¥8,505
¥7,948
¥7,428
¥6,942
¥6,488
¥89,644
¥12,763

Annualized
3%
¥$12,392
¥12,031
¥11,680
¥11,340
¥11,010
¥10,689
¥10,378
¥10,075
¥9,782
¥9,497
¥108,874
¥12,763

Undiscounted
¥$12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥127,633
¥12,763

result from precluded labor costs to the
regulated public and to Coast Guard as
noted earlier. Table 5 presents the net
cost savings of this rule.

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NET COST SAVINGS
Discounted
7%
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year

Discounted
3%

Undiscounted

1 ..........................................................................................................................................
2 ..........................................................................................................................................
3 ..........................................................................................................................................
4 ..........................................................................................................................................
5 ..........................................................................................................................................
6 ..........................................................................................................................................
7 ..........................................................................................................................................
8 ..........................................................................................................................................
9 ..........................................................................................................................................
10 ........................................................................................................................................

$1,144
¥11,148
¥10,419
¥9,737
¥9,100
¥8,505
¥7,948
¥7,428
¥6,942
¥6,488

$1,188
¥12,031
¥11,680
¥11,340
¥11,010
¥10,689
¥10,378
¥10,075
¥9,782
¥9,497

$1,224
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763
¥12,763

Total ......................................................................................................................................
Annualized ...................................................................................................................................

¥76,572
¥10,902

¥95,294
¥11,171

¥113,646
¥11,365

Using a perpetual period of analysis,
the total annualized discounted cost
savings of this rule if it is implemented
in 2019, would be $9,672 in 2016
dollars.
Benefits
This rule amends existing regulations
to remove the requirements that prohibit
tanker use of autopilot systems in
waters subject to the shipping safety
fairway or traffic separation controls.
This rule also updates the performance
standard for traditional autopilot
systems. The Coast Guard pursued this
amendment to existing standards in
order to prevent inefficient use of labor
and to add clarity to the current system.
As noted in the cost savings discussion
earlier, this rule prevents inefficient use
of labor and adds clarity to the regulated
public as to the need for safety
precautions. The changes improve
regulatory intent and keep regulations
in step with existing technology without
compromising the existing level of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

safety. This rule also promotes maritime
safety by eliminating confusion
associated with outdated regulations
that have not kept pace with technology.
Lastly, this rule enhances maritime
safety, because the autopilots in
question offer far greater precision and
navigational safety than conventional
autopilots or human steering.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
In developing this rule, the Coast
Guard considered the following
alternatives:
(1) Take no action.
(2) Develop a different timetable for
small entities.
(3) Provide an exemption for small
entities (from this rule or any part
thereof).
The first alternative is not preferred
because it does not offer solutions to
issues identified earlier in the preamble.
It would perpetuate an inefficient use of
labor on the part of the regulated public
and the Coast Guard. The second
alternative prevents small entities from

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

benefiting from the efficiencies made
possible by this regulation as soon as
the larger companies; a delayed effective
date for small entities would delay both
costs and cost savings. The third
alternative would prevent small entities
from benefiting from improved
efficiency altogether. Because this
regulation reduces an unnecessary
regulatory restriction, the Coast Guard
does not want to restrict its applicability
to small entities in any way.
Most entities are expected to
experience no additional cost. For those
who will incur a cost, the Coast Guard
estimates costs to be approximately $6
per entity—as noted earlier, the cost to
communicate information is calculated
by the equation $89.79 wage rate × 0.067
hour. Cost savings accrue only to those
covered by this rule and those who have
not already applied for a waiver or who
are not in compliance with the existing
regulations. An exemption would
preclude cost savings to those under the
exemption; the Coast Guard estimates

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
that cost savings will be less than $170
per affected entity annually. Labor to
make an inquiry is estimated by the
following equation:
1.7 hours × $89.79 wage rate for
operations manager + 0.5 hour × $26.59
wage rate for an administrative
assistant.
For the reasons discussed earlier, we
rejected these alternatives in favor of the
preferred alternative. The preferred
alternative—this rule—amends existing
regulations to remove the requirements
that prohibit tanker use of autopilot
systems in waters subject to the
shipping safety fairway or traffic
separation controls. The preferred
alternative also updates the performance
standard for traditional autopilot
systems.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, we considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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 fewer than 50,000
people.
The Coast Guard expects this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on small entities. As described in the
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’
section, the Coast Guard expects this
rule to result in net cost savings to
regulated entities. An estimated 67
percent of the regulated entities (a total
of 27 businesses) are considered small
by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) industry size standards. For any
company for which we were not able to
find SBA size data, we assumed it was
a small entity. The compliance costs for
this rule, which are only regulatory
familiarization costs, will amount to less
than 1 percent of revenue for all small
entities ($6 per entity) and, therefore, do
not represent a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Costs will be incurred only in
the first year of this rule’s promulgation.
No additional costs for labor or
equipment will be incurred in future
years. Because the purpose of this rule
is to remove an unnecessary regulatory
restriction, it is expected to reduce labor
costs. These cost savings are estimated
to be less than 1 percent of revenue for
all small entities. An estimated $170 per
year is saved by a given entity that
formerly had to perform the now
deregulated tasks of the rule. No small

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

governmental jurisdictions are impacted
by this rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The Coast Guard received no
public comments on the proposed rule’s
impact on small entities.
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. If this
rule will affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult LCDR
Matthew J. Walter (see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble). 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 collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520; the rule does not add
requirements for recording and
recordkeeping to the existing collection
titled, Ports and Waterways Safety—
Title 33 CFR Subchapter P (OMB
control number 1625–0043). However,
this rule will revise this collection,
reducing the burden of recordkeeping
and submission for those 35 tankers
granted an LOD. As defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’
comprises reporting, recordkeeping,
monitoring, posting, labeling, and other
similar actions. The rule does not
require additional tasks by the regulated
public but eliminates the need for the
regulated public to file an LOD under
conditions as specified by the rule. The
Coast Guard estimates that there will be
35 fewer LODs filed annually because of
the rule’s changes.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55279

The existing collection of information
requires LODs to be submitted to the
Coast Guard for various reasons; one of
which is for tankers to use autopilot
under conditions noted in this rule.
Under this rule, Coast Guard no longer
requires an LOD for tankers. The rule
precludes the need for 35 or fewer LODs
annually to be submitted to the Coast
Guard for approval. It also precludes the
need for the Coast Guard to process and
approve those LODs. The collection of
information aids the regulated public in
assuring safe practices; however, the
Coast Guard has concluded that this
particular use of LODs is no longer
warranted.
The title and description of the
information collections, a description of
those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual
burden follow. The estimate covers the
time for gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
Title: Ports and Waterways Safety—
Title 33 CFR Subchapter P.
OMB Control Number: 1625–0043.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: Certain vessels are subject
to a variety of requirements in
subchapter P of title 33 of the CFR.
Under the existing OMB collection,
such tasks includes the District 8
Hurricane Operations Plan and letters of
deviation. The regulation allows any
person directly affected by these
regulations to request a deviation from
any of the requirements by an LOD as
long as the level of safety is not reduced.
Under this rule, the Coast Guard no
longer requires an LOD to be submitted
under specific conditions as noted in
the rule; LODs continue to be required
for other existing reasons. The
collection of information aids the
regulated public in assuring safe
practices.
Need for Information: The Coast
Guard needs this information to
determine whether an entity meets the
regulatory requirements.
Use of Information: The Coast Guard
uses this information to determine
whether an entity request for deviation
is justified.
Description of the Respondents: The
respondents are owners and operators of
vessels which travel in the regulated
waterways as noted in the regulatory
text.
Number of Respondents: The burden
of this rule for this collection of
information includes submittal of LODs.
This collection of information applies to
owners and operators of vessels that
travel in the regulated waterways. We
estimate the maximum number of
respondents for the collection of

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

55280

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

information to be 876, but there would
be 35 fewer LODs per year.
Frequency of Responses: LOD under
the conditions noted in this rule are
filed once per year. This eliminates the
need for this particular use of the LOD.
The Coast Guard estimates that 35 fewer
LODs will be filed annually because of
this rule.
Burden of Response: The burden of
response for each LOD is an estimated
2.2 hours.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden:
This rule decreases burden hours by 77
hours from the previously approved
burden estimate of 2,110 hours.
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this
rule to OMB for its review of the
collection of information.
We invited public comment on the
collection of information during the
proposed rule’s comment period. We
received no input to advise us on how
useful the information is; whether it can
help us perform our functions better;
whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of
the burden of collection is; how valid
our methods for determining burden
are; how we can improve the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information; and how we can minimize
the burden of collection.
You are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of
information requirements in this rule,
OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this
information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that
it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled, now, that all of the
categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306,
3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

vessels), as well as the reporting of
casualties and any other category in
which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s
obligations, are within the field
foreclosed from regulation by the States.
(See the decision of the Supreme Court
in the consolidated cases of United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6,
2000)). This rule is promulgated under
Title II of the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act 20 (PWSA) (46 U.S.C. 3703)
and amends existing regulations for tank
vessels regarding certain vessel
equipment technical standards and
operation. Under the principles
discussed in Locke, States are foreclosed
from regulating within this field. The
Coast Guard acknowledges a State’s
right to set State pilotage requirements
in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 8501, and
we do not intend this rule to affect a
State’s ability to regulate State pilotage
requirements. However, the Coast Guard
does not believe that 46 U.S.C. 8501 can
be used to avoid the application of the
fundamental federalism principles
explained in Locke by characterizing a
vessel’s navigation requirements as
‘‘pilotage requirements.’’ A State
regulation covering a field—vessel
navigation—that the Coast Guard would
regulate under PWSA Title I is subject
to a Locke conflict analysis. To be clear,
the Coast Guard views a State
prohibition of vessel automatic pilot
system use in certain State waters, based
on the peculiarities of those waters, to
be akin to a regulated navigation area
that the Coast Guard would regulate
under PWSA Title I. This rule
establishes vessel equipment
requirements but does not intend to
affect a State’s ability to regulate vessel
navigation requirements in particular
State waters. Regardless of this rule,
States may not establish navigation
equipment standards or their general
operational requirements.21 Thus, this
rule is consistent with the principles of
federalism and preemption
requirements in Executive Order 13132.
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
20 Public Law 92–340, 86 Stat. 424, as amended;
codified at 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. 1232.
21 Locke, 529 U.S. at 110—114 (confirming the
validity of Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co. and
invalidating three State rules that were field
preempted).

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Although 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
will not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. 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 Tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Tribal governments.
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 Executive Order
13211 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

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

55281

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
uses the following voluntary consensus
standards to track control and integrated
navigation systems used in vessel
automatic pilot systems:
(1) IEC 62065, First Edition, 2002–03,
Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and
systems—Track control systems—
Operational and performance
requirements, methods of testing and
required test results; and,
(2) IEC 62065, Edition 2.0, 2014–02,
Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and
systems—Track control systems—
Operational and performance
requirements, methods of testing and
required test results.
These standards provide parameters
within which these systems must
operate to ensure proper navigational
control given the vessel’s position,
heading, speed, and other factors. The
standards were developed by the IEC, an
international voluntary consensus
standards-setting organization, and the
IMO. The sections that reference these
standards and the locations where these
standards are available are listed in
§ 164.03 of this rule below. Changes
made in the 2014 edition of IEC 62065,
while technical in nature, did not
render systems conforming to the
previous edition unsafe or obsolete.
Since, there is no domestic or
international requirement to carry this
equipment, vessels may still be outfitted
with serviceable equipment meeting the
2002 standard. Thus, the Coast Guard
saw value in allowing equipment that
met either the current or previous
edition of IEC 62065.
The Director of the Federal Register
has approved the material in § 164.03
for incorporation by reference under 5
U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of
the material are available from the
sources listed in § 164.03.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51
incorporation by reference provisions,
this material is reasonably available.
Interested persons have access to it
through their normal course of business,
may purchase it from the organization
identified in 46 CFR 136.112, or may
view a copy by means we have
identified in that section.

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01,
Revision 1 (DHS Instruction Manual
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. A Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. This rule involves regulations
concerning tank vessel equipment
approval and operation. Thus, this rule
is categorically excluded under
paragraphs L52, L57, L58 and L62 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01.

Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11,
http://www.iec.ch/. Email: [email protected].
(1) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2002–03),
Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and
systems—Track control systems—
Operational and performance
requirements, methods of testing and
required test results, First Edition, dated
2002, IBR approved for § 164.13(d).
(2) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2014–02),
Maritime navigation and
radiocommunication equipment and
systems—Track control systems—
Operational and performance
requirements, methods of testing and
required test results, Edition 2.0, dated
2014, IBR approved for § 164.13(d).
■ 3. Amend § 164.13 by removing
paragraph (e) and revising paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

List of Subjects

*

M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security

*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

33 CFR Part 164
Marine, Navigation (water), Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Waterways, Incorporation by reference.
46 CFR Part 35
Cargo vessels, Marine safety,
Navigation (water), Occupational safety
and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 164 and 46 CFR part 35 as
follows:
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable
Waters
PART 164—NAVIGATION SAFETY
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 164
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
2103, 3703; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3
CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277. Sec. 164.13 also
issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also
issued under 46 U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102
of Pub. L. 107–295. Sec. 164.61 also issued
under 46 U.S.C. 6101. The Secretary’s
authority under these sections is delegated to
the Coast Guard by Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (70),
(92.a), (92.b), (92.d), (92.f), and (97.j).

2. Amend § 164.03 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), after the text
‘‘Washington, DC 20593–7418,’’, add the
text ‘‘telephone 202–372–1565,’’.
■ b. Add paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
■
■

§ 164.03

Incorporation by reference.

*
*
*
*
(h) International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), 3, rue de Varembe,

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

§ 164.13

Navigation underway: Tankers.

*
*
*
*
(d) This paragraph (d) has preemptive
effect over State or local regulation
within the same field. A tanker may
navigate using a heading or track control
system only if:
(1) The tanker is at least one-half
nautical mile (1,012 yards) beyond the
territorial sea baseline, as defined in 33
CFR 2.20;
(i) Not within waters specified in 33
CFR part 110 (anchorages), or;
(ii) Not within waters specified as
precautionary areas in 33 CFR part 167,
and;
(2) There is a person, competent to
steer the vessel, present to assume
manual control of the steering station at
all times including, but not limited to,
the conditions listed in 46 CFR 35.20–
45(a) through (c); and
(3) The system meets the heading or
track control specifications of either IEC
62065 (2002–03) or IEC 62065 (2014–02)
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 164.03).
Title 46—Shipping
PART 35—OPERATIONS
4. The authority citation for part 35
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 1321(j);
46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49 U.S.C. 5103,
5106; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

5. Amend § 35.20–45 by revising the
introductory text to read as follows:

■

§ 35.20–40

Use of Auto Pilot—T/ALL.

When the automatic pilot is used in:
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1

55282

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: October 30, 2018.
J.P. Nadeau,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018–24127 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2018–1007]
RIN 1625–AA87

Security Zone; Senior Government
Official’s Visit to Cleveland, Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary security zone
for navigable waters on Lake Erie for a
senior government official’s visit to
Cleveland, OH. The security zone is
necessary to protect the official party,
the public and surrounding waterways
from terrorist acts, sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other
causes of a similar nature. Entry of
vessels or persons into the zone is
prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or a designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective from 8:00
a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on November 5,
2018.
SUMMARY:

To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2018–
1007 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email LTJG Sean Dolan, 716–843–9322,
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:

I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Nov 02, 2018

Jkt 247001

authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest due to sensitive security issues
related to a Senior Government
Official’s visit to Cleveland, OH.
Providing a public notice and comment
period would be contrary to the security
zone’s intended objective of protecting
the official party and the public.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. Any delay encountered in this
temporary rule’s effective date would be
contrary to the public interest given the
need to ensure the safety and security
during a Senior Government Official’s
visit on November 5, 2018.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The
Captain of the Port Buffalo has
determined that potential security
hazards are associated with this event in
this area. These hazards include
potential security threats, violent or
disruptive public disorder, delivery of a
weapon of mass destruction, launch of
a stand-off attack weapon, or delivery of
an armed assault force. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the security
zone throughout the duration of the
event.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
On November 5, 2018, a Senior
Government Official is expected to visit
Cleveland, Ohio. The venue will
include locations near downtown
Cleveland. The security zone will cover
all navigable waters within portions of
Lake Erie: 41°31′45″ N, 081°39′20″ W
(just East of Forest City Yacht Club and
West of Quay 55); then extending
approximately 4,000 feet northwest to
position 41°32′23″ N, 081°39′46″ W
(about 900 feet past the east break wall);
then extending approximately 13,000
feet to position 41°31′02″ N, 081°42′10″
W; then extending southwest to the
shoreline at position 41°30′38″ N,
081°41′53″ W (near the northwest edge
of Voinovich Park); then following the

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

shoreline back to the point of origin, in
the vicinity of the Burke Lakefront
Airport.
The security zone is necessary to
protect the official party, personnel,
vessels, the public and surrounding
waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage
or other subversive acts, accidents, or
other causes of a similar nature. No
vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the security zone without
obtaining permission from the Captain
of the Port (COTP) or a designated
representative.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
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.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This rule has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has
not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the fact that we anticipate
that it will have a minimal impact on
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. The security zone
created by this rule will be relatively
small and is designed to minimize its
impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the security zone has been
designed to allow vessels to transit
around it. Thus, restriction on vessel
movement within that particular area
are expected to be minimal.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 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

E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM

05NOR1