[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27007-27009]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11016]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1086]
RIN 1625-AB84

Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the inland waterways navigation
regulations. Specifically, this rule proposes to redefine the
geographical points which currently demarcate an area of the Detroit
River in which certain vessels are restricted to speeds not greater
than 12 statute miles per hour (10.4 knots).

DATES: Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-1086 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of
Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention Department, Sector
Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-1086), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-1086)
in the ``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may also visit either
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliott
Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    Recently, representatives from the Lake Carriers' Association, the
Lakes Pilots Association, the International Shipmasters Association,
and the Canadian Shipowners Association made a request of the Coast
Guard regarding 33 CFR part 162. Particularly, these groups requested
that the Coast Guard amend, via federal rulemaking, 33 CFR
162.138(a)(1)(ii), which requires vessels on the Detroit River north of
the Detroit River Light to operate at no more than 12 statute miles per
hour. In response to the request, the Coast Guard's Ninth District
Commander, in consultation with the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit, Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Canadian
Coast Guard, assessed the necessity and utility of the aforementioned
regulatory provision and determined that the southern point of the
restricted speed area in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) should

be relocated to a point approximately 2.5 statute miles to the north at
the D33 stationary light.
    The speed restriction in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) requires vessels
on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light from operating at
no more than 12 statute miles per hour. This restriction serves two
purposes. First, it is intended to prevent collisions and groundings.
(See 33 CFR 162.130(a)). Second, it is intended to limit wake damage to
vessels and shore structures (see 60 FR 35701-01). Because the Detroit
River Light is several miles into Lake Erie and because the channel
between the Detroit River Light and the D33 stationary light is roughly
twelve-hundred yards wide, the Ninth District Commander has determined
that limiting speed south of the D33 stationary light is not necessary
to prevent wake damage or to prevent collisions and groundings. Thus,
33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii), as currently written, serves as an
unnecessary restriction on vessel operations. Moreover, this
unnecessary restriction is exacerbated by the fact that upbound vessels
must decelerate well in advance of the Detroit River Light in order to
attain the maximum speed at the light itself.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Because the Ninth District Commander has determined that 33 CFR
162.138, as currently written, unnecessarily restricts vessel
operations, this rule proposes to reduce the size of the restricted
speed area currently delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii). In
particular, this rule proposes to relocate the southern point of the
restricted speed area from the Detroit River Light to the D33
stationary light.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude
that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because
we anticipate that it will not adversely affect the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. Rather, relocating the southern point of the restricted
speed area delineated in 33 CFR 162.138 (a)(1)(ii) will lessen
restrictions on the public and on private industry.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels
intending to transit between the Detroit River Light and the D33
stationary.
    The proposed relocation of the southern point of the restricted
speed area delineated in 33 CFR 162.138 (a)(1)(ii) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reason: This proposed amendment will lessen
navigation restrictions on the public and private industry.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
If this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization,
or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Adrian
Palomeque, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or object
to this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
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 proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-
01, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule
involves amendments to navigation regulations and thus, is
categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED)
and a preliminary environmental analysis checklist are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery
of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 162

    Navigation (water), Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 162 as follows:

PART 162--INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 162 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  162.138  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  162.138(a)(1)(ii), remove the words ``Detroit River
Light'' and in their place add the words ``D33 stationary light in the
Detroit River entrance''.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-11016 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P