[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55272-55282]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 164

46 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0926]
RIN 1625-AC27

Tankers--Automatic Pilot Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

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
    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
Sec.  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.

    Since then, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a
voluntary industry consensus standards-setting 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 81 FR 44821, footnote 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 58 FR 27633, 27631 (May 10, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 58 FR 27628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  35.20-45 should also apply to tank vessels
carrying petroleum or chemical products.

    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 Sec.  35.20-45 in Sec.  164.13(d)(2) of this
rule. The Coast Guard also makes a conforming change to the
introductory language of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  164.13(d)(2) in this rule to clarify that a
person should be present and ready ``at all times.''
    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 Sec.
164.13(d)(1) to reference terms defined elsewhere in the CFR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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

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 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.
Costs (7% discount rate) (costs only     $13,072.
 accrue in the first year).
10-Year Total Quantified Cost Savings    $89,644.
 (7% discount rate).
10-Year Net Cost Savings (7% discount    $76,572.
 rate).
Annualized Net Savings (7% discount      $10,902.
 rate, 10 years).
Unquantified Benefits..................  * 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 foreign-flagged 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 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 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

1.53 for presentation in this document.\9\ As derived by the summation
of the equations, the calculations appear as follows: [0.067 hours x
$89.79 marine operations manager wage rate x (2,285 foreign-flagged
vessel owners/operators + 40 U.S.-flagged vessel owners/operators)] x
7-percent discount rate. Unrounded numbers were used for the
calculation. Table 2 presents the estimated cost of compliance with
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \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.
    \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).

                           Table 2--Total Estimated Cost of Regulatory Familiarization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................         $13,072         $13,580         $13,987
Year 2..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 3..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 4..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 5..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 6..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 7..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 8..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 9..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 10.........................................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          13,072          13,580          13,987
Annualized......................................................           1,861           1,592           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.

Cost Savings

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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=2017-08-15-124924-597. 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
in-government 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%20Table.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Coast Guard Cost Savings: $92 Lieutenant Commander x 1 hour x 20
calls per year = $1,840.
    Regulated Public Cost Savings: $105.81 engineering manager x 1 hour
x 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

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 x 1.7 hours) + ($26.59/hour admin
assistant's wage rate x 0.5 hours) x 35 submittals).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, (in-
government rates found in enclosure 2). The wages for the regulated
public were noted earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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-2015-0926-0008 as
verification.

                              Table 3--Source of Paperwork Reduction Act Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Task in final rule                     Source                     Task                  Duration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepare paperwork and file an LOD..  1625-0043 Ports and          Same..................  1.7 hours.
                                      Waterways Safety--Title 33
                                      Subchapter P.
Support by admin staff of            1625-0043 Ports and          Same..................  0.5 hour.
 preparation of LOD.                  Waterways Safety--Title 33
                                      Subchapter P.
Prepare response to LOD request.     1625-0043 Ports and          Same..................  0.6 hour.
 (USCG).                              Waterways Safety--Title 33
                                      Subchapter P.
Support by admin staff of LOD        1625-0043 Ports and          Same..................  0.5 hour.
 response. (USCG).                    Waterways Safety--Title 33
                                      Subchapter P.
Write notification of regulatory     1625-AB37 Vapor Control      Complete a record;      0.12 hour; 0.03 hour.
 change.                              Systems.                     document training.
Write notification of regulatory     1625-AB78 Cranes...........  Complete a record;      0.03 hour.
 change.                                                           record a test.
Write notification of regulatory     2105-0529 ``49 CFR Part 40   Write an electronic     0.067 hour; 0.13 hour;
 change.                              Procedures for               report; document        0.067 hour.
                                      Transportation Workplace     testing record; write
                                      Drug and Alcohol Testing     a release.
                                      Programs''\18\.
Write notification of regulatory     1625-AC02 Personal           Communicate regulatory  0.5 hour.
 change.                              Flotation Devices Labeling   change\19\.
                                      and Standards.
Make inquiries to USCG.............  ...........................  ......................  1 hour.
Respond to public inquiries (USCG).  ...........................  ......................  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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35 waivers annually x [1.7 hours x wage rate for engineering
manager + 0.5 hour x 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 x [0.6 hour x wage rate for Lt. Commander + 0.5
hour x 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.

                                                                               Table 4--Total Cost Savings by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost savings to the regulated public         Cost savings to the government             Total estimated cost savings
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Year                                  Annualized   Annualized                   Annualized   Annualized                   Annualized   Annualized
                                                                         7%           3%       Undiscounted        7%           3%       Undiscounted        7%           3%       Undiscounted
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................................      -$7,405      -$7,693         -$7,924      -$4,523      -$4,699         -$4,840     -$11,928     -$12,392        -$12,763
2.................................................................       -6,921       -7,469          -7,924       -4,227       -4,562          -4,840      -11,148      -12,031         -12,763
3.................................................................       -6,468       -7,251          -7,924       -3,950       -4,429          -4,840      -10,419      -11,680         -12,763
4.................................................................       -6,045       -7,040          -7,924       -3,692       -4,300          -4,840       -9,737      -11,340         -12,763
5.................................................................       -5,650       -6,835          -7,924       -3,450       -4,175          -4,840       -9,100      -11,010         -12,763
6.................................................................       -5,280       -6,636          -7,924       -3,225       -4,053          -4,840       -8,505      -10,689         -12,763
7.................................................................       -4,935       -6,443          -7,924       -3,014       -3,935          -4,840       -7,948      -10,378         -12,763
8.................................................................       -4,612       -6,255          -7,924       -2,817       -3,820          -4,840       -7,428      -10,075         -12,763
9.................................................................       -4,310       -6,073          -7,924       -2,632       -3,709          -4,840       -6,942       -9,782         -12,763
10................................................................       -4,028       -5,896          -7,924       -2,460       -3,601          -4,840       -6,488       -9,497         -12,763
10-Year...........................................................      -55,654      -67,592         -79,238      -33,991      -41,282         -48,395      -89,644     -108,874        -127,633
Annualized........................................................       -7,924       -7,924          -7,924       -4,840       -4,840          -4,840      -12,763      -12,763         -12,763
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
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, 7-percent discount). These cost savings 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%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................          $1,144          $1,188          $1,224
Year 2..........................................................         -11,148         -12,031         -12,763
Year 3..........................................................         -10,419         -11,680         -12,763
Year 4..........................................................          -9,737         -11,340         -12,763
Year 5..........................................................          -9,100         -11,010         -12,763
Year 6..........................................................          -8,505         -10,689         -12,763
Year 7..........................................................          -7,948         -10,378         -12,763
Year 8..........................................................          -7,428         -10,075         -12,763
Year 9..........................................................          -6,942          -9,782         -12,763
Year 10.........................................................          -6,488          -9,497         -12,763
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         -76,572         -95,294        -113,646
Annualized......................................................         -10,902         -11,171         -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 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 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 x 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

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 x $89.79 wage rate for operations manager + 0.5 hour x
$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
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.
    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

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 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

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 Sec.  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
Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
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.

List of Subjects

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

0
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).

0
2. Amend Sec.  164.03 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), after the text ``Washington, DC 20593-7418,'', add
the text ``telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,''.
0
b. Add paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  164.03   Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3, rue de
Varembe, 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
Sec.  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 Sec.
164.13(d).

0
3. Amend Sec.  164.13 by removing paragraph (e) and revising paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  164.03).

Title 46--Shipping

PART 35--OPERATIONS

0
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.

0
5. Amend Sec.  35.20-45 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.20-40   Use of Auto Pilot--T/ALL.

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

    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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76542]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 33, 40, 45, 153, 157, 340-347, 380

[Docket No. AD12-6-002]

Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules; Notice of Staff
Memorandum

    Take notice that the Commission staff is issuing a memorandum
setting forth certain proposed revisions to the Commission's
regulations affecting interlocking directorates, seismic data
requirements for liquefied natural gas facilities, and oil pipeline
rates. The memorandum is being issued pursuant to the November 8, 2011
Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules prepared in response
to Executive Order 13579, which requested independent regulatory
agencies issue plans for periodic retrospective analysis of their
existing regulations.
    The Staff Memorandum is being placed in the record in the above-
referenced administrative docket. The Staff Memorandum will also be
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Comments on the Staff Memorandum should be filed within 30 days of
the issuance of this Notice. The Commission encourages electronic
submission of comments in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original of the comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings in this docket are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket. For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Questions regarding this Notice should be directed to: Kenneth Yu,
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26539 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5710-5711]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0818; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-19]

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Pulaski, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Carter Airport, Pulaski, WI. The FAA is
proposing this action due to the cancellation of the instrument
procedures into the airport, resulting in the airport no longer
qualifying for controlled airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is

also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order
7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it supports the removal of Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Carter Airport, Pulaski, WI.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (82 FR 45749; October 2, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0818 to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Carter Airport, Pulaski, WI. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Carter Airport,
Pulaski, WI.
    This action is necessary due to the cancellation of the instrument
procedures at Carter Airport. The removal of these procedures results
in the airport no longer qualifying for controlled airspace.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Pulaski, WI [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 29, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-02137 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16508-16509]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6807]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435; FRL-9650-3]
RIN 2060-AR02

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production; and Polyether Polyols Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On January 9, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments to three
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV
Polymers and Resins; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols
Production. The EPA is reopening the comment period until March 30,
2012. The EPA received a request for this reopening from the Sierra
Club. The Sierra Club requested the reopening in order to analyze data
and review the proposed amendments. EPA finds this request to be
reasonable due to the multiple source categories involved in this
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0435, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0435, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without

going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free
of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the reasons noted above, the public
comment period will be reopened until March 30, 2012.

How can I get copies of the proposed rule and other related
information?

    The proposed rule titled, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production, was published
on January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1268). EPA has established the public docket
for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435,
and a copy of the proposed rule is available in the docket. Information
on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES
section.

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-6807 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P