
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27007-27009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

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 (313) 568-9508, email 
Adrian.F.Palomeque@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

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

[[Page 27008]]

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 (313) 568-9508, email Adrian.F.palomeque@uscg.mil. 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

[[Page 27009]]

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


