Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations, 62435-62437 [2012-25141]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with requiring security awareness training; and issuance of other endorsements and approval of other training to meet the 2010 amendments. These letters are necessary to provide guidance to affected parties until regulations implementing amendments to the STCW are promulgated. DATES: The three letters are available for viewing beginning October 15, 2012. ADDRESSES: The policy letters are available for viewing on the Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/nmc/. The docket for this notice is available for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG–2012–0917 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call or email the U.S. Coast Guard, Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division (CG–CVC–4) at (202) 372–2357 or MMCPolicy@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: Background and Purpose In 2007, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) embarked on a comprehensive review of the entire STCW Convention and STCW Code. The Parties adopted amendments on June 25, 2010 at the STCW Diplomatic Conference in Manila, Philippines, and the amendments entered into force for all ratifying countries on January 1, 2012. The STCW Convention is not selfimplementing; therefore, the U.S., as a signatory to the Convention, must initiate regulatory changes to ensure full implementation of the amendments to the STCW Convention and STCW Code. The U.S. implements these provisions under the Convention and under the authority of United States domestic laws in United States Code Titles 5, 14, 33, 46, and pursuant to 46 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter B. The Coast Guard published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on August 1, 2011 (76 FR 45908), proposing changes to implement the STCW Convention and Code, to address the comments received VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 from the public in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59354), and to incorporate the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention that came into force on January 1, 2012. The public comment period for the SNPRM ended on September 30, 2011. The Coast Guard intends to publish a final rule to implement amendments to the STCW, including the 2010 amendments, and ensure that the U.S. is meeting its obligations under the Convention. Description of Policy Letters The following three policy letters provide guidance to parties affected by STCW: 1. Hours of Rest This policy letter provides guidance to clarify the changes associated with the hours of rest requirements found within the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. This policy will provide information on the changes to the hours of rest requirements that are now being monitored internationally. It also provides recommended methods to lessen the port state control impact on U.S. vessels while operating abroad until the Coast Guard promulgates the final rule implementing STCW. 2. Security Endorsements This policy letter provides guidance on the issuance of endorsements and approval of training for Vessel Personnel with Designated Security Duties and vessel personnel requiring security awareness training under the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. The IMO has provided an alternative means of compliance until January 1, 2014, and the Coast Guard has determined that the requirements in 33 CFR 104.220 and 104.225 can be used to comply with the 2010 amendments under this alternative. Endorsements will be issued based upon the documentary evidence that an individual has complied with existing regulations. 3. Issuing Endorsements and Approving Training This policy letter provides guidance on issuance of endorsements other than the security endorsements discussed above, and approval of other related training to meet the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. The guidance in this document is intended to assist industry and individual mariners to meet the requirements of STCW and 46 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter B. This policy provides PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 62435 methods for issuing STCW endorsements established by the 2010 amendments that may be obtained by meeting current domestic requirements. In addition to the information regarding the STCW endorsements, the policy letter announces that the Coast Guard will consider granting approval of training to meet various provisions of the 2010 amendments. This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and United States Code Titles 5, 14, 33, 46. Dated: September 28, 2012. Paul F. Thomas, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2012–25128 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 162 [Docket No. USCG–2011–1086] RIN 1625–AB84 Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: This rule redefines the geographical points described in our regulations, which demarcate an area of the Detroit River in which certain vessels are restricted to speeds not greater than 12 statute miles per hour. DATES: This rule will be effective November 14, 2012. ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 2011–1086]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http:// www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ You may visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 62436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with A. Regulatory History and Information On May 8, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPMR) entitled Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations (77 FR 27007). We received 1 comment. Specifically, Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA) submitted a letter on May 15, 2012 in which LCA offered its full support for this rulemaking as proposed in the NPRM. No other comments were received. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. B. Basis and Purpose As discussed in the aforesaid NPRM, representatives from LCA, the Lakes Pilots Association, the International Shipmasters Association, and the Canadian Shipowners Association previously 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 that request, the Coast Guard’s Ninth District Commander, in consultation with the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Coast Guard, assessed the necessity and utility of the aforementioned regulatory provision and determined that the southern point of the restricted speed area in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) should be relocated to a point approximately 2.5 statute miles to the north at the D33 stationary light. The reasoning for the Ninth District Commander’s decision is discussed in the following paragraph. The speed restriction in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) requires vessels on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light to operate 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 feet wide, the Ninth District Commander has VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 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. Pursuant to the authority contained in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), as delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard via Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 and to Coast Guard District Commanders pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05–1(e)(1)(vii), the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) to alleviate unnecessary restrictions on commercial vessel operations. C. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule As mentioned above, only one comment was received in response to the NPRM published on May 8, 2012. In that comment, LCA offered its full support for the proposed rulemaking. This Final Rule is identical to the rule proposed in that NPRM. As stated in the NPRM, because 33 CFR 162.138, as currently written, unnecessarily restricts commercial vessel operations, the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138 to reduce the size of the restricted speed area currently delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii). Particularly, this rule relocates the southern point of the restricted speed area from its current location at the Detroit River Light to a new location near the D33 stationary light. D. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders. 1. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 relocating the southern point of the restricted speed area delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) will lessen navigation restrictions on the public and on private industry. Thus, 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. 2. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 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. However, the 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 because it will lessen navigation restrictions on the public and private industry. 3. Assistance for Small Entities In keeping with 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 rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 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 E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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). 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. 4. Collection of Information This rule does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism. 6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 7. 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. 8. 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. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 9. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 10. Indian Tribal Governments ■ This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. § 162.138 [Amended] 2. In § 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: October 1, 2012. M.N. Parks, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2012–25141 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 11. Energy Effects 5. Federalism 62437 This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2012–0191] 12. Technical Standards RIN 1625–AA11 This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Regulated Navigation Area; Columbus Day Weekend, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL ACTION: We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves amendments to navigation regulations and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the Commandant Instruction. A 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 amends 33 CFR Part 162 as follows: PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 162 continues to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: 13. Environment Sfmt 4700 The Coast Guard is amending the Columbus Day weekend regulated navigation area on Biscayne Bay in Miami, Florida. The amended regulated navigation area alters the boundaries of the area and expands the enforcement period. These regulations are necessary to protect the public during Columbus Day weekend; a period that has historically had a significant concentration of persons and vessels on the waters of Biscayne Bay. To ensure the public’s safety, all vessels within the regulated navigation area are: Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; subject to control by the Coast Guard; and required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area. DATES: This rule will be effective November 14, 2012 and will be enforced annually on Columbus Day weekend, starting at 12:01 p.m. on the Saturday before Columbus Day, through 2 a.m. on Monday (the Columbus Day holiday). Columbus Day is the federally recognized holiday occurring annually on the second Monday in October. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble are part of docket USCG– 2012–0191. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http:// www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62435-62437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25141]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule redefines the geographical points described in our 
regulations, which demarcate an area of the Detroit River in which 
certain vessels are restricted to speeds not greater than 12 statute 
miles per hour.

DATES: This rule will be effective November 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket 
[USCG-2011-1086]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the 
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``Search.'' You may 
visit the Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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.

[[Page 62436]]

Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 8, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPMR) entitled Inland Waterways Navigation 
Regulations (77 FR 27007). We received 1 comment. Specifically, Lake 
Carriers' Association (LCA) submitted a letter on May 15, 2012 in which 
LCA offered its full support for this rulemaking as proposed in the 
NPRM. No other comments were received. No public meeting was requested, 
and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    As discussed in the aforesaid NPRM, representatives from LCA, the 
Lakes Pilots Association, the International Shipmasters Association, 
and the Canadian Shipowners Association previously 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 that request, the Coast Guard's Ninth District 
Commander, in consultation with the Captain of the Port, Sector 
Detroit, Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Canadian 
Coast Guard, assessed the necessity and utility of the aforementioned 
regulatory provision and determined that the southern point of the 
restricted speed area in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) should be relocated 
to a point approximately 2.5 statute miles to the north at the D33 
stationary light. The reasoning for the Ninth District Commander's 
decision is discussed in the following paragraph.
    The speed restriction in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) requires vessels 
on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light to operate 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 feet 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.
    Pursuant to the authority contained in the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act, (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), as delegated to the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard via Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1 and to Coast Guard District Commanders pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-
1(e)(1)(vii), the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR 
162.138(a)(1)(ii) to alleviate unnecessary restrictions on commercial 
vessel operations.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule

    As mentioned above, only one comment was received in response to 
the NPRM published on May 8, 2012. In that comment, LCA offered its 
full support for the proposed rulemaking.
    This Final Rule is identical to the rule proposed in that NPRM. As 
stated in the NPRM, because 33 CFR 162.138, as currently written, 
unnecessarily restricts commercial vessel operations, the Ninth 
District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138 to reduce the size of the 
restricted speed area currently delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii). 
Particularly, this rule relocates the southern point of the restricted 
speed area from its current location at the Detroit River Light to a 
new location near the D33 stationary light.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or 
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    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 
relocating the southern point of the restricted speed area delineated 
in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) will lessen navigation restrictions on the 
public and on private industry. Thus, 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.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business 
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This 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. However, the 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 because it will lessen navigation 
restrictions on the public and private industry.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    In keeping with 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 rule. If the rule would affect 
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you 
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above.
    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

[[Page 62437]]

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). 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule does not call for a new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined 
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does 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.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This rule involves amendments to navigation regulations 
and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the 
Commandant Instruction. A 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 amends 
33 CFR Part 162 as follows:

PART 162--INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

0
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]

0
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: October 1, 2012.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-25141 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P