Tankers-Automatic Pilot Systems, 55272-55282 [2018-24127]

Download as PDF 55272 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations vessel in the regulated area must comply with instructions from the Coast Guard or designated representative. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY The regulation in 33 CFR 100.723 will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. November 17 through November 18, 2018. 33 CFR Part 164 DATES: Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 35 If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: Telephone: 305–535–4317, Email: Mara.J.Brown@uscg.mil. [Docket No. USCG–2015–0926] The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas in 33 CFR 100.723 daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. November 17 through November 18, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety and security of navigable waterways during this two-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.723, specifies the location of the special local regulation for the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas, which encompasses certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean off South Beach Park in Fort Lauderdale. Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or designated representative to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will inform the public through Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts at least 24 hours in advance of the enforcement of the special local regulation. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: October 30, 2018. M.M. Dean, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami. [FR Doc. 2018–24055 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 RIN 1625–AC27 Tankers—Automatic Pilot Systems Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard will permit tankers with automatic pilot systems that meet certain international standards to operate using those systems in shipping safety fairways and traffic separation schemes specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and 167, respectively. This final rule removes the previous regulatory restriction, updates the technical requirements for automatic pilot systems, and promotes the Coast Guard’s maritime safety and stewardship (environmental protection) missions by enhancing maritime safety. DATES: This final rule is effective December 5, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may view comments and related material identified by docket number USCG–2015–0926 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document or to view material incorporated by reference call or email LCDR Matthew J. Walter, CG–NAV–2, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1565, email cgnav@ uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History III. Discussion of the Rule IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 M. Environment I. Abbreviations BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics COTP Captain of the Port ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System FR Federal Register IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IMO International Maritime Organization INS Integrated navigation system LOD Letter of Deviation OMB Office of Management and Budget PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act SBA Small Business Administration § Section symbol TSS Traffic separation scheme U.S.C. United States Code II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History Sections 2103 and 3703 of Title 46 U.S.C. provide the legal basis for this rulemaking. Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating discretionary authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions for tanker carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. Section 3703 requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the operation and equipping of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes and other issues related to these cargoes. Section 4114 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requires the Coast Guard to define the conditions under which a tank vessel may operate in the navigable waters with an autopilot engaged. In Department of Homeland Security Delegation Nos. 0170.1 (II)(70), (92.a), and (92.b) and 5110, Revision 01, the Secretary delegated authority under these statutes to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The purpose of this rule is to permit tankers equipped with automatic pilot systems—also generically known as ‘‘autopilots’’—that meet certain international standards to operate using those systems in shipping safety fairways or traffic separation schemes (TSS) specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and 167, respectively. In 1993, the Coast Guard promulgated 33 CFR 164.13, permitting the use of autopilots. However, that same year, the Coast Guard suspended the final rule provision allowing tankers to use autopilots in concert with an integrated navigation system (INS) in TSS and shipping safety fairways because there was no performance standard for the accuracy, integrity, or reliability of INS (58 FR 36141, July 6, 1993). The suspension had the effect of prohibiting the use of any autopilot in fairway or TSS waters. E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Since then, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a voluntary industry consensus standardssetting body, has developed standards for heading and track control systems.1 The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted resolutions endorsing these standards, and has recommended to IMO member states that they adopt performance standards ‘‘not inferior to’’ those the IMO has adopted. The Coast Guard believes that tanker autopilot systems that meet the IEC’s standards should be relieved of the regulatory burden that prohibits use of these systems in fairway and TSS waters. Prohibiting the use of autopilots creates regulatory burdens for both industry and the Coast Guard, as tanker owners and operators must apply for deviations from the prohibition. The Coast Guard grants the deviations on a case-by-case basis and, since 2013, has issued approximately 35 deviations to allow tankers to operate specific IEC and IMO compliant autopilots in fairway or TSS waters within specific Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. To eliminate these unnecessary burdens on industry and the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking with a request for comments titled ‘‘Tankers—Automatic Pilot Systems in Waters’’ in the Federal Register on July 11, 2016 (81 FR 44817). III. Discussion of the Final Rule This final rule amends 33 CFR 164.13, which relates to the navigation of tankers underway. Specifically, this rule amends 33 CFR 164.13 to allow tankers equipped with specific IEC-compliant autopilots to use those systems in fairway and TSS waters without having to apply to individual COTPs for deviations, and without the need for COTPs to ensure IEC compliance and issue deviations. This action will eliminate the current burdens on industry applying for deviations and the Coast Guard granting those deviations that are no longer necessary because of advances in technology. Moreover, the Coast Guard expects that this rule will enhance maritime safety because the autopilots in question offer greater precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots, and arguably, even human 1 IEC 62065, First Edition, (2002–03), Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results; and IEC 62065, Edition 2.0, (2014–02). These and all other documents referenced in this rule are available in the docket by following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 steering. Lastly, by incorporating industry standards, this rule is consistent with Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), which encourages international regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary difference in regulatory requirements.2 For these reasons, the Coast Guard adopts, as final, 33 CFR 164.13 as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast Guard also makes additional changes described in Section IV of this preamble. These changes respond to public comment requesting clarity on specific terms used in the proposed regulatory text. Finally, the Coast Guard is removing a cross-reference to 33 CFR 164.13 in 46 CFR 35.20–45. This cross-reference was necessary when the two sections had different information regarding the use of autopilots. However, it is no longer necessary with the changes implemented by this rule. IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes During the public comment period, the Coast Guard received comments from 7 commenters, including mariners, a pilots’ association, a state board of commissioners of pilots, a company operating tank vessels, and an association of companies engaged in oceangoing shipping. Below we summarize the comments and provide our responses. Three commenters supported permitting tankers to use autopilots with appropriate safeguards. The Coast Guard concurs, and believes § 164.13 provides adequate safeguards because it requires the continued presence of a qualified helmsman; prohibits the use of autopilot in anchorage grounds or within one-half nautical mile of the U.S. shore; and imposes conditions for the use of autopilots in fairway and TSS waters. One commenter said that although autopilots have benefited from advances in technology since the initial 1993 rulemaking, maintaining a cross track error of less than 10 meters might not be sufficient in some pilotage waters. For these reasons, and because the notice of proposed rulemaking estimated annual government cost savings of approximately $4,600,3 the commenter recommended the Coast Guard withdraw the proposed rule. Regarding a mariner’s use of an autopilot, the Coast Guard’s position has not changed. As the Coast Guard stated in the 1993 final rule,4 vessel masters and pilots are in the best position to determine if the use of autopilots is safe based on the local conditions in the waters where the rule allows discretion. This rule does not compel a tanker’s master or pilot to use an autopilot, and the Coast Guard is not promoting indiscriminate use of an autopilot. This rule is permissive and recognizes that an autopilot is a navigational tool that, when used by a prudent mariner under appropriate circumstances, can assist the mariner in the safe transit of a tanker. Because of the improvement in autopilot technology, the discretion of masters within the operational limits of this rule described above, and the fact that this rule is expected to produce net benefits, the Coast Guard is promulgating this rule. The same commenter suggested that local COTPs should continue to grant case-by-case waivers of autopilot restrictions. The Coast Guard disagrees. As addressed in the 1993 final rule,5 it is in the interest of the mariner and Coast Guard to minimize the prospect of a confusing array of rules that may vary from port to port. The Coast Guard finds that a single, national rule will facilitate compliance and not complicate enforcement. A different commenter disagreed with removing the ban, stating that despite technological advances, computer malfunctions could still lead to major disasters. While the Coast Guard acknowledges that computer malfunctions and errors can lead to major disasters, these systems are hardwired to steering systems and not intended to be connected to a network. Additionally, the IEC standard that we are incorporating conforms to the IMO performance standards for heading monitoring; position monitoring; override functions; manual change over from track control to manual steering; and sensor information validation and failure alarms. Here, a competent person is still required to be present, thereby being made aware (by the system, visual cues and other independent bridge equipment) of a failure or malfunction and potentially averting major disasters. A commenter recommended that the rule be redrafted to include language from 46 CFR 35.20–45, which is applicable to a much broader spectrum of ship types. The commenter argued that the ‘‘extra precautions’’ of § 35.20– 45 should also apply to tank vessels carrying petroleum or chemical products. 2 (77 4 58 3 81 5 58 PO 00000 FR 26413, May 4, 2013). FR 44821, footnote 24. Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 55273 FR 27633, 27631 (May 10, 1993). FR 27628. E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 55274 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations The Coast Guard concurs that requiring a competent person to be ready to change immediately from manual steering to autopilot or vice versa under the supervision of the officer of the watch when operating in areas of high traffic density, restricted visibility, or other hazardous navigational situations is an appropriate restriction for the safe use of autopilots by tank vessels. Currently, when transiting the navigable waters of the United States, tankers are never without officer of the watch supervision, as referenced in 33 CFR 164.13(c), meaning that a competent person who can manually steer the vessel is already on board and ready to take over should the need arise. Accordingly, we reference § 35.20–45 in § 164.13(d)(2) of this rule. The Coast Guard also makes a conforming change to the introductory language of § 35.20–45. The same commenter suggested that the use of autopilots should not be allowed when operating in restricted visibility. As indicated above, the Coast Guard agrees that the restrictions in § 35.20–45 are appropriate when operating in restricted visibility. However, the Coast Guard does not agree that the prohibition on autopilot during restricted visibility applies to waters not covered under the restrictions or prohibitions of this rule. In waters where the Coast Guard does not have prohibitions or restrictions in place, autopilot use is best determined by vessel masters and pilots as the prevailing conditions dictate. The same commenter suggested that it should be possible to establish immediate manual control of steering at all times an autopilot is in use. The Coast Guard agrees that immediate manual control of steering at all times an autopilot is in use is necessary, and the rule already requires it. In order for a system to meet the referenced equipment standard, it must be able to accept a signal from the override facilities to terminate track control mode. According to the IMO, this should be possible at any rudder angle, under any condition, including any failure of the track control system. Because the rule requires compliance with the IEC standards, including this prescription as a separate provision in 33 CFR 164.13 would be redundant. The same commenter also suggested that a person who is competent to steer the vessel manually should be required to be present and ready at all times an autopilot is in use. The Coast Guard agrees, and has modified proposed § 164.13(d)(2) in this rule to clarify that a person should be present and ready ‘‘at all times.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 The same commenter suggested that the Coast Guard should clarify the meaning of the phrase one-half nautical mile offshore. The commenter asked if the Coast Guard meant one-half mile from the demarcation line or the headlands, or if the text should have read one-half mile from land, the riverbank, or from shoal water. The Coast Guard agrees with this statement and has updated § 164.13(d)(1) to reference terms defined elsewhere in the CFR.6 The Coast Guard received comments from the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York in opposition to the Coast Guard’s preemption determination and the use of autopilots in New York State pilotage waters, citing the peculiarities of local waters where special precautionary measures are required. The American Pilots’ Association echoed the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York in its concern regarding pilotage waters where traffic converges and special precautionary measures are required. As to the preemption determination, the Coast Guard disagrees that this rule alters a State’s authority to regulate pilotage requirements under 46 U.S.C. 8501. This rule does not regulate State pilots. This rule regulates vessel equipment and operations—specifically, navigation equipment. In other words, this rule will not prohibit or otherwise interfere with a State’s right to establish state pilotage requirements. The Coast Guard has added clarifying language to its federalism statement in this rule. As to the use of autopilots within certain waters, the Coast Guard recognizes that precautionary measures are required for areas of special concern. On certain waters, vessel traffic transits along straight corridors as prescribed by charted routing measures (e.g. channels, fairways, lanes, and others). Vessels transiting other charted routing measures (e.g. anchorages, precautionary areas, and others) behave less predictably. At times, vessel convergence areas are in pilotage waters. Therefore, the Coast Guard has added a prohibition on the use of autopilots in precautionary areas, as defined in 33 CFR 167.5, in addition to the prohibition in regulated anchorage areas. We are also adding this prohibition in response to the comment suggesting incorporation of restrictions in 46 CFR 35.20–45, which include 6 This includes the definition of territorial sea baseline in 33 CFR 2.20, definition of anchorages per 33 CFR part 110, and the definition of precautionary areas in 33 CFR 167.5. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 limitations when using autopilots in hazardous navigational situations. Although, as stated, this prohibition is limited to only waters within one-half nautical mile of shore, regulated anchorages, and precautionary areas, it is not an unfettered endorsement to use track control or heading control systems in all other waters. Vessel operators should always assess the risk of collision, allision, or grounding, and recognize that it may be imprudent to use said systems under certain prevailing circumstances and conditions such as transiting other areas of converging traffic, maneuvering close aboard to other vessels or structures, or other times of maneuvering various courses and speeds. A commenter asked if it was the Coast Guard’s intent to allow autopilots to take voyage inputs, such as position and track information, from systems other than an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS). The Coast Guard understands that some autopilots may receive voyage inputs from systems other than an ECDIS. As long as those other systems are addressed in the referenced IEC 65065 standard, autopilots may take voyage inputs from systems other than an ECDIS. The IEC 65065 standard prescribes which sensors must be interfaced with an autopilot. It further requires those sensors meet an applicable IMO performance standard. V. Incorporation by Reference Material incorporated by reference in 33 CFR 164.13 appears in the amendment to 33 CFR 164.03. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 164.03 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. For information about how to view this material, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Copies of the material are also available from the sources listed in § 164.03. We incorporated the IEC standard IEC 62065, First Edition (2002– 03) and Edition 2.0 (2014–02). VI. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This rule is considered to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See OMB’s Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). A combined regulatory analysis and Threshold Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows and provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this rule. The 55275 substantive change affecting this analysis from the proposal to the final rule was that the Coast Guard updated its estimates of wage data from 2013 to 2016 data. We calculate that this rule will result in net cost savings of $76,572 (7-percent discount rate) over a 10-year period, with annualized net savings of $10,902 (7-percent discount rate). This cost saving is achieved through a reduction in labor costs associated with requesting letters of deviation (LOD) to use autopilot under the current regulatory scheme. This rule will also result in cost savings for the Coast Guard by reducing the hourly burden costs to process and approve the LOD. The following table provides a summary of the totals for the rule’s costs, cost savings, and benefits. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE Category Summary Potentially Affected Population ................................................................. An estimated 9,457 foreign-flagged vessels that are owned by 2,285 companies and 95 U.S.-flagged vessels that are owned by 40 businesses. $13,072. $89,644. $76,572. $10,902. * Improve effectiveness without compromising safety. * Prevent inappropriate use of autopilot and misunderstandings on when to use it. * Improved goodwill between regulated public and Coast Guard. * Enhance maritime safety, because the autopilots in question offer far greater precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots, and arguably, even human steering. Costs (7% discount rate) (costs only accrue in the first year) ................. 10-Year Total Quantified Cost Savings (7% discount rate) ..................... 10-Year Net Cost Savings (7% discount rate) ......................................... Annualized Net Savings (7% discount rate, 10 years) ............................ Unquantified Benefits ............................................................................... This rule revises the existing regulations regarding navigation on tankers. It updates the regulations to lift the suspension on tanker use of autopilot systems that has been in place since 1993 and which is no longer needed. Also, this rule updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems referenced in 33 CFR 164.13(d). This rule removes an unnecessary regulatory restriction and results in an overall cost savings for the regulated public and the Coast Guard. Affected Population Based on the Coast Guard’s MISLE database, we estimate that this rule affects approximately 9,457 foreignflagged vessels and approximately 95 U.S.-flagged vessels. The vessels are owned by 2,285 foreign companies and 40 U.S. companies. No governmental jurisdictions will be impacted. Costs The Coast Guard expects this rule to result in one-time costs of $13,072 at a 7-percent discount or an undiscounted VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 cost of $13,987. These costs are derived by regulated entities needing to communicate to their vessel staff information about the change—a regulatory familiarization cost. The Coast Guard estimates that approximately 4 minutes (0.067 hours, rounded) 7 are expended per company to do so; these communications are anticipated to be via electronic bulletin boards or mass distribution email. Labor costs are estimated at $89.79 per hour for an operations manager based on a mean wage rate of $58.70, fully loaded to account for the cost of employee 7 The duration estimate is based on previous Coast Guard rules including the proposed rule for the Revision of Crane regulations (RIN 1625–AB78, USCG 2011–0992), which had an estimate of 3 minutes to complete a record. The Coast Guard also used ‘‘49 CFR part 40—Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs’’ (OMB Control # 2105–0529), which had an estimate of 0.067 hours to write an electronic report. These estimates comport with duration estimates of the proposed and final rules for Vapor Control Systems (RIN 1625–AB37, USCG– 1999–5150) for similar tasks. No public comments were received on the estimates during the proposed rule’s comment period. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 benefits; this estimate is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages data, for General and Operations Managers (11–1021, May 2016).8 From there, the Coast Guard determined that the total cost of compensation per hour worked is $27.61. Of the $27.61, $18.05 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.5296399 ($27.61 ÷ $18.05) that the Coast Guard applied to determine the actual cost of employment to employers and industry. The Coast Guard rounded this factor to the nearest hundredth to 8 The reader may review the source data at http:// www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes111021.htm. Also, please see http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/ oes436014.htm for the wage rate for an administrative assistant. After adding the load factor, the wage rate for an administrative assistant ($17.38) is estimated to be $26.59. The wage rate for an operations manager is estimated to be $89.59, which is derived from the product of the unloaded wage rate ($58.70) as found on the BLS website as noted in this footnote and the load factor (1.53 rounded). Unrounded numbers were used in calculations. E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 55276 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1.53 for presentation in this document.9 As derived by the summation of the equations, the calculations appear as follows: [0.067 hours × $89.79 marine operations manager wage rate × (2,285 foreign-flagged vessel owners/operators + 40 U.S.-flagged vessel owners/ operators)] × 7-percent discount rate. Unrounded numbers were used for the calculation. Table 2 presents the estimated cost of compliance with this rule. TABLE 2—TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF REGULATORY FAMILIARIZATION Discounted 7% Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Discounted 3% Undiscounted 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 9 .......................................................................................................................................... 10 ........................................................................................................................................ $13,072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $13,580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $13,987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ...................................................................................................................................... Annualized ................................................................................................................................... 13,072 1,861 13,580 1,592 13,987 1,399 No public comments were received on the Coast Guard’s estimated duration of tasks and on its estimated wage rates during the proposed rule’s public comment period. The Coast Guard has not estimated a cost to comply with the documents incorporated by reference (IEC’s standards IEC 62065, 2014–02; IMO Resolution MSC.74(69), Annex 2.). The Coast Guard has not estimated a cost for these provisions because manufacturers participate in the development of the standards at IEC and are aware of the changes to standards. As a result, they have been producing equipment to meet the standard already. Typically, manufacturers begin to make manufacturing modifications even before such changes are formally adopted. This rule will not require owners and operators to acquire the standards; they will not need the standard in hand to be in compliance. Owners and operators need to only look for evidence from manufacturers that products meet or exceed the standard before purchase. Such evidence may include product documentation such as user guide and warranty information. For these reasons, the Coast Guard has not included a cost for these provisions. No equipment is required by this rule. As well, some parts of the affected population will experience no cost increase due to this rule, since some vessels do not use autopilot under the conditions noted in this rule; therefore, they have no costs. No further action is required by these parties. Only 40 U.S.flagged vessel owners and operators and approximately 2,285 foreign vessel owners and operators are impacted; for these owners and operators, they will incur a cost only if they need to communicate to staff the rule changes on the use of autopilots. The rule will result in cost savings for the regulated public and the Coast Guard. The rule will prevent unnecessary inquiries such as phone calls and emails to the Coast Guard regarding regulations and the filing and Coast Guard’s processing of LODs. With regard to the first cost savings, the Coast Guard estimates that it spends a collective 20 hours annually at 1 hour per call on average fielding calls from the regulated public seeking clarification of the intent of the existing regulations. This rule will eliminate this labor cost for the regulated public and the Coast Guard.10 This time would be better spent on other Coast Guard missions. To estimate these costs, the Coast Guard used publicly available data as found in the Commandant Instruction titled ‘‘Reimbursable Standard Rates.’’ 11 Labor costs are estimated for the Coast Guard at $92 for a Lieutenant Commander.12 This figure represents a wage rate with a fully loaded labor factor of 1.85 for uniformed Coast Guard positions.13 For the regulated public, the wage rate for a lead engineer is estimated to be $105.81 per hour, based on a load factor applied to the BLS wage data as noted earlier. The unloaded wage rate for an engineering manager is $69.17 and the load factor is 1.53 (rounded).14 The total cost savings from the elimination of inquiries to Coast Guard is estimated at $1,840 per year and $2,116 annually for the regulated public. Coast Guard Cost Savings: $92 Lieutenant Commander × 1 hour × 20 calls per year = $1,840. Regulated Public Cost Savings: $105.81 engineering manager × 1 hour × 20 calls per year = $2,116. In addition, this rule saves the regulated public and the Coast Guard labor costs associated with the filing and processing of annual LODs. This precludes the need for the regulated 9 This load factor is calculated specifically for production, transportation, and material moving occupations, All Workers, Private Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520000D, CMU2010000520000P and CMU2020000520000D, CMU2020000520000P), 2016, 1st Quarter. (Source: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ ect/data.htm as accessed on January 4, 2018 and May 3, 2017). 10 Collectively, 20 hours annually multiplied by wage rate for lead engineer. The Government’s cost is estimated by the equation 20 hours annually multiplied by the wage rate for Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander (O–4). 11 The Instruction is dated March 29, 2017 and is numbered COMDTINST 7310.1R. Enclosure 2 lists the relevant data. The Instruction may be found on https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/PDFs/ urg/Ch2/2017-CI_7310_1R.pdf?ver=2017-08-15124924-597. For the proposed rule, a previous version of the Instruction numbered COMDTINST 7310.1P was used. 12 See https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/ docs/PDFs/urg/Ch2/2017-CI_7310_1R.pdf?ver= 2017-08-15-124924-597. See Enclosure 2 for ingovernment rate of an O–4 officer and a GS–11 employee. 13 The load factor for uniformed positions was based on the Coast Guard’s analysis of compensation and benefits of Coast Guard enlisted and commissioned personnel based on data found in http://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/ Documents/ActiveDutyTables/2018%20Pay%20 Table.pdf?ver=2018-02-02-160202-810 and Commandant Instruction R. 14 This is the wage rate for 11–9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers as found at http:// www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes119041.htm and as accessed on May 1, 2017. As noted earlier, a load factor of 1.53 was applied. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 Cost Savings PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations public to file an LOD. In doing so, it also precludes the need for the Coast Guard to process the LOD and respond to it. The Coast Guard estimates that each LOD requires a given marine business to expend 1.7 hours of an engineering manager’s time and 0.5 hour of an administrative assistant’s time to prepare and submit the LOD. These precluded costs will be incurred annually and will be calculated by the sum of the products of the loaded wage rates and labor duration estimates times the number of requests per year (($89.79/hour operations manager’s wage rate × 1.7 hours) + ($26.59/hour admin assistant’s wage rate × 0.5 hours) × 35 submittals).15 In turn, we estimate that the Coast Guard spends 0.6 hours of a Lieutenant Commander’s time; and 0.5 hour of an administrative assistant’s time to process, review, and respond to each LOD request.16 The loaded wage rates for these positions are: $92 per hour for a Lieutenant Commander (O–4); $61 per hour for an administrative assistant (GS–11). These wage rates may be found in Commandant Instruction 7310.1R, Reimbursable Standard Rates, (ingovernment rates found in enclosure 2). The wages for the regulated public were noted earlier in this section. To estimate these cost savings, we requested data from Coast Guard sectors on their experience with processing LODs. Based on that review, we estimated the number of LOD requests to be approximately 35 annually,17 which will be precluded by this rule. Coast Guard also reviewed previous Coast Guard regulatory analyses for the labor costs of the regulated public for filing waiver requests. Our estimated 55277 durations for labor for the regulated public and for the Coast Guard are based on Coast Guard experience with LOD requests as well as an existing information collection entitled ‘‘Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P’’ (RIN 1625–0043, 1625– 0043); the Coast Guard’s proposed rule for cranes (RIN 1625–AB78, USCG– 2011–0992); and the proposed and final rules for Vapor Control Systems (RIN 1625–AB37, USCG–1999–5150). We used the existing information collection 1625–0043 to obtain the estimates of existing tasks; we used the information collections for cranes and vapor control systems to estimate tasks that were not in 1625–0043, but were similar to the tasks of these information collections. Table 3 provides the details. TABLE 3—SOURCE OF PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ESTIMATES Task in final rule Prepare paperwork and file an LOD. Support by admin staff of preparation of LOD. Prepare response to LOD request. (USCG). Support by admin staff of LOD response. (USCG). Write notification of regulatory change. Write notification of regulatory change. Write notification of regulatory change. Write notification of regulatory change. Make inquiries to USCG ...... Respond to public inquiries (USCG). Source 1625–0043 Ports Subchapter P. 1625–0043 Ports Subchapter P. 1625–0043 Ports Subchapter P. 1625–0043 Ports Subchapter P. 1625–AB37 Vapor Task Duration and Waterways Safety—Title 33 Same ................................. 1.7 hours. and Waterways Safety—Title 33 Same ................................. 0.5 hour. and Waterways Safety—Title 33 Same ................................. 0.6 hour. and Waterways Safety—Title 33 Same ................................. 0.5 hour. Control Systems ............................. Complete a record; document training. Complete a record; record a test. Write an electronic report; document testing record; write a release. Communicate regulatory change19. ............................................ ............................................ 0.12 hour; 0.03 hour. 1625–AB78 Cranes ....................................................... 2105–0529 ‘‘49 CFR Part 40 Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs’’18. 1625–AC02 Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards. ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ 0.03 hour. 0.067 hour; 0.13 hour; 0.067 hour. 0.5 hour. 1 hour. 1 hour. The Coast Guard estimates that the regulated public spends approximately 2.2 hours to prepare the paperwork and to file an LOD. This hourly total is calculated as follows: 35 waivers annually × [1.7 hours × wage rate for engineering manager + 0.5 hour × wage rate for an administrative assistant] = $5,808. In addition, we estimate that the Coast Guard spends 1.1 hours in total for each LOD. This hourly total is calculated as follows: 35 waivers annually × [0.6 hour × wage rate for Lt. Commander + 0.5 hour × wage rate for Coast Guard administrative assistant] = $3,000. We received no comments on these estimates during the proposed rule’s comment period. The total cost savings from the elimination of the need for an LOD is estimated at $5,808 per year for the regulated public and $3,000 annually for Coast Guard. Adding the costs of preparing and filing an LOD to the costs of inquiries which were noted earlier, the total costs savings per year would be $4,840 for Coast Guard and $7,924 for the regulated public. Table 4 presents the estimated cost savings of this final rule. 15 Wage data may be found from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/ may/oes111021.htm and http://www.bls.gov/oes/ 2016/may/oes436014.htm). The load factor used was 1.53 (rounded). Unrounded numbers were used in the calculation. Please see previous discussion for more information on how the load factor was determined. 16 The duration estimates are based on existing OMB approved information collection entitled Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P (OMB Control number 1625–0043). No public comments were received on these estimates. 17 This number comports with an estimate provided by the Chamber of Shipping of America to the docket. Readers should see https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-20150926-0008 as verification. 18 Title 49 CFR 40.33(b) through (e), 40.25(a), 40.25(f), 40.33(f). 19 Preparing an email or electronic bulletin board notice. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 55278 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 4—TOTAL COST SAVINGS BY YEAR Cost savings to the regulated public Year Annualized 7% 1 .................................... 2 .................................... 3 .................................... 4 .................................... 5 .................................... 6 .................................... 7 .................................... 8 .................................... 9 .................................... 10 .................................. 10-Year .......................... Annualized ..................... ¥$7,405 ¥6,921 ¥6,468 ¥6,045 ¥5,650 ¥5,280 ¥4,935 ¥4,612 ¥4,310 ¥4,028 ¥55,654 ¥7,924 Annualized 3% Undiscounted ¥$7,693 ¥7,469 ¥7,251 ¥7,040 ¥6,835 ¥6,636 ¥6,443 ¥6,255 ¥6,073 ¥5,896 ¥67,592 ¥7,924 This rule results in a net cost savings of $76,572 (7-percent discount rate for a 10-year period) because the estimated cost savings exceed the costs of the rule. Costs are incurred only in Year 1. The ¥$7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥7,924 ¥79,238 ¥7,924 Cost savings to the government Annualized 7% ¥$4,523 ¥4,227 ¥3,950 ¥3,692 ¥3,450 ¥3,225 ¥3,014 ¥2,817 ¥2,632 ¥2,460 ¥33,991 ¥4,840 Annualized 3% Total estimated cost savings Undiscounted ¥$4,699 ¥4,562 ¥4,429 ¥4,300 ¥4,175 ¥4,053 ¥3,935 ¥3,820 ¥3,709 ¥3,601 ¥41,282 ¥4,840 ¥$4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥4,840 ¥48,395 ¥4,840 net cost savings of this rule are calculated by subtracting the total cost of the rule ($13,072, 7-percent discount) from the total cost savings ($89,644, 7percent discount). These cost savings Annualized 7% ¥$11,928 ¥11,148 ¥10,419 ¥9,737 ¥9,100 ¥8,505 ¥7,948 ¥7,428 ¥6,942 ¥6,488 ¥89,644 ¥12,763 Annualized 3% ¥$12,392 ¥12,031 ¥11,680 ¥11,340 ¥11,010 ¥10,689 ¥10,378 ¥10,075 ¥9,782 ¥9,497 ¥108,874 ¥12,763 Undiscounted ¥$12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥127,633 ¥12,763 result from precluded labor costs to the regulated public and to Coast Guard as noted earlier. Table 5 presents the net cost savings of this rule. TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NET COST SAVINGS Discounted 7% Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Discounted 3% Undiscounted 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 9 .......................................................................................................................................... 10 ........................................................................................................................................ $1,144 ¥11,148 ¥10,419 ¥9,737 ¥9,100 ¥8,505 ¥7,948 ¥7,428 ¥6,942 ¥6,488 $1,188 ¥12,031 ¥11,680 ¥11,340 ¥11,010 ¥10,689 ¥10,378 ¥10,075 ¥9,782 ¥9,497 $1,224 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 ¥12,763 Total ...................................................................................................................................... Annualized ................................................................................................................................... ¥76,572 ¥10,902 ¥95,294 ¥11,171 ¥113,646 ¥11,365 Using a perpetual period of analysis, the total annualized discounted cost savings of this rule if it is implemented in 2019, would be $9,672 in 2016 dollars. Benefits This rule amends existing regulations to remove the requirements that prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems in waters subject to the shipping safety fairway or traffic separation controls. This rule also updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems. The Coast Guard pursued this amendment to existing standards in order to prevent inefficient use of labor and to add clarity to the current system. As noted in the cost savings discussion earlier, this rule prevents inefficient use of labor and adds clarity to the regulated public as to the need for safety precautions. The changes improve regulatory intent and keep regulations in step with existing technology without compromising the existing level of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 safety. This rule also promotes maritime safety by eliminating confusion associated with outdated regulations that have not kept pace with technology. Lastly, this rule enhances maritime safety, because the autopilots in question offer far greater precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots or human steering. Regulatory Alternatives Considered In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives: (1) Take no action. (2) Develop a different timetable for small entities. (3) Provide an exemption for small entities (from this rule or any part thereof). The first alternative is not preferred because it does not offer solutions to issues identified earlier in the preamble. It would perpetuate an inefficient use of labor on the part of the regulated public and the Coast Guard. The second alternative prevents small entities from PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 benefiting from the efficiencies made possible by this regulation as soon as the larger companies; a delayed effective date for small entities would delay both costs and cost savings. The third alternative would prevent small entities from benefiting from improved efficiency altogether. Because this regulation reduces an unnecessary regulatory restriction, the Coast Guard does not want to restrict its applicability to small entities in any way. Most entities are expected to experience no additional cost. For those who will incur a cost, the Coast Guard estimates costs to be approximately $6 per entity—as noted earlier, the cost to communicate information is calculated by the equation $89.79 wage rate × 0.067 hour. Cost savings accrue only to those covered by this rule and those who have not already applied for a waiver or who are not in compliance with the existing regulations. An exemption would preclude cost savings to those under the exemption; the Coast Guard estimates E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations that cost savings will be less than $170 per affected entity annually. Labor to make an inquiry is estimated by the following equation: 1.7 hours × $89.79 wage rate for operations manager + 0.5 hour × $26.59 wage rate for an administrative assistant. For the reasons discussed earlier, we rejected these alternatives in favor of the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative—this rule—amends existing regulations to remove the requirements that prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems in waters subject to the shipping safety fairway or traffic separation controls. The preferred alternative also updates the performance standard for traditional autopilot systems. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000 people. The Coast Guard expects this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. As described in the ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities. An estimated 67 percent of the regulated entities (a total of 27 businesses) are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) industry size standards. For any company for which we were not able to find SBA size data, we assumed it was a small entity. The compliance costs for this rule, which are only regulatory familiarization costs, will amount to less than 1 percent of revenue for all small entities ($6 per entity) and, therefore, do not represent a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Costs will be incurred only in the first year of this rule’s promulgation. No additional costs for labor or equipment will be incurred in future years. Because the purpose of this rule is to remove an unnecessary regulatory restriction, it is expected to reduce labor costs. These cost savings are estimated to be less than 1 percent of revenue for all small entities. An estimated $170 per year is saved by a given entity that formerly had to perform the now deregulated tasks of the rule. No small VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 governmental jurisdictions are impacted by this rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard received no public comments on the proposed rule’s impact on small entities. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult LCDR Matthew J. Walter (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). D. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520; the rule does not add requirements for recording and recordkeeping to the existing collection titled, Ports and Waterways Safety— Title 33 CFR Subchapter P (OMB control number 1625–0043). However, this rule will revise this collection, reducing the burden of recordkeeping and submission for those 35 tankers granted an LOD. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’ comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The rule does not require additional tasks by the regulated public but eliminates the need for the regulated public to file an LOD under conditions as specified by the rule. The Coast Guard estimates that there will be 35 fewer LODs filed annually because of the rule’s changes. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 55279 The existing collection of information requires LODs to be submitted to the Coast Guard for various reasons; one of which is for tankers to use autopilot under conditions noted in this rule. Under this rule, Coast Guard no longer requires an LOD for tankers. The rule precludes the need for 35 or fewer LODs annually to be submitted to the Coast Guard for approval. It also precludes the need for the Coast Guard to process and approve those LODs. The collection of information aids the regulated public in assuring safe practices; however, the Coast Guard has concluded that this particular use of LODs is no longer warranted. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. Title: Ports and Waterways Safety— Title 33 CFR Subchapter P. OMB Control Number: 1625–0043. Summary of the Collection of Information: Certain vessels are subject to a variety of requirements in subchapter P of title 33 of the CFR. Under the existing OMB collection, such tasks includes the District 8 Hurricane Operations Plan and letters of deviation. The regulation allows any person directly affected by these regulations to request a deviation from any of the requirements by an LOD as long as the level of safety is not reduced. Under this rule, the Coast Guard no longer requires an LOD to be submitted under specific conditions as noted in the rule; LODs continue to be required for other existing reasons. The collection of information aids the regulated public in assuring safe practices. Need for Information: The Coast Guard needs this information to determine whether an entity meets the regulatory requirements. Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information to determine whether an entity request for deviation is justified. Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners and operators of vessels which travel in the regulated waterways as noted in the regulatory text. Number of Respondents: The burden of this rule for this collection of information includes submittal of LODs. This collection of information applies to owners and operators of vessels that travel in the regulated waterways. We estimate the maximum number of respondents for the collection of E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 55280 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations information to be 876, but there would be 35 fewer LODs per year. Frequency of Responses: LOD under the conditions noted in this rule are filed once per year. This eliminates the need for this particular use of the LOD. The Coast Guard estimates that 35 fewer LODs will be filed annually because of this rule. Burden of Response: The burden of response for each LOD is an estimated 2.2 hours. Estimate of Total Annual Burden: This rule decreases burden hours by 77 hours from the previously approved burden estimate of 2,110 hours. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. We invited public comment on the collection of information during the proposed rule’s comment period. We received no input to advise us on how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection. You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard’s request to collect this information. E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). This rule is promulgated under Title II of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act 20 (PWSA) (46 U.S.C. 3703) and amends existing regulations for tank vessels regarding certain vessel equipment technical standards and operation. Under the principles discussed in Locke, States are foreclosed from regulating within this field. The Coast Guard acknowledges a State’s right to set State pilotage requirements in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 8501, and we do not intend this rule to affect a State’s ability to regulate State pilotage requirements. However, the Coast Guard does not believe that 46 U.S.C. 8501 can be used to avoid the application of the fundamental federalism principles explained in Locke by characterizing a vessel’s navigation requirements as ‘‘pilotage requirements.’’ A State regulation covering a field—vessel navigation—that the Coast Guard would regulate under PWSA Title I is subject to a Locke conflict analysis. To be clear, the Coast Guard views a State prohibition of vessel automatic pilot system use in certain State waters, based on the peculiarities of those waters, to be akin to a regulated navigation area that the Coast Guard would regulate under PWSA Title I. This rule establishes vessel equipment requirements but does not intend to affect a State’s ability to regulate vessel navigation requirements in particular State waters. Regardless of this rule, States may not establish navigation equipment standards or their general operational requirements.21 Thus, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of 20 Public Law 92–340, 86 Stat. 424, as amended; codified at 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. 1232. 21 Locke, 529 U.S. at 110—114 (confirming the validity of Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co. and invalidating three State rules that were field preempted). PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights). H. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. J. Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211 because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 55281 impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards to track control and integrated navigation systems used in vessel automatic pilot systems: (1) IEC 62065, First Edition, 2002–03, Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems— Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results; and, (2) IEC 62065, Edition 2.0, 2014–02, Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems— Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results. These standards provide parameters within which these systems must operate to ensure proper navigational control given the vessel’s position, heading, speed, and other factors. The standards were developed by the IEC, an international voluntary consensus standards-setting organization, and the IMO. The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in § 164.03 of this rule below. Changes made in the 2014 edition of IEC 62065, while technical in nature, did not render systems conforming to the previous edition unsafe or obsolete. Since, there is no domestic or international requirement to carry this equipment, vessels may still be outfitted with serviceable equipment meeting the 2002 standard. Thus, the Coast Guard saw value in allowing equipment that met either the current or previous edition of IEC 62065. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 164.03 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in § 164.03. Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference provisions, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons have access to it through their normal course of business, may purchase it from the organization identified in 46 CFR 136.112, or may view a copy by means we have identified in that section. Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Revision 1 (DHS Instruction Manual 023–01) and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule involves regulations concerning tank vessel equipment approval and operation. Thus, this rule is categorically excluded under paragraphs L52, L57, L58 and L62 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01. Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11, http://www.iec.ch/. Email: info@iec.ch. (1) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2002–03), Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems— Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results, First Edition, dated 2002, IBR approved for § 164.13(d). (2) IEC 62065 (IEC 62065 2014–02), Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—Track control systems— Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results, Edition 2.0, dated 2014, IBR approved for § 164.13(d). ■ 3. Amend § 164.13 by removing paragraph (e) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: List of Subjects * M. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security * VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 33 CFR Part 164 Marine, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways, Incorporation by reference. 46 CFR Part 35 Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 164 and 46 CFR part 35 as follows: Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters PART 164—NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107–295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 6101. The Secretary’s authority under these sections is delegated to the Coast Guard by Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (70), (92.a), (92.b), (92.d), (92.f), and (97.j). 2. Amend § 164.03 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), after the text ‘‘Washington, DC 20593–7418,’’, add the text ‘‘telephone 202–372–1565,’’. ■ b. Add paragraph (h) to read as follows: ■ ■ § 164.03 Incorporation by reference. * * * * (h) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3, rue de Varembe, PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 § 164.13 Navigation underway: Tankers. * * * * (d) This paragraph (d) has preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field. A tanker may navigate using a heading or track control system only if: (1) The tanker is at least one-half nautical mile (1,012 yards) beyond the territorial sea baseline, as defined in 33 CFR 2.20; (i) Not within waters specified in 33 CFR part 110 (anchorages), or; (ii) Not within waters specified as precautionary areas in 33 CFR part 167, and; (2) There is a person, competent to steer the vessel, present to assume manual control of the steering station at all times including, but not limited to, the conditions listed in 46 CFR 35.20– 45(a) through (c); and (3) The system meets the heading or track control specifications of either IEC 62065 (2002–03) or IEC 62065 (2014–02) (incorporated by reference, see § 164.03). Title 46—Shipping PART 35—OPERATIONS 4. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231; 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; and E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 5. Amend § 35.20–45 by revising the introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 35.20–40 Use of Auto Pilot—T/ALL. When the automatic pilot is used in: * * * * * E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1 55282 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Dated: October 30, 2018. J.P. Nadeau, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. 2018–24127 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2018–1007] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Senior Government Official’s Visit to Cleveland, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH Coast Guard, DHS. Temporary final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for navigable waters on Lake Erie for a senior government official’s visit to Cleveland, OH. The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on November 5, 2018. SUMMARY: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https:// www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2018– 1007 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Sean Dolan, 716–843–9322, email Sean.P.Dolan@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 247001 authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to sensitive security issues related to a Senior Government Official’s visit to Cleveland, OH. Providing a public notice and comment period would be contrary to the security zone’s intended objective of protecting the official party and the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay encountered in this temporary rule’s effective date would be contrary to the public interest given the need to ensure the safety and security during a Senior Government Official’s visit on November 5, 2018. III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that potential security hazards are associated with this event in this area. These hazards include potential security threats, violent or disruptive public disorder, delivery of a weapon of mass destruction, launch of a stand-off attack weapon, or delivery of an armed assault force. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the security zone throughout the duration of the event. IV. Discussion of the Rule On November 5, 2018, a Senior Government Official is expected to visit Cleveland, Ohio. The venue will include locations near downtown Cleveland. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within portions of Lake Erie: 41°31′45″ N, 081°39′20″ W (just East of Forest City Yacht Club and West of Quay 55); then extending approximately 4,000 feet northwest to position 41°32′23″ N, 081°39′46″ W (about 900 feet past the east break wall); then extending approximately 13,000 feet to position 41°31′02″ N, 081°42′10″ W; then extending southwest to the shoreline at position 41°30′38″ N, 081°41′53″ W (near the northwest edge of Voinovich Park); then following the PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 shoreline back to the point of origin, in the vicinity of the Burke Lakefront Airport. The security zone is necessary to protect the official party, personnel, vessels, the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative. V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that we anticipate that it will have a minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The security zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the security zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restriction on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55272-55282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 202-372-1565, 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.

[[Page 55273]]

    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.

[[Page 55274]]

    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

[[Page 55275]]

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

[[Page 55276]]

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

[[Page 55277]]

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.

[[Page 55278]]



                                                                               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

[[Page 55279]]

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

[[Page 55280]]

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

[[Page 55281]]

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; 
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. This rule uses the following voluntary consensus 
standards to track control and integrated navigation systems used in 
vessel automatic pilot systems:
    (1) IEC 62065, First Edition, 2002-03, Maritime navigation and 
radiocommunication equipment and systems--Track control systems--
Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and 
required test results; and,
    (2) IEC 62065, Edition 2.0, 2014-02, Maritime navigation and 
radiocommunication equipment and systems--Track control systems--
Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and 
required test results.
    These standards provide parameters within which these systems must 
operate to ensure proper navigational control given the vessel's 
position, heading, speed, and other factors. The standards were 
developed by the IEC, an international voluntary consensus standards-
setting organization, and the IMO. The sections that reference these 
standards and the locations where these standards are available are 
listed in 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 202-372-1565,''.
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:
* * * * *


[[Page 55282]]


    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