State Enforcement of Inland Navigation Rules, 54385-54390 [2022-19154]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54385-54390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 83

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0071]
RIN 1625-AC81


State Enforcement of Inland Navigation Rules

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule to remove an 
incorrect statement about field preemption of State or local 
regulations regarding inland navigation. The incorrect language was 
added in a 2014 rulemaking, and the error was recently discovered. By 
removing the language, this rule clarifies the ability of States to 
regulate inland navigation as they have historically done. This rule 
does not require States to take any action.

DATES: This interim rule is effective September 6, 2022. Comments and 
related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before 
December 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0071 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Jeffrey Decker, Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 
Boating Safety (CG-BSX); telephone 202-372-1507, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
III. Background
IV. Discussion of the Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment
VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

I. Abbreviations

APA Administrative Procedure Act
COLREGS International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at 
Sea, 1972
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
Inland Rules Inland Navigation Rules
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section

[[Page 54386]]

SFRBT Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

    Section 303 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2004,\1\ ``Inland Navigation Rules Promulgation Authority,'' authorizes 
the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating 
to issue inland navigation regulations and technical annexes for all 
vessels on the inland waters of the United States. The goal of such 
regulations is to be as consistent as possible with the corresponding 
International Regulations. The Secretary delegated this authority to 
the Coast Guard in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2, paragraph (II)(92). The purpose of this 
interim rule is to correct an error in Title 33 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 83, specifically in paragraph (a) of Sec.  
83.01, about the preemptive effect of the navigation regulations upon 
State or local regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028, Aug. 9, 2004. Section 
303 is codified at 33 U.S.C. 2071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior public notice 
and opportunity to comment, based on two findings under the ``good 
cause'' provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA's 
notice and comment requirements do not apply when the agency, for good 
cause, finds that the notice and comment process is ``impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' \2\ Here, prior 
notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest 
because the Coast Guard is resolving an error it introduced to the 
Inland Navigation Rules (hereafter ``Inland Rules'') through a 2014 
amendment. As explained below, the language being removed is an 
incorrect statement regarding the preemptive effect of regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard cannot leave the incorrect preemption statement in 
place, so public comment on it, or on its removal, is unnecessary. The 
statement was made in error. Leaving it in place could be seen as 
leaving the public without the protection of any meaningful enforcement 
of state and local navigation safety laws. No replacement language is 
being inserted, and no entity's rights are harmed by the removal. The 
rule requires no action by either the States or the public.
    Further, giving the public prior notice of the correction is 
contrary to the public interest and could even cause harm. As written, 
the incorrect language purports to prevent States from adopting their 
own navigational safety regulations. The insertion of this incorrect 
language in 2014 had no impact, however, on day-to-day enforcement by 
States. State law enforcement units conduct nearly all the enforcement 
of navigation rules on inland waterways. An announcement in the Federal 
Register that States cannot do so would undermine the legitimacy of 
safety enforcement in the time between the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule. Violations of State and local 
navigation rules, such as excessive speed and failing to maintain a 
proper lookout, comprise four of the top five causal factors in 
recreational boating accidents.\3\ Publishing an NPRM, which could 
create the impression that State marine patrols lack the authority to 
enforce State and local navigational safety laws, would undermine their 
purpose and could reduce safety on inland waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``2020 Recreational Boating Statistics,'' Commandant 
Publication P16754.34 (June 29, 2021) available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Coast Guard also finds good cause under Title 5 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 553(d) to make this interim 
rule effective immediately on publication. In situations where prior 
comment is contrary to the public interest, the Coast Guard's practice 
is to provide a comment period after issuing the rule if doing so will 
not interfere with the purpose and execution of that rule. We are 
providing a 90-day period for public comment and will consider all 
comments received during that time.

III. Background

    The Inland Rules are a special body of rules defined by the 
International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972, 
often referred to as ``COLREGS'' or ``International Rules.'' The 
President proclaimed the International Rules as United States law in 
accordance with the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977.\4\ 
Congress subsequently set about harmonizing the inland navigation rules 
that remained in use within the United States, including the Western 
Rivers Rules, Great Lakes Rules, the old Inland Rules, and parts of the 
Motorboat Act of 1940. These efforts culminated in the Inland 
Navigational Rules Act of 1980, which codified Rules 1 through 38, 
considered the main body of the Inland Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 95-75, 91 Stat. 308 (July 27, 1977).
    \5\ Public Law 96-591, 94 Stat. 3415 (Dec. 24, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977 nor the 
Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 contained express language 
regarding the preemption of State law. A 2009 Sea Tow study (available 
in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES portion of the 
preamble) found that ``each State and Territory has its own version of 
navigation rules recorded in different locations in State law.'' The 
study further found that 37 of the 56 States and Territories had either 
adopted the International Rules or Inland Rules, or enacted laws 
requiring conformity with them. In April 2010, in accordance with 
Congressional authorization, the Coast Guard issued regulations 
effectively transferring the Inland Rules from United States Code to 
the Code of Federal Regulations.\6\ The 2010 rule made no specific 
statements about the preemptive effect of the Inland Rules. The section 
of the preamble that discussed federalism said that there were no 
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, which 
addresses preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 75 FR 19544, April 15, 2010; 33 CFR parts 83-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, the Coast Guard proposed routine amendments to the Inland 
Rules to retain consistency with COLREGS amendments approved by the 
International Maritime Organization.\7\ At that time, the Coast Guard 
proposed to add a statement of preemptive effect to 33 CFR 83.01(a) in 
accordance with a 2009 Presidential memorandum regarding preemption.\8\ 
A commenter asked the Coast Guard to clarify that the proposed 
preemption language referred to field preemption rather than conflict 
preemption, and in the 2014 final rule, the Coast Guard said that it 
did.\9\ This erroneous statement has recently led to questions about 
whether State and local governments may regulate navigation on State 
waters where the Inland Navigation Rules apply. Some State agencies use 
State statutes to enforce violations outside the scope of the Inland 
Navigation Rules. These include prohibitions on negligent operations. 
Others have continued to patrol and enforce State boating violations 
under State navigation rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 52175, August 28, 2012.
    \8\ ``Presidential Memorandum Regarding Preemption,'' May 20, 
2009, available at Presidential Memorandum Regarding Preemption 
[verbar] whitehouse.gov (archives.gov) (last visited Jan. 19, 2022).
    \9\ 79 FR 37897, 37900, August 1, 2014.

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

[[Page 54387]]

    Field preemption means that State and local governments may not 
regulate in that field at all. This is distinct from conflict 
preemption, which allows State and local government to regulate so long 
as their actions do not conflict with Federal regulations. Without 
express guidance from Congress, conflict preemption is the foundation 
for the relationship between the laws of the Federal government and 
those of the States. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012).
    The 2014 preemption language was not viewed as a change in 
authority, and State and local enforcement continued as before. In 
2019, however, the Coast Guard learned that a boater had argued that 
the preemption statement in 33 CFR 83.01(a) meant that State law 
enforcement could not charge a violation of State navigation rules that 
were within the field of the Coast Guard's Inland Rules.
    The Coast Guard had informal discussions with State boating 
administrators about the meaning of the language, and, in 2021, the 
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators asked the 
Coast Guard to clarify the issue. The Coast Guard revisited the 
preemption language and determined that the 2014 statement of field 
preemption is incorrect and undermines States' efforts to enhance 
navigational safety. In particular, the Coast Guard determined that 
Congress is not only aware of States' broad efforts to regulate in the 
area of boating safety, but also that Congress, in part, funds these 
efforts through the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust (SFRBT) 
Fund,\10\ which is administered by the Coast Guard. The SFRBT Fund 
provides funding to States to enforce State boating laws and 
investigate boating accidents and fatalities, many of which are the 
direct result of navigation rules violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 46 U.S.C. Ch. 131: RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY (house.gov). 
See Section 13107: Authorization of Appropriations. last viewed 
June, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule removes the final sentence of 33 CFR 83.01(a), which 
states that regulations in 33 CFR parts 83 through 90 have preemptive 
effect over State or local regulation within the same field. Removing 
the final sentence clarifies the original statutory language of Rule 1. 
This rule does not insert any other statement about preemption. This is 
consistent with prior versions of the Inland Rules, which were also 
silent on the subject and were historically viewed as conflict 
preemptive.
    Generally, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
States are precluded from regulating conduct in a certain field (i.e., 
field preemption applies) where a statute contains an express 
preemption provision, or when Congress has determined that conduct in a 
particular field must be regulated by its exclusive governance. 
Arizona, 567 U.S. at 399. ``The intent to displace state law altogether 
can be inferred from a framework of regulation so pervasive . . . that 
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it, or where there 
is a federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal system will be 
assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.'' 
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
    In the case of inland navigation, nothing in the relevant statutory 
enactments by Congress has ever expressly stated or otherwise implied 
that the States are preempted from regulating in the field. Rather, the 
appropriate analysis is one of conflict preemption. Under conflict 
preemption, State law is preempted by Federal law only when compliance 
with both the State law and a Federal law is impossible, or the State 
law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the 
full purposes and objective of Congress. See Arizona, 567 U.S. 387. 
State regulation in the field of inland navigation is clearly evidenced 
by the longstanding existence of many State navigation laws and rules 
around the country, and by Congress' demonstrated awareness of such 
laws and rules and its lack of action to preempt them.
    State and local marine patrols play a significant role in ensuring 
safety on our waterways by enforcing navigational safety rules. State 
and local marine patrols outnumber Coast Guard patrols and conduct 
almost all the on-water safety enforcement interactions with the 
boating public. Operator inattention, improper lookout, unsafe speed, 
and other navigation rules violations, such as operating at night 
without navigation lights, are contributing factors in many boating 
accidents. The Coast Guard fully supports the efforts of State and 
local marine patrols to prevent unsafe operations in accordance with 
the Inland Rules. While Congress has legislated in this area, it has 
not created a pervasive or dominant framework that indicates any intent 
to preclude states from regulating or enforcing their own laws and 
rules. Accordingly, state and local rules are preempted only in the 
instances described above: where compliance with both a State 
requirement and a federal requirement is impossible, or where the State 
law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the 
full purposes and objective of Congress.
    We believe that most vessel operators, and State boating law 
administrators, assigned no meaning to the 2014 preemption language. 
Their ongoing operations will be unchanged by this interim rule. 
Removing the incorrect language about field preemption does not alter 
the obligations of the boating public. They have always been required 
to comply with the Inland Rules in 33 CFR parts 83 through 90. It also 
does not impose obligations on State and local government: no State or 
local government is required to enact its own navigation rules, and 
that will not change with removal of this language. This interim rule 
merely allows State and local governments to continue to regulate local 
navigation in a way that is consistent with longstanding practice.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this interim 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

             Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the Interim Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.....................  The interim rule will remove the
                                     final sentence in 33 CFR 83.01(a),
                                     ``The regulations in this
                                     subchapter (subchapter E, 33 CFR
                                     parts 83 through 90) have
                                     preemptive effect over State or
                                     local regulation within the same
                                     field.''
Affected Population...............  State and local Governments and
                                     vessel operators on the Inland
                                     Waterways.
Costs.............................  No estimated costs.

[[Page 54388]]

 
Unquantified Benefits.............  Removes incorrect regulatory
                                     language. This removal provides
                                     regulatory clarity to State and
                                     local governments to enforce their
                                     own regulations. The regulatory
                                     clarity will ensure the continued
                                     safety of the boating public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. A regulatory analysis follows.
    This interim rule removes incorrect language from 33 CFR 83.01(a). 
This rule will clarify that State and local governments are free to 
continue to regulate navigation consistent with longstanding practice. 
We believe that most vessel operators, and many local governments, were 
unaware of the 2014 error and that their ongoing operations, 
consequently, will be unchanged by this rule. No State has changed its 
inland navigation rules since 2014, and our conversations with state 
regulators suggest they did not understand the preemption language to 
alter their enforcement ability. Other than the 2019 challenge 
mentioned earlier, we know of no boaters asserting that the preemption 
language prevents State enforcement. Removing the incorrect language 
about field preemption does not alter the obligations of the boating 
public, who have always been required to comply with the Inland Rules 
in 33 CFR parts 83 through 90. This rule does not impose any additional 
burdens on vessel operators or impose obligations on State and local 
government: no State or local government is required to enact its own 
navigation rules. This rule will clarify that State and local 
governments are free to continue to regulate local navigation 
consistent with longstanding practice. Based on our analysis, this rule 
will not impose any new requirements or regulatory costs on vessel 
operators, or on State and local governments. Many State and local 
governments were already enforcing navigation safety regulations, and 
the boating public has always been required to comply with the Inland 
Rules.
Affected Population
    This rule will affect all State and local navigational law 
enforcement patrols whose laws or regulations were purported to have 
been preempted by 33 CFR 83.01(a).
    Although vessel operators on the inland waterways are a part of the 
affected population of this interim rule, they will not incur any new 
regulatory costs because they were already required by Federal law to 
comply with State and local navigation rules. This rule creates legal 
clarity about the States' ability to enforce their own navigational 
rules, which will maintain safe boating conditions for vessel 
operators. This interim rule only confirms the States' ability to 
retain and enforce navigational safety laws within the field of the 
Inland Rules. We are not aware that any State altered its navigational 
rules in response to the 2014 preemption statement, so we do not expect 
any State will alter its navigational rules in response to the 
statement's removal.
Cost Analysis of the Interim Rule
    This interim rule will not impose any new costs on vessel 
operators, or on State and local governments. State and local 
governments were already enforcing State and local regulations, and the 
boating public has always been required to comply with the Inland 
Rules. The economic baseline is that all potentially affected vessel 
operators and States are already in compliance with State and local 
rules, and therefore, will not incur any costs from this rule.
Benefits Analysis of the Interim Rule
    The primary benefit of the interim rule is to clarify the Inland 
navigation rules by removing the incorrect regulatory language and 
therefore removing any potential question about whether States and 
local jurisdictions can enforce navigational rules on vessel operators 
who navigate the inland waterways. Without this interim rule, the 
regulatory text applied as written would purport to prevent State and 
local marine patrols from enforcing the navigation laws or regulations. 
Continued State and local enforcement of State and local navigational 
safety rules is essential, because four of the top five factors in 
recreational boating accidents, as reported in the 2020 Recreational 
Boating Statistics (Commandant Publication P16754.34),\11\ involve 
violations of navigation rules. Further, this interim rule will clarify 
that field preemption was never intended to be a valid legal defense in 
State enforcement proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Recreational-Boating-Statistics-2020.pdf 
(menlosecurity.com), last viewed March, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Considered
    1. No action. The Coast Guard could leave the field preemption 
statement in 33 CFR 83.01(a). However, the Coast Guard's current 
regulatory statement, that the Inland Rules are field preemptive, is 
legally incorrect. Moreover, if applied as written, it would mean that 
the thousands of State and local marine patrols, often working 
cooperatively with the Coast Guard, have no legal authority to enforce 
their own navigation laws. If applied as written, the 2014 preemption 
language would constrain the authority of State and local marine 
patrols, effectively reducing navigational safety. This alternative, to 
retain the existing regulatory language in 33 CFR part 83.01(a), would 
expose vessels in the affected populations to an operational 
environment that has reduced navigational safety. The decrease in 
safety would increase the risk of future boating accidents. This 
alternative would not impose costs on State and local governments. This 
alternative would also undermine Congressional intent of supporting 
such State regulation via the SFRBT Fund.
    2. Provide notice and opportunity to comment prior to issuing an 
enforceable rule. The Coast Guard considered providing public notice 
and opportunity to comment before issuing the rule. Publication of an 
NPRM is our preferred method in most circumstances and could provide an 
opportunity for the Coast Guard to obtain new insights about the 
project in advance of issuing an effective rule. The drawback to 
issuing an NPRM for this action is that doing so could create a public 
safety issue. Publication of an NPRM would

[[Page 54389]]

create confusion about State and local authority to enforce the Inland 
Rules and could lead to unsafe and otherwise prohibited conduct during 
the period in which vessel operators believe that States are unable to 
enforce their own navigation rules. Hence, this alternative would 
increase risk of accidents. This may also result in litigation between 
boaters and States if waterway incidents occur, with associated legal 
costs.
    3. Amend 33 CFR 83.01(a) by issuing an interim rule that is 
immediately effective, followed by public comment period and final 
rule. This is the preferred alternative. The Coast Guard will remove 
the reference to field preemption in 33 CFR 83.01(a) without requesting 
public comment first. Instead, the Coast Guard invites the public to 
comment on the interim rule and will respond to those comments in a 
subsequent final rule. We present the costs and benefits of this 
alternative in this preamble.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we 
have 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 less than 
50,000.
    There are two affected populations for this interim rule, States or 
State Governments and vessel operators on the inland waterways. The 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes list State 
governments under the classification of ``Public Administration'' with 
a NAICS sector code of ``92.'' Although State governments would be 
affected by this interim rule, they are not considered small entities 
under the RFA because they have populations of 50,000 or more. Local 
governments and vessel operators may be small entities under the RFA; 
however, this interim rule does not impose any new regulatory 
requirements or costs on them. As a result, there are no small entities 
affected by this interim rule. Our analysis shows that this interim 
rule will not impose any regulatory costs on States and recreational 
boaters. The primary benefit of this interim rule is to clarify 
existing regulatory text; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this interim rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of 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. 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 interim rule calls for no new or revised collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.

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 the various levels of 
government. We analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13132 
and determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis follows.
    States may not regulate in categories reserved by Congress for the 
exclusive regulation by the Coast Guard. For example, 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 United States v. 
Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000). This interim rule, however, is correcting a 
misstatement in the Inland Rules to clarify that the Inland Rules are 
not field preemptive of State regulation of categories touching upon 
navigational safety. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the 
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described 
in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that 
State and local governments may have in making regulatory 
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications 
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs 
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the 
rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for 
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175 (Consultation and Coordination

[[Page 54390]]

with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes.

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 that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that 
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 
human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting 
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on 
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This 
rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusions A3 and L54 in 
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev 1. 
Categorical exclusion A3 pertains to ``promulgation of rules of a 
strictly administrative or procedural nature;'' and those that 
``interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its 
environmental effect.'' Categorical exclusion L54 pertains to 
regulations that are editorial or procedural. This rule is a standalone 
action to delete an incorrect statement about field preemption of State 
or local regulations on the topic of inland navigation, the legal 
implications of which were recently recognized. This rule is not part 
of a larger action, and it will not result in significant impacts to 
the human environment. Removing the incorrect language will affirm the 
ability of States to legally regulate inland navigation as they long 
have done, well before the Inland Rules were established.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to 
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material 
received on this interim rule during the comment period. If you submit 
a comment, please include the docket number for this interim rule, 
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment 
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through 
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To 
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0071 in the 
search box, and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the 
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment 
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this interim rule for alternate 
instructions.
    Viewing material in the docket. To view documents mentioned in this 
interim rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as 
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & 
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will 
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following 
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only 
post comments that address the topic of the interim rule. We may choose 
not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we 
receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we 
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal 
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions 
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking 
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Public meeting. We are not planning to hold a public meeting, but 
we will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a 
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register 
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 83

    Navigation (water); Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 83 as follows:

PART 83--NAVIGATION RULES

0
1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 83 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2071; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 
No. 01.2.

0
2. Amend Sec.  83.01 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  83.01   Application (Rule 1).

    (a) These Rules apply to all vessels upon the inland waters of the 
United States, and to vessels of the United States on the Canadian 
waters of the Great Lakes to the extent that there is no conflict with 
Canadian law.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 31, 2022.
W.R. Arguin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-19154 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P