thefederalregister.com

Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0102]

RIN 1625-AB88

Changes to the Inland Navigation Rules

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the inland navigation rules and their annexes in 33 CFR parts 83 through 88 to align the regulations with amendments made by the International Maritime Organization to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, to which the United States is a signatory, and to incorporate recommendations made by the Navigation Safety Advisory Council. These changes would harmonize domestic and international law by reducing and alleviating equipment requirements on vessels, addressing technological advancements, such as wing-in-ground craft, and increasing public awareness of the inland navigation rules. The changes would also make references to applicable requirements easier to locate by using the same format in domestic regulations as is used in the international convention.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket viahttp://www.regulations.govon or before October 29, 2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: (1)Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2)Fax:202-493-2251.

(3)Mail:Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4)Hand delivery:Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the "Public Participation and Request for Comments" portion of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR Megan L Cull, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1565, emailmegan.l.cull@uscg.mil.If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act D. Public Meeting II. Abbreviations III. Basis and Purpose IV. Background V. Discussion of Proposed Rule A. Preemption of State and Local Law Language Added to the Application Section at 33 CFR 83.01(a) B. All Provisions of 33 CFR Part 85, Annex II, and 33 CFR Part 88, Annex V, Would Be Moved Into the Main Body of 33 CFR Part 83 C. COLREGS Amendment Language and Terms Would Be Aligned With International Rules at 33 CFR Part 83 D. NAVSAC Recommended Changes E. “Exhibit an All-Round White Light” Would Be Added to 33 CFR 83.25 F. Proposed Removal of the Contradictory Paragraph (c) in 33 CFR 83.26 G. Clarifying Language Added to 33 CFR 83.01 to Enumerate Appropriate Authorities H. Non-Substantive Changes to Numbering or Citing To Reflect Additions, Amendments, and/or To Conform to COLREGS Cites 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. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.regulations.govand will include any personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0102), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2012-0102” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2012-0102” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (orsigning the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified underADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in theFederal Register.

II. Abbreviations AISAutomated Identification System CFRCode of Federal Regulations COLREGSConvention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea DHSDepartment of Homeland Security DSC Digital Selective Calling IMOInternational Maritime Organization NAVSACNavigation Safety Advisory Council NBSACNational Boating Safety Advisory Council NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking §Section symbol SOLASInternational Convention for Safety of Life at Sea U.S.C.United States Code WIG craftWing-in-Ground craft III. Basis and Purpose

The purpose of this rulemaking is to harmonize existing domestic law with current international law because Coast Guard regulations relating to inland navigation rules are inconsistent with the international standards found in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), to which the United States is a signatory. In addition to the alignment with international standards, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) recommended several changes to the regulations that would simplify the inland navigation rules and change equipment requirements for certain vessels. The Coast Guard has initiated this rulemaking under the authority of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293) and the Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0170.1, Delegation to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

IV. Background

In 1972, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) formalized the COLREGS, or international rules. The United States ratified this treaty and adopted the COLREGS in the International Navigation Rules Act of 1977. Ratification of this treaty made all U.S. vessels subject to the COLREGS while operating on international waters. The corresponding rules for inland waters, or inland navigation rules, did not go into effect until Congress enacted the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980. The inland navigation rules and the COLREGS are very similar in both content and format.

The IMO has made several amendments to the COLREGS since they were promulgated in 1972. The United States has adopted these amendments through statute until the two most recent IMO amendments in 2001 and 2007. Incorporation of these IMO amendments is one of the purposes of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

In 2004, Congress passed the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, which, in effect, gave the Secretary of Homeland Security (“the Secretary”) the authority to issue inland navigation regulations. The Secretary further delegated the authority to develop and enforce navigation safety regulations to the Commandant of the Coast Guard through Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0170.1, “Delegation to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.”

Through the most recent regulatory change in 2010, the Coast Guard used the authority granted by Congress and delegated by the Secretary to move the inland navigation rules from the United States Code (U.S.C.) to 33 CFR part 83. 75 FR 19544. Regulations in 33 CFR part 83, along with regulations in 33 CFR parts 84 through 88, now comprise the complete domestic inland navigation rules. Movement to the CFR in 2010 effectively ended statutory codification of the inland rules of the road.

Using this authority, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 83, along with 33 CFR parts 84 through 88, to align U.S. inland navigation rules with the COLREGS as much as practicable and to incorporate other NAVSAC recommendations and Coast Guard changes.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

This NPRM proposes many changes to the regulations in 33 CFR parts 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88 that would preempt State and local law regarding inland navigation, make current regulations more consistent with international standards, and make other NAVSAC recommended changes, including mandating the use of other electronic equipment, such as AIS, if outfitted, and allowing certain small vessels to use an all-round white light in addition to the currently approved electric torch or lighted lantern. Many of these changes would reduce the regulatory burden on mariners. The proposed changes are described below.

A. Preemption of State and Local Law Language Added to the Application Section at 33 CFR 83.01(a)

On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum entitled “Preemption” to the heads of executive agencies. The purpose of this memorandum was to ensure that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” The memorandum also required agencies to include preemption provisions in the codified regulations when regulatory preambles discussed its intention to preempt State law through the regulation. Furthermore, it directed that these preemption provisions must be justified under the legal principles governing preemption, including those outlined in EO 13132 (this memorandum is available for viewing in the rulemaking docket by following the instructions under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble).

In 33 U.S.C. 2071, Congress specifically granted to the Secretary the authority to “issue inland navigation regulations applicable to all vessels upon the inland waters of the United States and technical annexes that are as consistent as possible with the respective annexes to the International Regulations.” Because this authority is expressly granted by Congress to the Secretary, State and local laws are preempted by Federal law. Therefore, based on the President's 2009 memo and the preemption principles outlined in EO 13132, the Coast Guard proposes to add the following sentence to 33 CFR 83.01(a): “The regulations in this subchapter have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field.”

B. All Provisions of 33 CFR Part 85, Annex II, and 33 CFR Part 88, Annex V, Would Be Moved Into the Main Body of 33 CFR Part 83

Prior to 2010, the inland navigation rules were located in statute. The Coast Guard promulgated five annexes through regulation, to be read in conjunction with the inland navigation statute. These annexes correspond to COLREGS annexes. Because the inland navigation rules have become regulation, NAVSAC recommended that sections of Annex V be relocated to themain regulation text. Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to relocate the provisions of Annex II to the main regulation text.

We propose to move these provisions without substantive change to the appropriate sections in part 83. Reorganizing the Annex II and Annex V provisions to be found in part 83 would ease compliance and simplify the study of the rules. As a result of moving the provisions of these annexes to part 83, paragraph (d) in section 83.26 must be removed and reserved. This paragraph speaks to the provisions of Annex II that have now been moved to part 83. Additionally, for clarity, the appropriate paragraphs of Rule 26 must be added to new paragraph (f) of section 83.26 in lieu of the more general “these Rules” currently found in the regulation.

Table 1 summarizes the movement of 33 CFR part 85, Annex II, and 33 CFR part 88, Annex V, provisions to 33 CFR part 83.

Table 1 Current section number and heading Proposed section number and paragraph 85.1General 83.26(f) 85.3Signal for trawlers 85.5Signal for purse seiners 88.05Copy of rules 83.01(g). 88.09Temporary exemption from light and shape requirements when operating under bridges 83.20(f). 88.11Law enforcement vessels 83.27(i). 88.12Public safety activities 83.27(j). 88.13Lights on moored barges 83.24(k) through (p). 88.15Lights on dredge pipelines 83.24(g).

There would no longer be any provisions in part 85, Annex II, or part 88, Annex V, except for provisions reserving these parts for any future amendments that may require their use. To this end, the general purpose and applicability provisions of parts 85 and 88 would be reserved. This would be done by removing all regulations from this part and reserving the first sections only as a placeholder. Therefore, 33 CFR 85.1 would be redesignated as § 85.01, and § 85.01 would then be reserved, along with § 88.01.

C. COLREGS Amendment Language and Terms Would Be Aligned With International Rules at 33 CFR Part 83

In 2001 and 2007, the IMO adopted several amendments to the COLREGS through Resolution A.910(22) and Resolution A.1004(25), respectively. NAVSAC recommended that, in the interests of uniformity and simplification for mariners, and to continue encouraging compliance with the COLREGS, the Coast Guard should adopt these amendments in regulation. The amendments that NAVSAC recommended and the Coast Guard proposes are as follows:

1. The IMO incorporated the term “Wing-In-Ground (WIG) craft” into several sections of the COLREGS and added requirements applicable to this type of craft. The following sections in part 83 would be amended to add this term and/or its definition or add requirements applicable to WIG craft: §§ 83.03(a), 83.03(m), 83.18(f), 83.23(c), and 83.31. These additions specify how WIG craft should operate around other vessels, including when taking off, landing, and when in flight, as well as lighting requirements specific to WIG craft. Current WIG craft operations are limited to prototype testing, feasibility studies, and other limited activities. However, the specific construction, design, and operation of WIG craft pose unique risks that we are trying to address while also conforming to the IMO standard.

2. The IMO modified COLREGS sound signal equipment requirements for vessels based on size. One amendment removes the requirement for a bell on a vessel of 12 meters or more in length but less than 20 meters in length. The other amendment reduces the regulatory restrictions placed on the characteristics of whistles allowed for vessels of specific lengths. The Coast Guard would add the same language to §§ 83.33(a) and 83.35(i). We would also amend the existing language in part 86, subpart A. This language consists of amendments that IMO believes cater to smaller vessels since these amendments provide regulatory flexibility for sound signal requirements. We concur—by following IMO's example, we also would be decreasing the regulatory burden for small vessels by allowing sound options without negatively impacting navigation safety.

3. The IMO amended existing sections of COLREGS to incorporate new formulas and new standards. Sections 84.13(a), 84.13(b), 86.01(a), 86.01(c), 86.02(b) and the Table in 86.01 would be partially amended to align with the new COLREGS language. Sections 84.13(a) and 84.13(b) would be amended to account for the vertical separation of masthead lights on high-speed craft. These amendments incorporate new formulas to accommodate novel designs in the trim and resulting masthead placement of these specific types of crafts. By changing these formulas, the masthead light would be more visible, thereby increasing the safety of these vessels. In section 86.01 and 86.02, we would amend the frequency and range of audibility standards to relax the requirements for sound pressure levels and octave bands. We believe that the safety of vessels is not measurably impacted by the differing standards and that aligning domestic regulations with the international standard eases compliance.

4. The IMO amended COLREGS Rule 8, paragraph (a), which corresponds to § 83.08(a), and which generally governs actions taken to avoid collision, by adding the requirement that such actions “be taken in accordance with the Rules of this part.” The IMO added this language to make clear that any action to avoid collision should be taken in accordance with the relevant rules in the COLREGS, and to link Rule 8 with the other navigation rules. We propose to amend § 83.08(a) to include this revised language.

5. The IMO modified COLREGS distress signal requirements to update technologies in its list of acceptable equipment. Section 84.01(d), (l), and (m) would be amended to eliminate radiotelegraph or radiotelephones alarms as approved distress calls, with the exception of SOS, which may be transmitted via any means. Radiotelephones can still be used, but not the radiotelephone alarm function. There are no costs associated with removing the alarms as approved distress calls because this change doesnot require the replacement of such equipment. Radiotelegraphs are obsolete and are no longer used by the industry.1 This change was made to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V in 1999. It was also instituted domestically by the Federal Communications Commission in the 1990s and has been in effect since then. This change also expands the list of approved equipment for emergency calls to include Digital Selective Calling (DSC), Inmarsat, and other mobile satellite service provider ship earth stations but does not require carriage of such equipment.

1 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-01-27/pdf/95-2092.pdf.

The search and rescue manual reference in paragraph 3 has also been updated. There is no cost to the change in reference because there is no requirement to purchase the manual.

6. Rule 24 of the COLREGS provides lighting and shape requirements for partially submerged vessels or objects being towed, or a combination thereof. In review of our regulations, the lighting and shape requirements for towed combinations were omitted. We propose to add this language to match the COLREGS.

There would be no additional requirements on mariners imposed by the additions and amendments in 1 through 6 above. Instead, these sections would conform to the international standards and provide more options for vessel equipment compliance and increase the clarity of these requirements.

D. NAVSAC Recommended Change

NAVSAC recommended a change to the existing inland navigation rules in which § 83.07(b) would be amended to add the words “and other electronic” following the word “radar.” The Coast Guard agrees. In 2003, we published a final rule mandating the use of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) on a large number of seagoing vessels. The use of AIS is also a SOLAS requirement. Therefore, adding the words “and other electronic” equipment to this section would be consistent with the AIS final rule by requiring vessels that are otherwise required to have an AIS to use the system for collision avoidance in accordance with inland navigation rules. No additional equipment is required by vessels as a result of this change. Those vessels required by 33 CFR 164.46, or those electing to carry, an AIS are instructed to utilize this tool for collision avoidance purposes. This description would also allow for future development and use of technology that would meet Coast Guard requirements.

E. “Exhibit an All-round White Light” Would Be Added to 33 CFR 83.25

The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (NBSAC) proposed several options to the Coast Guard to reduce the risk of vessel collisions. One of the options that NBSAC proposed was to enhance the visibility of smaller vessels and sailing vessels. NAVSAC agreed with the NBSAC proposal and recommended that the Coast Guard add the option of using an all-round white light as a means for vessels of less than 7 meters or vessels under oars to advertise their position and help prevent collisions. Therefore, in § 83.25(d)(1) and (2), we propose to add the following phrase as an option for lighting: “exhibit an all-round white light or.”

F. Proposed Removal of the Contradictory Paragraph (c) in 33 CFR 83.26

In current 33 CFR 83.26, which concerns lights on vessels engaged in fishing other than trawling, there are two contradictory paragraphs, both of which are labeled as paragraph (c). The second paragraph (c) is the correct version and would remain in this section. We propose to remove the contradictory paragraph (c), currently appearing first in the regulations, to avoid confusion or inability to choose the correct lighting and shapes.

G. Clarifying Language Added To 33 CFR 83.01 To Enumerate Appropriate Authorities

In Rule 1, section 83.01, paragraph (b)(i), we propose to add the following after Regulations: “for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, including annexes currently in force for the United States (“International Regulations”).” This language would clarify what international regulations we are referring to throughout the regulation.

H. Non-Substantive Changes to Numbering or Citing To Reflect Additions, Amendments, and/or To Conform to COLREGS Cites

Based on the movement of some provisions, addition of new terms, and for ease of reference in locating applicable rules, several proposed changes would involve re-numbering or correcting cites in 33 CFR parts 83 through 88.

Sections 83.03(n) through 83.03(r) and 83.23(d) through 83.23(e) would be re-lettered following the insertion of the WIG craft language. Section 83.35(j) and 83.35(k) would be re-lettered following the insertion of additional vessel applicability language.

Section 83.24(c) would be amended to reference the correct cite to (i) instead of (1). Paragraph (b) in § 83.08 would be amended to add “and/” after “course” in both instances so as to correspond to COLREGS language.

To correspond to COLREGS numbering, § 83.18(d) would be reserved, thereby requiring the current paragraph (d) to be re-lettered as (e). Sections 83.03(h), 83.26(g)(ii)(2), and 83.35(d) are also reserved to correspond to COLREGS which also necessitate changes in paragraph lettering.

Parts 84 through 88, collectively the annexes, would be re-numbered in their entirety to correspond to the COLREGS numbering system because all inland navigation rules have been moved into the CFR. Two of the annexes, parts 85 and 88, would be reserved for use at a later date because the provisions of these annexes would be moved to part 83. Citations to the applicable annexes would be added to the following for easy reference: §§ 83.22, 83.27, 83.32, 83.33, 83.34, 83.37, and 83.38.

In addition to the other non-substantive changes, numbers would be replaced with roman numerals, lists would begin with lowercase letters, headings would be removed, and terms in the definition sections would be italicized instead of using quotations to model the domestic format after the international format. The format changes are necessary to reduce confusion for the maritime community by making the domestic and international rules uniform. Additionally, the non-substantive changes would make for easy reference of the domestic and international rules because the numbering scheme would be identical to the extent practicable.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, andequity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting regulatory flexibility and further requires agencies to adapt rules that are outdated or outmoded. This rule does that, removing contradictory language, expanding options for compliance, allowing for new technologies and removing outdated equipment from our regulations. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A draft regulatory assessment follows:

As stated in sectionV. Discussion of Proposed Ruleof this preamble, this NPRM would update existing regulations to those of COLREGS, incorporate provisions suggested by NAVSAC, and add language regarding federalism, based on President Obama's 2009 memo and EO 13132. The proposed regulations fall under two categories: Harmonizing and discretionary. Harmonizing changes include provisions associated with the Presidential memo and COLREGS. Discretionary provisions are those recommended by NAVSAC.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1—No Action. We rejected this alternative, as this alternative would ensure that the current differences between the domestic and international navigation rules continue, creating potential navigational errors and potential for mishaps, and would not be consistent with the Coast Guard's commitment to conform the inland navigation rules with the COLREGs as much as practicable. The proposed alternative incorporates regulations that are less stringent than the current regulations while maintaining the benefits of the current regulations.

Alternative 2—Incorporation of burden increasing NAVSAC recommendations. Alternative 2 would include all the changes in the proposed alternative and two additional changes recommended by NAVSAC. Those additional changes, which would increase the burden on the regulated community and expand the affected population, are as follows:

1. Lighting of gas pipelines (33 CFR 88.15). A 1991 NAVSAC resolution proposed lighting gas pipelines in a manner similar to that done with dredge pipelines as described in 33 CFR 88.15. However, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration has since published regulations affecting some of the gas pipelines that necessitated the original NAVSAC resolution. Additional study is now needed to determine if current regulations have effectively decreased the number of incidents and whether further Coast Guard regulatory action is required.

2. The requirement that vessels greater than 16 feet must carry the inland navigation rules booklet. This provision would expand the population of vessels that must carry a copy of the inland navigation rules from vessels 12 meters (approximately 39.37 feet) or more in length to vessels more than 16 feet long. The Coast Guard rejects this recommendation due to a lack of quantifiable benefits to justify a high regulatory burden on recreational vessels at this time.

Summary of the Proposed Rule

Vessels affected by this proposed rule would be vessels traveling on inland waters of the United States. At this time, we anticipate a small additional cost for future WIG craft to install a light. We estimate that there would not be additional costs or burden from the other harmonizing or discretionary provisions. A benefit of the harmonizing provisions is complying with COLREGS and the Presidential memo,. Both harmonizing and discretionary provisions would also provide regulatory flexibility to certain vessels. Some of the discretionary changes may help to reduce risk of collision. A summary of the Regulatory Analysis is provided in Table 2.

Table 2—Summary of the Regulatory Analysis Category Summary (harmonization) Summary (discretionary) Affected population All vessels traveling on inland waters All vessels traveling on inland waters. Certain subgroups of vessels (refer to Table 3 for details) Certain subgroups of vessels (refer to Table 3 for details). Costs Costs:
  • $112 annual.
  • $1,119 10-year total.
  • Costs: $0.
    Cost savings* (undiscounted) Cost savings:
  • $271,642 annual.
  • $2.72 million 10-year total
  • Unquantified benefits Compliance with the COLREGS and Presidential memo. Increased regulatory flexibility of regulations to certain vessels Incorporation of NAVSAC and NBSAC recommendations. Increased regulatory flexibility of regulations to certain vessels. Reduction of risk of collision for certain vessels. * Cost savings are uncertain. Our estimate illustrates the maximum cost savings that industry would receive.
    Affected Population

    This proposed rule would affect vessels on inland waters of the United States. Some of the provisions in this proposed rule would affect specific subgroups of these vessels. Population groups and subgroups affected by this proposed rule are listed in Table 3.

    Table 3—Breakdown of Affected Populations by Provision Type Affected by harmonization provisions Affected by discretionary provisions Vessels on inland waters Vessels on inland waters. Subgroups Subgroups • WIG craft.2
  • • Vessels of 12 meters or more, but less than 20 meters in length
  • • New high-speed vessels of 50 meters or more in length
  • • Vessels less than 75 meters.
  • • Vessels 20 meters or more in length
  • • Vessels equipped with radiotelephone alarms or radiotelegraph alarms
  • • Partially sunken vessels and objects being towed in combination
  • • Sailing vessels of less than 7 meters in length
  • • Vessels under oars
  • • Fishing vessels (non-trawling).
  • Summary of the Impacts of the Proposed Rule on Affected Populations

    2Wing-in-Ground craft are low-flying vehicles that use air pressure between the wing of the craft and the Earth's surface to create lift. While it is capable of flight, given the low altitude in which a WIG craft flies, it was incorporated by IMO (and consequently, US regulations) as a vessel. For more information regarding WIG craft, please refer to the IMO Web site:http://www.imo.org/ourwork/safety/regulations/pages/wig.aspxand this Web site dedicated to the discussion of WIG craft:http://www.se-technology.com/wig/index.php.

    This proposed rule would modify various sections of 33 CFR parts 83 through 88 to align domestic regulations with COLREGS, as much as practicable, and to incorporate NAVSAC recommendations. In Table 4, we provide a summary of the impacts, grouped by provision type and then affected population. Please refer to the regulatory text for specific changes.

    Table 4—Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Rule on the Affected Populations Section(s) and descriptions Population Costs and benefits Harmonizing Provisions Presidential Memo § 83.01(a) States that vessels must comply with this proposed rule and that this proposed rule preempts state and local laws All vessels Cost: $0 Vessels already comply with the federal regulations. There are no state laws that conflict with the federal regulations. Benefit: Clarifies federalism and adheres to the Presidential memo. Alignment with COLREGS § 83.03(a), § 83.03(m), § 83.18(f), § 83.23(c), § 83.31 Provides operational and lighting requirements for WIG craft when operating on water WIG craft Cost: $1,119 To install an all-round red light.
  • Benefit: Conforms with COLREGS.
  • § 83.08(a) Adds the phrase to read as, “[Any action taken to avoid collision] shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this part and shall” All vessels Cost: $0 All vessels must comply with existing regulations. There are no additional costs to the modified regulations in this part. Benefit: Conforms with COLREGS. § 83.33(a), Part 86, subpart B Removes the need for a bell New vessels 12 meters or more in length, but less than 20 meters in length Cost Savings: $299 per vessel, $2.72 million over 10 years.
  • Benefits: More lenient requirement. Conforms with COLREGS.
  • § 83.35(i) If the vessel is equipped with a bell and the bell is used, the sound must be made at 2-minute intervals New vessels 12 meters or more in length, but less than 20 meters in length Cost: $0 Applies to the use of existing bells. The use of bells is optional. Benefits: Reduces risk of collision if proper sound signal is used during reduced visibility. Conforms with COLREGS. § 84.13, § 84.24 Allows an optional modification to the masthead lighting.
  • Moves section to 33 CFR 84.13
  • New high-speed vessels of 50 meters or more in length Cost: $0 Does not require additional lights or modifications to existing lights.
  • Benefits: Makes lighting requirements more lenient.
  • Accommodates new vessels with novel designs. Conforms with COLREGS.
  • Part 86, subpart A Expands the acceptable range for fundamental frequencies. Vessels have the option of purchasing a greater range of whistles with different ranges than previously allowed. Vessels of less than 75 meters in length Cost: $0 Does not require vessels to buy a new whistle.
  • Benefits: less stringent standards allows for greater options of whistles for new vessels. Conforms with COLREGS.
  • Reduces the required frequencies for vessels of 20 meters or greater Vessels of 20 meters or more in length 33 CFR Part 87 Radiotelegraph and radiotelephone alarms would no longer be accepted as approved distress calls Vessels equipped with radiotelephone alarms or radiotelegraph alarms Cost: $0
  • Radiotelegraphs are obsolete.3Radiotelephones can be used, but not their alarms. Does not require equipment replacement.
  • Adds Digital Selective Calling, INMARSAT, and other mobile satellite service provider ship to Earth stations Benefit: Updates the list of approved distress signal equipment to incorporate the latest technologies. Conforms with COLREGS. Part 83.24(g) Partially sunken vessels and objects being towed in combination Partially submerged vessels and other objects being towed, in combination, would comply with lighting and shape requirements Cost: $0 Lighting and shape requirements for partially submerged vessels or other objects are already outlined. This rule uses same requirements if towing more than one at a time.
  • Benefits: Conforms with COLREGS.
  • § 83.03(m)-(q), § 83.08(a), § 83.09, § 83.18(d), § 83.18(e), § 83.20(e), § 83.23(c)-(d), § 83.24(c)(1), § 83.35(i)-(j). Part 84-ANNEX I, § 85-ANNEX II, Part 86-ANNEX III, Part 87-ANNEX IV, Part 88-ANNEX V, § 88.03, § 88.05, § 88.09, § 88.11, § 88.12, § 88.13, § 88.15 Renumbers or moves regulations without substantive changes in order to align text with that of COLREGS Cost: $0 Changes include removal of headings, moving sections to other locations, or renumbering. Provides no additional requirements to industry.
  • Benefits: Adherence to COLREGS formatting. Simplifies use between COLREGS and the CFR.
  • Discretionary Provisions § 83.07(b) Vessels with navigation technology must use it for collision avoidance purposes All vessels Cost: $0 Current industry practices already use these types of navigational equipment. Benefit: Expands option of auxiliary navigational equipment. If equipment is installed and used, it can reduce risk of collisino. Incorporates NAVSAC recommendations. § 83.25(d) Allows the optional use of an all-round white light Sailing vessels of less than 7 meters in length Cost: $0 Vessels can use additional lighting in the form of an all-round white light. Vessels under oars Does not require the purchase of additional equipment.
  • Benefits: Allows for more lighting options for better visibility. Incorporates NAVSAC and NBSAC recommendations.
  • § 83.26(c) Removes contradictory requirement. Provides clear standard Fishing vessel (non-trawling) Cost: $0 Removes contradictory statement.
  • Benefit: Provides a clear standard.
  • Costs

    3By 1995, the Coast Guard considered telegraph to be obsolete.http://www.gpo/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-01-27/pdf/95-2092.pdf

    As stated in sectionIII. Basis and Purposeof this preamble, the primary purpose of this proposed rule is to harmonize existing domestic law with the current international law.

    Most of the provisions harmonize the CFR with COLREGs by moving sections to different locations, renumbering, or reformatting.4 There are six changes to COLRREGS that affect specific vessels. The first change incorporates WIG craft into the population of affected vessels. The second change removes the need for a bell, particularly for new vessels of 12 meters or greater, but less than 20 meters. The third COLREGS provisions modify sound requirements for certain vessels. The fourth change modifies the formula for lighting requirements for high-speed vessels. The fifth significant COLREGS provision removes radiotelegraphs and radiotelephones as approved equipment for distress calls. The sixth and final change adds language about the combination of partially submerged vessels.

    4International MaritimeOrganization. Convention On the International Regulations For Preventing Collisions at Sea, 2003 (Consolidated Edition 2003). www.imo.org.

    A more detailed description of these changes is outlined in the following paragraphs. One other harmonizing change adds a preemption provision explaining that the codified regulation preempts state or local law within the same field. This provision complies with the Presidential memorandum and EO 13132, which requires executive agencies to ensure that its preemption statements have a sufficient legal basis and to make explicit in the codified regulation its intention to preempt State law, but does not change the compliance standards for vessels.

    1. Wing-in-Ground (WIG) Craft.As stated in the preamble of this NPRM, there are ongoing prototype and feasibility testing in the United States for WIG crafts. While we do not have any information as to the success rate of these tests, we assume that even prototype versions may be tested on inland waters or that some of them would successfully pass testing.

    Given the existence of prototype testing and the possibility of one being successful, we estimate that there may be one new vessel operating on inland waters in any given year.5 Assuming that there may be one WIG craft in any given year, the incremental cost is to install an all-round, high-intensity red light.

    5There has been some experimentation in developing WIG craft in some other countries, which would explain the additional language to incorporate WIG craft into regulation. Currently, there are only 3 currently in existence internationally. News regarding the Singaporean-flagged WIG craft:http://www.wigetworks.com/pdf/Press_Release-MV_Airfish_8_Christening_Ceremony.pdf.News regarding the two Korean WIG craft:http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/Wing-in-Gound-Effect-Craft-e28093-Furure-is-Here-Say-Korean-Shipbuilders41727.aspx.

    We then calculated cost to install the required light for WIG craft masthead light based on the growth rate (one vessel annually), multiplied by the cost of the light (one light required per vessel), and determined that this section of the proposed rule would provide a total undiscounted cost of $1,119.6 Table 5 describes the costs in terms of per vessel, annual savings, and total undiscounted cost.

    6The average cost for an all-round red light is: $112. The low cost is: $70http://www.go2marine.com/item/16246/series-40-all-round-navigation-lights-40004.html?WT.mc_id=gb1&utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=productfeed&utm_campaign=googleshopping.The high cost is $153http://shop.sailboatowners.com/prod.php?5910/Series+32+All-Round+LED+Lights.

    Table 5—Per Vessel, Average, Recurring, Total 10-year Undiscounted/Discounted Costs Future vessel population (annual) Per vessel
  • cost
  • Total 10-year undiscounted
  • cost
  • 7% Discounted
  • 10-year cost
  • 3% Discounted
  • 10-year cost
  • 1 $112 $1,119 $786 $954 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.

    Table 8 provides the breakdown of cost, both undiscounted and discounted (at 3 and 7 percent rates), over the 10-year period of analysis.

    Table 6—Total 10-year Undiscounted and Discounted Costs Year Undiscounted 7% Discounted
  • costs
  • 3% Discounted
  • costs
  • Year 1 $112 $105 $109 Year 2 112 98 105 Year 3 112 91 102 Year 4 112 85 99 Year 5 112 80 97 Year 6 112 75 94 Year 7 112 70 91 Year 8 112 65 88 Year 9 112 61 86 Year 10 112 57 83 Total 1,119 786 954 Annualized 112 112 112

    2. New vessels of 12 meters or more, but less than 20 meters, in length.One of the provisions in this NPRM removes the need for bells on vessels of 12 meters or more, but less than 20 meters, in length. This means that existing vessels of such length have the option of removing their bells, but are not required to do so. There is no cost to existing vessels since the provision does not require additional equipment or changes, nor does it require the removal of existing equipment. We estimate potential cost savings for new vessels using the assumption that owners would choose to follow this new provision and not install a bell. In other words, our estimate illustrates the maximum cost savings that industry would receive.

    In order to estimate the cost savings from not installing bells, we took a high range cost and a low range cost to calculate the average retail price of a bell ($299) to represent potential costs incurred by the owner should the owner choose to purchase and install a bell.7,8 We then estimated the future growth rate based on the build years of vessels listed in the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database from the years 2008 to 2011. During this time, 3,628 vessels were built in the 12-20 meter size range at an average rate of 907 annually (or 0.01 percent of the total population). We then calculated cost savings to industry based on the growth rate, multiplied by the cost of a bell, and determined that this section of the proposed rule would provide a 10-year total undiscounted cost savings of $2.72 million. Table 7 describes the savings in terms of per vessel, annual savings, and total undiscounted savings.

    7The cost to purchase an 8-inch bell is based on publically available information. Costs range between $109 and $489, making the average cost price $299. Date accessed April 2012. Low cost:http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=101003&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=50751&subdeptNum=50765&classNum=50766. High cost: http://www.wmjmarine.com/34437.html.

    8Based on subject matter experts including industry and Coast Guard, manufacturers of recreational vessels do not install bells on the vessels. In order to comply with current regulations, owners would purchase a bell 200 mm in diameter (approx. 8 inches) on the retail market and install it themselves.

    Table 7—Per Vessel (Greater Than or Equal to 12 Meters, but Less Than 20 Meters in Length), Recurring, and Total 10-year Undiscounted Costs Future vessel population (annual) Per vessel
  • cost savings
  • Annual cost
  • savings
  • Total 10-year
  • undiscounted
  • cost savings
  • 907 $299 $271,642 $2,716,420 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.

    Table 8 provides the breakdown of cost savings, both undiscounted and discounted (at 3 and 7 percent rates), over the 10-year period of analysis.

    Table 8—10-year Undiscounted and Discounted Rates Year Undiscounted 7% Discount
  • rates
  • 3% Discount
  • rates
  • Year 1 $271,642 $253,871 $263,730 Year 2 271,642 237,263 256,049 Year 3 271,642 221,741 248,591 Year 4 271,642 207,234 241,350 Year 5 271,642 193,677 234,321 Year 6 271,642 181,007 227,496 Year 7 271,642 169,165 220,870 Year 8 271,642 158,098 214,437 Year 9 271,642 147,755 208,191 Year 10 271,642 138,089 202,127 Total $2,716,420 $1,907,899 $2,317,161 Annualized $271,642 $271,642 $271,642

    3. Sound requirements based on the length of a vessel.Other modifications to sound requirements include the usage of a bell on certain vessels, and the relaxation of frequency standards for other vessels. As stated in the paragraphs dealing with cost savings, vessels of 12 meters or more in length are not required to have a bell. Should the owner choose to retain the bell and then decide to use it, the bell must be used at 2-minute intervals.

    For whistles used on vessels of less than 75 meters in length, the acceptable range for frequencies would be expanded. This provision does allow for the purchase of whistles that sound in the newly expanded ranges. The required sound pressure levels for vessels of 20 meters or more in length would also be relaxed. Currently, whistles for these vessels need to project the appropriate sound pressure levels measured at multiple frequency ranges. Our proposed rule would require the whistle to obtain a single minimum sound pressure level, which is based on the vessel's length, and is measured at only one frequency range.

    There would be no cost for this provision as this does not require the replacement of an existing whistle as those would still be within the proposed standards. Instead, purchasers of new whistles would have greater whistle options.

    4. High-speed Craft.The proposed lighting requirement replaces the established formula for placement of masthead lighting for new, high-speed vessels of 50 meters or greater in lengthwith length to beam ratios greater than 3. This proposed formula, if promulgated would set a lower minimum height for the main masthead light than the current U.S. formula. This modification is needed because wide, high speed vessels often operate with some angle of trim,9 which makes complying with the original formula onerous. The proposed formula accounts for trim, and aligns U.S. regulation with international standards. We anticipate that this proposed formula would not change the lighting requirements for existing vessels as the proposed formula is less strict about the height of the masthead (forward and main mast). We also anticipate that this requirement will maintain an equivalent level of safety as that provided by the current formula for mast head height.

    9Angle of trim describes the orientation of a vessel with respect tothe water. For example, zero trim occurs when the fore and aft drafts are the same.

    5. Radiotelegraphs and Radiotelephones alarms and updates to approved emergency distress call equipment.Another COLREGS change involves the removal of radiotelegraph alarms and radiotelephone alarms as approved equipment for announcing distress except via Morse Code SOS. This type of equipment is currently obsolete and is no longer used by industry. Also, this change was made in SOLAS V in 1999. It was also instituted domestically by the Coast Guard since the 1990s and has been in effect since then.10 We found no companies that use this equipment for distress signals. Since no vessel uses this equipment, there is no cost to purchase new equipment and no cost to remove this reference.

    10 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-01-27/pdf/95-2092.pdf.

    6. Partially sunken vessels and objects being towed in combination.Currently, partially submerged vessels or objects being towed must follow certain lighting and shape requirements. This provision would state that any combination of these two items being towed would also need to follow the same lighting and shape requirements. The main intent of this change is to conform with COLREGS. This provision was listed in COLREGS, but was accidentally left out when the provision was transferred to our regulations. Combinations of towed objects may be lit the same as individual objects. This means there are no additional lighting requirements that exist for combinations that didn't exist for individuals.

    Other harmonizing changes to the CFR are non-substantive and simply align current regulations to match the formatting of COLREGS (refer to Table 4 for the summary of these non-substantive changes). Overall, we estimate that the harmonizing provisions of this proposed rule would have no cost to industry.

    As noted above, there is a second category of changes being proposed by this NPRM, which recommendations from NAVSAC. These changes represent discretionary actions