[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44817-44825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 164

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0926]
RIN 1625-AC27


Tankers--Automatic Pilot Systems in Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to permit tankers with automatic 
pilot systems that meet certain international standards to operate 
using those systems in waters subject to the shipping safety fairway or 
traffic separation scheme controls specified in our regulations. The 
proposed amendments would remove an unnecessary regulatory restriction, 
update the technical

[[Page 44818]]

requirements for automatic pilot systems, and promote the Coast Guard's 
maritime safety and stewardship (environmental protection) missions by 
enhancing maritime safety.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online 
docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management 
Facility, on or before October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0926 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.
    Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make 
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document or 
to view material proposed for incorporation 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. 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. Discussion of Proposed Rule
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. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, 
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment 
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If 
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice and all public 
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and 
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, 
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will 
be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal 
Docket Management System in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal 
Register (73 FR 3316).
    We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider 
doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We 
would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, 
time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
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
RA Regulatory Analysis
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec.  Section symbol
TSS Traffic separation scheme
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rulemaking is provided by 46 U.S.C. 2103 
and 3703. 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 of'' 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, 
which includes provisions for tanker carriage of liquid bulk dangerous 
cargoes. Section 3703 requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations 
for the operation, equipment, and other issues relating to the carriage 
of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. In DHS Delegation No. 0170.1 
(II)(70), (92.a), and (92.b), the Secretary delegated authority under 
these statutes to the Coast Guard.
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to permit tankers with 
automatic pilot systems (autopilots, a generic term) that meet certain 
international standards to operate using those systems in waters 
subject to the shipping safety fairway or traffic separation scheme 
(TSS) controls specified in 33 CFR parts 166 and 167.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 164.13, relating to the 
navigation of tankers underway. We promulgated Sec.  164.13 in 1993.\1\ 
Paragraph (d)(3) of the section prohibited a tanker's use of an 
autopilot in waters subject to 33 CFR part 166 shipping safety fairway 
\2\ or 33 CFR part 167 TSS \3\ controls, but made an exception for an 
autopilot working in concert with an ``integrated navigation system'' 
(INS),\4\ as described in paragraph (e) of the section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 58 FR 27633 (May 10, 1993).
    \2\ A fairway is defined by 33 CFR 166.105(a) as ``a lane or 
corridor in which no artificial island or fixed structure, whether 
temporary or permanent, will be permitted.'' Part 166 lists the U.S. 
waters subject to fairway controls.
    \3\ A TSS is defined by 33 CFR 167.5(b) as ``a designated 
routing measure which is aimed at the separation of opposing streams 
of traffic by appropriate means and by the establishment of traffic 
lanes.'' Part 167 lists the U.S. waters subject to TSS controls.
    \4\ ``The purpose of an integrated navigation system . . . is to 
provide `added value' to the functions and information needed by the 
officer in charge of the navigational watch . . . to plan, monitor 
or control the progress of the ship.'' MSC.86(70) Annex 3, para. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after we promulgated 33 CFR 164.13, we received a 
public comment noting that, at the time, ``INS'' described a wide range 
of shipboard systems for which there was no performance standard for 
the INS' accuracy, integrity, or reliability. Therefore, before Sec.  
164.13 was to take effect, we suspended paragraph (e) \5\ until such 
time as we could develop the testing and methodology necessary for 
certifying that an INS has satisfactory accuracy, integrity, and 
reliability. The 1993 suspension was noted in an editor's note to 33 
CFR 164.13.\6\ The

[[Page 44819]]

suspension had the effect of prohibiting the use of any autopilot in 
fairway or TSS waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 58 FR 36141 (Jul. 6, 1993).
    \6\ The note was inadvertently deleted in 1996, creating some 
industry confusion as to whether the suspension remained in effect. 
Some tanker owners and operators proceeded to install and operate 
INSs in TSS or fairway waters. The Coast Guard issued Marine Safety 
Information Bulletin 10/13 (Feb. 2013) to remind owner and operators 
that the suspension remained in effect. The editor's note was 
restored to the CFR in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 164.13(e) provided three criteria for showing that an INS 
can adequately control a tanker. The system must show that it:
    1. Can maintain a predetermined trackline with a crosstrack error 
of less than 10 meters 95 percent of the time;
    2. Can provide continuous position data accurate to within 20 
meters 95 percent of the time; and
    3. Has immediate override control.
    Today, Criterion 2 is easily met by any tanker with a modern global 
navigation satellite system, and Criterion 3 is met by all systems now 
on the market.
    Criterion 1, the ability to maintain a predetermined trackline with 
high accuracy, has benefited from advances in autopilot technology 
since 1993, in particular the advent of heading control systems,\7\ 
track control systems,\8\ or integrated navigation systems.\9\ The 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a voluntary industry 
consensus standards-setting body, has developed a standard for heading 
and track control systems. The International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) has adopted resolutions endorsing this standard and has 
recommended to IMO member states that they adopt performance standards 
``not inferior to'' \10\ those the IMO has adopted. We believe that 
tanker autopilot systems meeting the IEC standard should be relieved of 
the regulatory burden that prohibits their use in fairway and TSS 
waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A heading control system, ``in conjunction with its source 
of heading information, should enable a ship to keep a preset 
heading with minimum operation of the ship's steering gear.'' IMO 
Resolution MSC.64 (67), Annex 3, para. 2.1.
    \8\ ``Track control systems in conjunction with their sources of 
position, heading and speed information are intended to keep a ship 
automatically on a pre-planned track over ground under various 
conditions and within the limits related to the ship's 
maneuverability. A track control system may additionally include 
heading control.'' IMO Resolution MSC.74(69) Annex 2, para. 1.
    \9\ ``An INS is a combination of systems that are interconnected 
to increase safe and efficient navigation by suitably qualified 
personnel.'' IMO Resolution MSC.86(70), Annex 3, para. 3.3. An INS 
incorporates either a heading or track control system.
    \10\ IMO Resolution MSC.86(70), para. 3 (Dec. 8, 1998). 
Resolution MSC.86(70) applies to INS systems installed on or after 
Jan. 1, 2000. Resolution MSC.252(83) uses identical ``not inferior 
to'' language in recommending measures applicable to INS systems 
installed on or after Jan. 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since late 2013, we have relieved the existing regulatory burden on 
many tanker owners and operators by authorizing, on a case-by-case 
basis and in specific Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) zones, 
deviations \11\ from the Sec.  164.13(d)(3) prohibition on a tanker's 
use of an autopilot. To date, we have authorized 35 deviations allowing 
tankers to operate specific IEC-compliant autopilots in fairway or TSS 
waters within specific COTP zones. However, the authorization of 
deviations does not relieve the regulatory burden for those who do not 
apply for authorization, and what relief we do provide comes at the 
expense of new burdens on industry and the Coast Guard. First, a tanker 
owner or operator must apply for a deviation in each COTP zone in which 
the tanker operates. Second, the cognizant COTP must ensure that the 
tanker's autopilot is IEC-compliant, and then authorize the deviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Under 33 CFR 164.55. Deviations are authorized by letters 
of deviation issued by the cognizant COTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We would like to eliminate all these burdens on industry and the 
Coast Guard. Given that the apparent lack of standards in 1993 has now 
been remedied, we propose amending 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. Not only will this eliminate the current burdens on 
industry and the Coast Guard by giving force to IMO resolutions, it 
will also promote both the United States' leading role in IMO affairs, 
and the goals of Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International 
Regulatory Cooperation.'' \12\ Moreover, our proposal could enhance 
maritime safety, because the autopilots in question offer far greater 
precision and navigational safety than conventional autopilots, and 
arguably, even human steering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we propose amending 33 CFR 164.13(d), 
incorporating the existing substance of paragraph (d) and suspended 
paragraph (e) with the substantive changes we will describe, and also 
with nonsubstantive wording changes that are intended to improve Sec.  
164.13's clarity. Except as noted, those nonsubstantive changes are 
minor.
    In the introductory language in (d), we would make it clear that 
the paragraph preempts (makes invalid) State or local laws intended to 
regulate the same topic. Also, instead of the generic term 
``autopilot,'' we would specify that (d) authorizes the use of only a 
heading or track control system.
    In paragraph (d)(1), we would retain the existing Sec.  
164.13(d)(3)(iii) and (iv) prohibitions against using a track or 
heading control system within a half nautical mile of shore or within 
any anchorage ground specified in 33 CFR part 110.
    In paragraph (d)(2), we would retain, but substantially revise for 
clarity, the existing Sec.  164.13(d)(2) requirement for the full-time 
presence of a qualified person to assume manual control of the tanker's 
steerage.
    In paragraph (d)(3), we would replace the existing Sec.  
164.13(d)(1) reference to an IMO autopilot compliance standard with a 
reference to two editions of the IEC standard for heading and track 
control systems.
    We would remove existing suspended paragraph (e). As revised, 
paragraph (d) would replace the substance of that paragraph by setting 
new requirements for the use of heading or track control systems in 
fairway or TSS waters.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference in 33 CFR 164.13 
appears in the proposed amendment to 33 CFR 164.03. See ADDRESSES for 
information on viewing this material. Copies of the material are 
available from the sources listed in Sec.  164.03. Before publishing a 
binding rule, we will submit this material to the Director of the 
Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference. We 
propose incorporating the International Electrotechnical Commission 
standard IEC 62065, Edition 1.0 (2002-03) and Edition 2.0 (2014-02). 
Both editions of this standard specify operational and performance 
requirements and tests for heading and track control systems.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize 
our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

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, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563

[[Page 44820]]

emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of 
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' under 
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    A combined preliminary regulatory action (RA) and Threshold 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows and provides an evaluation of 
the economic impacts associated with this proposed rule. The table 
which follows provides a summary of the proposed rule's costs and 
benefits.

               Table 1--Summary of the Proposal's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially Affected Population........  An estimated 9,458 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     $12,403.
 accrue in the first year).
10-Year Total Quantified Cost Savings    $85,220.
 (7% discount rate).
10-Year Net Cost Savings (7% discount    $72,816.
 rate).
Annualized Net Savings (7% discount      $10,367.
 rate).
Unquantified Benefits..................  * Improve effectiveness without
                                          compromising safety.
                                         * Prevent misuse and
                                          misunderstandings.
                                         * Improved goodwill between
                                          regulated public and Coast
                                          Guard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would revise the existing regulations regarding 
navigation on tankers. It would update 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 and update the performance 
standard for traditional autopilot systems referenced in 33 CFR 
164.13(d). The proposed rule, if finalized, would remove an unnecessary 
regulatory restriction and result 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 
proposed rule would affect approximately 9,458 foreign-flagged vessels 
and approximately 95 U.S.-flagged vessels. No governmental 
jurisdictions would be impacted.
Costs
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule, if promulgated, would 
result in one-time costs of approximately $12,403 (7% discount) or an 
undiscounted cost of $13,272.\13\ These costs would be derived by 
regulated entities needing to communicate to their vessel staff 
information about the proposed change (a regulatory familiarization 
cost). The Coast Guard estimates that approximately 4 minutes (0.067 
hour) would be 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 $85.20 per hour (fully loaded to 
account for the cost of employee benefits) for an operations manager 
based on a mean wage rate of $55.81; this estimate is based on Bureau 
of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wages data, for General and Operations 
Managers for Industrial Production (11-1021, May 2013).\14\ From there, 
we applied a load factor of 1.53, to determine the actual cost of 
employment to employers and industry.\15\ The following table presents 
the estimated cost of compliance with the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As derived by the summation of the equations: [0.067 hour * 
$85.20 marine operations manager wage rate * (2,285 foreign-flagged 
vessel owner/operators + 40 U.S.-flagged vessel owner/operators)] * 
7% discount rate.
    \14\ The reader may review the source data at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes111021.htm. Also please see http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes436014.htm for the wage rate for an 
administrative assistant. After adding the load factor the wage rate 
for an administrative assistant is estimated to be $24.96. The wage 
rate for a lead engineer is estimated to be $100.22, which is 
derived from the product of the unloaded wage rate as found on the 
BLS Web site (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes119041.htm) and the 
load factor (1.53 rounded).
    \15\ This load factor is calculated specifically for production, 
transportation and material moving occupations, Full-time, Private 
Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520000D,CMU2010000520000P and 
CMU2020000520000D,CMU2020000520000P), 2014, 4th Quarter. Total cost 
of compensation per hour worked: $27.31, of which $17.89 is wages, 
resulting in a load factor of 1.526551 ($27.31/$17.89). USCG rounded 
this factor to 1.53 (rounded to the nearest hundredth). (Source: 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm as accessed on March 18, 2015. 
Using similar applicable industry groups and time periods results in 
the same estimate of load factor.

                           Table 2--Total Estimated Cost of Regulatory Familiarization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................         $12,403         $12,885         $13,272
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.......................................................          12,403          12,885          13,272
Annualized......................................................           1,766           1,511           1,327
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44821]]

    The Coast Guard has not estimated a cost to comply with the 
documents proposed to be incorporated by reference (International 
Electrotechnical Commission'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 already have been producing equipment to 
meet the standard; manufacturers typically will begin to make 
manufacturing modifications even before such changes are formally 
adopted. The proposal would not require owners and operators to acquire 
the standards; they would not need the standard in hand to be in 
compliance. They simply would look for evidence from manufacturers that 
products meet or exceed the standard before purchase. For these 
reasons, the Coast Guard has not included a cost for these provisions.
    No equipment would be required by the rule. As well, some parts of 
the affected population would experience no cost increase due to the 
rulemaking, since some vessels do not use autopilot under the 
conditions noted in the proposal; therefore they would have no costs. 
No further action would be required by these parties. Only 40 U.S. 
vessel owners and operators and approximately 2,285 foreign vessel 
owners and operators are potentially impacted; for these, they would 
incur a cost only if they need to communicate to staff the proposed 
rules changes on the use of autopilot.
Cost Savings
    The proposal would result in cost savings for the regulated public 
and the Coast Guard. The proposed rule would prevent unnecessary 
inquiries to the Coast Guard regarding regulations and the filing of 
(and Coast Guard processing of) letters of deviation (LODs). With 
regard to the first cost savings, the Coast Guard estimates that it 
spends a collective 20 hours annually (one hour per call on average) 
fielding calls from the regulated public seeking clarification of the 
intent of the existing regulations. This labor cost for the regulated 
public and the Coast Guard would be eliminated by the proposed 
rule.\16\ To estimate these costs, the Coast Guard used publicly 
available data as found in the Memorandum of the Commandant entitled 
``Coast Guard Reimbursable Standard Rates.'' \17\ Labor costs are 
estimated for the Coast Guard at $88 \18\ for a Lieutenant Commander. 
This figure represents a wage rate with a fully loaded labor factor of 
1.85 for uniformed Coast Guard positions. For the regulated public, the 
wage rate for a lead engineer is estimated to be $100.22 per hour, 
based upon a load factor applied to the BLS wage data; the unloaded 
wage rate for an engineering manager is $65.65 and the load factor is 
1.53 (rounded).\19\ The total cost savings from the elimination of 
inquiries to Coast Guard is estimated at $3,764 per year.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 20 hours annually * wage rate for lead engineer. The 
Government's cost is estimated by the equation 20 hours annually * 
wage rate for Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander (O-4).
    \17\ The memorandum is dated February 11, 2015 and is numbered 
COMDTINST 7310.1P. Enclosure 2 lists the relevant data. The 
memorandum may be found on www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1p.PDF. This document is known as Commandant Instruction P.
    \18\ See http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1p.PDF, See Enclosure 2 for in-government rate of an O-4 
officer and a GS-11 employee.
    \19\ This is the wage rate for 11-9041 Architectural and 
Engineering Managers as found at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes119041.htm and as accessed on February 12, 2015. As noted 
earlier, a load factor of 1.53 was applied.
    \20\ Coast Guard Cost Savings: ($88 Lt Commander * 1 hour * 20 
calls per year = $1760) Regulated Public Cost Savings: ($100.22 lead 
engineer * 1 hour * 20 calls per year = $2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal would save the regulated public and the 
Coast Guard labor costs associated with the filing and processing of 
annual LODs. The proposal would preclude the need for the regulated 
public to file an LOD. In doing so, it would preclude 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 operations manager's time and 0.5 hour of an administrative 
assistant's time to prepare and submit the LOD. These precluded costs 
would be incurred annually and would be calculated by the sum of the 
products of the loaded wage rates and labor duration estimates times 
the number of requests per year.\21\ In turn, we estimate that the 
Coast Guard would spend 0.6 hour of a Lieutenant Commander's time; and 
0.5 of an administrative assistant's time to process, review and 
respond to each LOD request. The loaded wage rates for these positions 
are: $88 for a Lieutenant Commander (O-4); $58 for an administrative 
assistant (GS-11). These wage rates may be found in Commandant 
Instruction P (Enclosure 2's in-government rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ($85.20/hour operations manager's wage rate * 1.7 hours) + 
($24.96/hour admin assistant's wage rate * 0.5 hour) * (35 
submissions) Wage data may be found from the US Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes111021.htm and http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes436014.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, which would be precluded by the proposed rule. We 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, which is entitled Ports and Waterways 
Safety--Title 33 CFR Subchapter P (RIN 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. We estimate that the regulated public would 
spend approximately 2.2 hours to prepare the paperwork and to file an 
LOD.\22\ In addition, we estimate that the Coast Guard spends 1.1 hours 
in total for each LOD.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 35 waivers annually * [1.7 hours * wage rate for operations 
manager + 0.5 hour * wage rate for an admin assistant].
    \23\ 35 waivers annually * [0.6 hour * wage rate for Lt. 
Commander + 0.5 hour * wage rate for Coast Guard admin assistant].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total cost savings per year would be $12,133.\24\ The following 
table presents the estimated cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ $4,623 in Government cost savings plus $7,510 in regulated 
public cost savings.

[[Page 44822]]



                                                                               Table 3--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.................................................................      -$7,019      -$7,292         -$7,510      -$4,321      -$4,488         -$4,623     -$11,340     -$11,780        -$12,133
2.................................................................       -6,560       -7,079          -7,510       -4,038       -4,358          -4,623      -10,598      -11,437         -12,133
3.................................................................       -6,131       -6,873          -7,510       -3,774       -4,231          -4,623       -9,904      -11,104         -12,133
4.................................................................       -5,730       -6,673          -7,510       -3,527       -4,107          -4,623       -9,256      -10,780         -12,133
5.................................................................       -5,355       -6,478          -7,510       -3,296       -3,988          -4,623       -8,651      -10,466         -12,133
6.................................................................       -5,004       -6,290          -7,510       -3,081       -3,872          -4,623       -8,085      -10,161         -12,133
7.................................................................       -4,677       -6,107          -7,510       -2,879       -3,759          -4,623       -7,556       -9,866         -12,133
8.................................................................       -4,371       -5,929          -7,510       -2,691       -3,649          -4,623       -7,062       -9,578         -12,133
9.................................................................       -4,085       -5,756          -7,510       -2,515       -3,543          -4,623       -6,600       -9,299         -12,133
10................................................................       -3,818       -5,588          -7,510       -2,350       -3,440          -4,623       -6,168       -9,028         -12,133
10-Year...........................................................      -52,750      -64,065         -75,104      -32,470      -39,435         -46,230      -85,220     -103,500        -121,334
Annualized........................................................       -7,510       -7,510  ..............       -4,623       -4,623  ..............      -12,133      -12,133  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would result in a net cost savings of $72,816 (7% 
discount rate for a 10 year period) since the estimated cost savings 
exceed the costs of the proposed rule. Costs are incurred only in year 
1. The net cost savings of the proposal are calculated by subtracting 
the total cost of the rule ($12,403) from the total cost savings 
($85,220). These cost savings result from precluded labor costs to the 
regulated public and to the Coast Guard as noted earlier. Table 4 
presents the cost savings of the proposal.

                                       Table 4--Estimated Net Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................          $1,064          $1,105          $1,138
Year 2..........................................................         -10,598         -11,437         -12,133
Year 3..........................................................          -9,904         -11,104         -12,133
Year 4..........................................................          -9,256         -10,780         -12,133
Year 5..........................................................          -8,651         -10,466         -12,133
Year 6..........................................................          -8,085         -10,161         -12,133
Year 7..........................................................          -7,556          -9,866         -12,133
Year 8..........................................................          -7,062          -9,578         -12,133
Year 9..........................................................          -6,600          -9,299         -12,133
Year 10.........................................................          -6,168          -9,028         -12,133
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         -72,816         -90,615        -108,062
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Annualized......................................................         -10,367         -10,623         -10,806
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    The proposed rule would amend existing regulations to remove the 
requirements that prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems. The 
proposal also would update the performance standard for traditional 
autopilot systems. The Coast Guard is pursuing this amendment to 
existing standards in order to prevent inefficient use of labor and to 
add clarity to the current system; the proposal would prevent 
inefficient use of labor (as noted in the cost savings discussion 
earlier) and would add clarity to the regulated public as to the need 
for safety precautions. The proposed changes would improve regulatory 
intent and keep regulations in step with existing technology without 
compromising the existing level of safety. Instead, the proposed rule 
would promote maritime safety by eliminating confusion associated with 
outdated regulations that have not kept pace with technology.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    In developing the proposal, the Coast Guard considered the 
following alternatives when developing the proposed rule:
    1. Take no action.
    2. Develop a different time table for small entities.
    3. Provide an exemption for small entities (from the proposed 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, while the third alternative 
would prevent small entities from enjoying the benefits of these 
efficiencies at all. As 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 would incur a cost, the Coast Guard estimates costs to be 
less than $6 per entity.\25\ Cost savings would accrue only to those 
covered by the rulemaking and 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 that cost savings would be less than $200 per 
affected entity annually.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As noted earlier, the cost to communicate information is 
calculated by the equation $85.20 wage rate * 0.067 hour.
    \26\ Labor to make an inquiry is estimated by the equation: 1.7 
hours * wage rate for operations manager + 0.5 hour * wage rate for 
an admin assistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed earlier, we rejected these alternatives 
in favor of the

[[Page 44823]]

preferred alternative. The preferred alternative (the proposed rule) 
would amend existing regulations to remove the requirements that 
prohibit tanker use of autopilot systems. The preferred alternative 
also would update the performance standard for traditional autopilot 
systems.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 
50,000 people.
    The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on small entities. As described in the 
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section, the Coast Guard expects 
this proposed rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities. 
An estimated 67 percent of the regulated companies (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 proposed rule (which are only regulatory 
familiarization costs) would amount to less than 1 percent of revenue 
for all small entities ($5.71 per entity) and, therefore, do not 
represent a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Costs would be incurred only in the first year of the 
final rule's enactment. No additional costs for labor or equipment 
would be incurred in future years. In fact, as this rule is removing an 
unnecessary regulatory restriction, this rule is expected to reduce 
labor costs. No small governmental jurisdictions are impacted by the 
proposed rule.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think 
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction 
qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the 
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your 
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree 
this proposed rule would affect it economically.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Coast Guard 
(see ADDRESSES). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this proposed 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 businesses. 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 proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; the 
proposed rule would not add requirements for recording and 
recordkeeping to the existing collection which is entitled Ports and 
Waterways Safety--Title 33 CFR Subchapter P and which is numbered 1625-
0043. However, the proposed rule would adjust this collection. As 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises 
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 
similar actions. The proposed rule would not require additional tasks 
by the regulated public but would eliminate the need for the regulated 
public to file LODs under conditions as specified by the proposed rule. 
The Coast Guard estimates that there would be 35 fewer LODs filed 
annually because of the proposed 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 the proposal. Under 
the proposed rule, Coast Guard would no longer require an LOD for 
tankers as specified in the proposal. The proposal would preclude the 
need for 35 or fewer LODs annually to be submitted to the Coast Guard 
for approval. It also would preclude 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.
    This proposed rule would amend an existing collection of 
information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520); the rule removes regulatory requirements which 
necessitate the filing of LODs under conditions as specified in the 
proposed rule. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of 
information'' comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, 
labeling, and other similar actions. 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: The existing collection 
of information requires written responses such as LODs. Under the 
proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer require an LOD to be 
submitted under specific conditions as noted in the proposal; LODs 
would 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.
    Proposed 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 proposed rule for this 
collection of information includes submittal of LODs. This collection 
of information applies to owners/operators of vessels which travel in 
the regulated waterways. We estimate the maximum number of respondents 
is 35 per year.
    Frequency of Responses: Letters of Deviation under the conditions 
noted in

[[Page 44824]]

the proposal are filed once per year. The proposal would eliminate the 
need for this particular use of the LOD. The Coast Guard estimates that 
35 fewer LODs would be filed annually because of the proposal.
    Burden of Response: The burden of response for each LOD is an 
estimated 2.2 hours.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: This proposed rule would decrease 
burden hours by 77 hours from the previously approved burden estimate 
of 2,110.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its 
review of the collection of information.
    We invite public comment on the proposed collection of information. 
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 need not 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 E.O. 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have 
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our 
analysis is explained below.
    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 \27\ (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. Thus, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism 
and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Public Law 92-340, 86 Stat. 424, as amended; codified at 33 
U.S.C. 1221 et seq- 1232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, E.O. 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 E.O. 
13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

 G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This 
proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

 J. Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 
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 proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under E.O. 13211 because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under E.O. 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 proposed rule uses voluntary consensus standards to track control 
and integrated navigation systems used in vessel automatic pilot 
systems. 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 International Electrotechnical Commission, an 
international voluntary consensus

[[Page 44825]]

standards-setting organization, and the IMO.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f, and we have 
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category 
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this categorical exclusion determination is 
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public 
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble.
    This proposed rule involves regulations concerning tank vessel 
equipment approval and operation. Thus, this proposed rule will likely 
be categorically excluded under Section 2.b.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 
34(d), (e), and (i) of the Instruction and Section 6(a) of the 
``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures 
for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 
48243, July 23, 2002). We seek any comments or information that may 
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 164

    Marine, Navigation (water), Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 164 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 by adding 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/.
    (1) IEC 62065 Edition 1.0 (2002-03), Maritime navigation and 
radiocommunications equipment and systems--Track control systems--
Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and 
required test results--incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  
164.13(d).
    (2) IEC 62065 Edition 2.0 (2014-02), Maritime navigation and 
radiocommunications equipment and systems--Track control systems--
Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and 
required test results--incorporation by reference 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 beyond one-half nautical mile off shore or not 
within waters specified in 33 CFR part 110 (anchorages);
    (2) There is a person, competent to steer the vessel, present to 
assume manual control of the steering station; 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).

    Dated: June 28, 2016.
David C. Barata,
Acting Director of Marine Transportation Systems Management, U.S. Coast 
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-15791 Filed 7-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P