Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-19154

Rule2022-19154

State Enforcement of Inland Navigation Rules

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 6, 2022

Effective

September 6, 2022

Issuing agencies

Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54385-54390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 83

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

State Enforcement of Inland Navigation Rules

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for comment.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Jeffrey Decker, Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and
Boating Safety (CG-BSX); telephone 202-372-1507, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afe5cac9c9ddcad681ea81ebcaccc4caddefdadcccc881c2c6c3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eca6898a8a9e8995c2a9c2a8898f87899eac999f8f8bc2818580">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Abbreviations

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

[[Page 54386]]

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

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 54387]]

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

\10\ 46 U.S.C. Ch. 131: RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY (<a href="http://house.gov">house.gov</a>).
See Section 13107: Authorization of Appropriations. last viewed
June, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Rule

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

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

[[Page 54388]]

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

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

\11\ Recreational-Boating-Statistics-2020.pdf
(<a href="http://menlosecurity.com">menlosecurity.com</a>), last viewed March, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 54389]]

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

B. Small Entities

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

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

This rule interim rule calls for no new or revised collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13132
and determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis follows.
States may not regulate in categories reserved by Congress for the
exclusive regulation by the Coast Guard. For example, the categories
covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel
qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of
casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the
field foreclosed from regulation by the States. See United States v.
Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000). This interim rule, however, is correcting a
misstatement in the Inland Rules to clarify that the Inland Rules are
not field preemptive of State regulation of categories touching upon
navigational safety. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

G. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

[[Page 54390]]

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

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

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

M. Environment

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

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 83

Navigation (water); Waterways.

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

PART 83--NAVIGATION RULES

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

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

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

Sec. 83.01 Application (Rule 1).

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

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

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 6, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.