[Federal Register: March 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13102-13105]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18mr05-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 174
[USCG-2003-15708]
RIN 1625-AA75
Terms Imposed by States on Numbering of Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
[[Page 13103]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule expands the number of conditions that a State may
require in order for owners to obtain vessel numbering certificates in
that State. Current Federal statutes and regulations limit these
conditions to proof of ownership or payment of State or local taxes.
The rule allows any State to impose proof of liability insurance as a
condition for obtaining vessel numbering certificates in that State.
Currently, States are not prohibited from requiring proof of liability
insurance to operate a recreational vessel. However, States are
prohibited from using an efficient mechanism, such as vessel
registration, to manage and enforce such a requirement.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2003-15708 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Audrey Pickup, Office of Boating Safety, at Coast Guard
Headquarters, telephone 202-267-0872. If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On January 14, 2004, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Terms Imposed by States on Numbering of
Vessels, in the Federal Register (69 FR 2098). We received ten letters
commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and
none was held.
Background and Purpose
Title 46 of the United States Code contains provisions, in chapter
123, for the numbering of undocumented vessels equipped with propulsion
machinery of any kind, which primarily include recreational boats and
some types of commercial vessels. Vessels must carry an identification
number issued in compliance with the Standard Numbering System (SNS)
maintained by the Coast Guard. States can administer their own
numbering programs if those programs comply with SNS requirements and
receive Coast Guard approval. SNS requirements include a limitation on
the conditions that States can impose on applicants for vessel
numbering. A State cannot impose any condition unless it relates to
proof of tax payment, or has been sanctioned by Coast Guard
regulations. The relevant Coast Guard regulation is 33 CFR 174.31. It
permits States to impose only two conditions: proof of tax payment, and
proof of ownership.
In recent years, States have expressed an interest in imposing an
additional condition--proof of liability insurance--which many people
think will promote public safety. Currently, however, a State cannot
impose such a requirement as a condition for vessel numbering without
going beyond what 33 CFR 174.31 authorizes. As a result, a State
imposing a liability insurance requirement as a condition for vessel
numbering would not be in compliance with the SNS requirements of
Federal law. This could threaten continued Coast Guard approval of the
State's numbering system. Loss of that approval could result in
decreased Federal funding for the State's recreational boating safety
program. The Coast Guard views these as undesirable results in light of
the possible public safety benefit that could result from a State's
decision to add an insurance condition. This rule avoids those results
by amending 33 CFR 174.31.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
We received 10 sets of comments on this rule. The comments came
from 2 State agencies, 2 national associations, 1 group of students,
and 5 individuals.
Three comments explicitly expressed support for the rule, which we
appreciate.
A State agency commented that most boat dealers who were polled
showed strong opposition to the rule, with mild support from others.
The State agency's position is that it can support the rule as long as
proof of liability insurance is not a mandatory requirement.
Response: This rule does not require liability insurance. It simply
allows a State to decide whether or not to impose a liability insurance
requirement, without risking the loss of Coast Guard approval of its
vessel numbering system.
One commenter noted that the rule would give States more
flexibility in managing undocumented vessels. The commenter said it
would allow States to provide an important assurance that the damage
caused by a boater would be compensated by the boater's insurer, and
that this in turn would promote boating safety by deterring unsafe
boaters.
Response: We agree with this commenter that the rule should provide
States with greater flexibility in managing undocumented vessels that
operate in their waters. However, we express no opinion on the policy
issues raised by the commenter.
Many other commenters took sides on whether or not proof of
insurance should be required. Most of them expressed the opinion that
such a requirement would not increase public safety. Others felt such a
requirement would be worthwhile if one life could benefit from it, and
one association reported that its members strongly support an insurance
requirement. One commenter asked if any statistics could be presented
to demonstrate the impact of insurance on public safety.
Response: We express no opinion on the policy issues raised by
these commenters. In some states, many people think boaters should
carry liability insurance and that it could promote boating safety.
However, under current regulations, if a State requires boaters to
carry insurance as a condition for vessel numbering, the State could
lose Coast Guard approval for its vessel numbering system. A State
without a Coast Guard-approved vessel numbering system could lose
valuable Federal funding. The only difference this rule makes is that,
now, a State will be able to require insurance without losing Coast
Guard approval of its numbering system.
One commenter argued that the State-imposed requirements currently
permitted by our regulation--proof of ownership and proof of tax
payment--are both relevant to the process of numbering a vessel,
whereas the vessel's insurance status is not. This commenter stated
that States that impose an insurance requirement would be treating
vessel ownership and, indirectly, the use of recreational vessels as a
privilege and not as a right. Another commenter with a similar position
stated that the rule would be forcing another cost on the marine
industry.
Response: Because this rule does not impose any liability insurance
requirement and leaves that decision to States, we take no position on
whether or not such a requirement could turn rights into privileges,
whether some data might be more directly related to vessel numbering
than others, or whether it could force a cost on the marine industry.
This rule simply gives
[[Page 13104]]
States the ability to make these determinations for themselves, without
jeopardizing the approved status of their vessel numbering systems.
One group of students challenged various aspects of our regulatory
analysis. They said our environmental checklist wrongly denies that the
rule will have an impact on public health or safety; they felt the
impact would be positive. Likewise, they challenged our small entities
analysis and said the rule would affect local businesses and
recreational boat owners, and should be changed to cover foreign boat
manufacturers and operators as well. Finally, this group felt we were
overlooking the rule's positive impact on protecting children.
Response: We acknowledge that some persons believe requiring, or
not requiring, boaters to carry liability insurance will have a bearing
on the issues raised by this group. However, the Coast Guard takes no
position on such a requirement, and the rule itself neither imposes nor
prohibits such a requirement. Our only purpose is to allow each State
to decide whether or not to impose such a requirement, without risking
the loss of Coast Guard approval of its vessel numbering system.
One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard should consider ways
to ensure that a liability policy is maintained in force by the boater
even after the vessel's certificate is issued.
Response: Because this rule does not impose any liability insurance
requirement and leaves that decision to States, the details of any such
requirement are beyond the scope of this rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary.
Cost of Rule
This rule would allow States to require proof of liability
insurance as a condition for vessel registration. Because this rule
simply allows a State to decide whether or not to impose a liability
insurance requirement as a condition for vessel numbering, it would not
impose any direct costs on vessel owners in any State.
Benefits of Rule
This rule expands the number of conditions States can consider in
administering vessel numbering programs.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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.
This rule allows any State to impose proof of liability insurance
as a condition for obtaining vessel numbering certificates in that
State. It imposes no costs on the public. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3501-3520].
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
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 or more in any
one year. Though this final rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This final rule will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This final 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.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.
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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with
[[Page 13105]]
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(d), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. This rule simply allows a State to decide whether or not
to impose a liability insurance requirement as a condition for vessel
numbering. An ``Environmental Analysis Checklist'' and a ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 174
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 174 as follows:
PART 174--STATE NUMBERING AND CASUALTY REPORTING SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 174 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 6101 and 12302; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1 (92).
0
2. Amend Sec. 174.31 by revising the section title, redesignating
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 174.31 Terms imposed by States for numbering of vessels.
* * * * *
(b) Proof of liability insurance for a vessel except a
recreational-type public vessel of the United States; or
* * * * *
Dated: December 20, 2004.
R. D. Sirois,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-5337 Filed 3-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P