[Federal Register: February 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 27)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6168-6170]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09fe07-7]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[USCG-1998-3417]
RIN 1625-AA19
Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response
Plans for Oil
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule; partial suspension of regulation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Current vessel response plan regulations require the owners or
operators of vessels carrying Groups I through V petroleum oil as a
primary cargo to identify in their response plans a salvage company
with expertise and equipment, and a company with firefighting
capability that can be deployed to a port nearest to the vessel's
operating area within 24 hours of notification (Groups I-IV) or a
discovery of a discharge (Group V). On January 23, 2004, a notice of
suspension was published in the Federal Register, suspending the 24-
hour requirement scheduled to become effective on February 12, 2004,
until February 12, 2007 (69 FR 3236). The Coast Guard has decided to
extend this suspension period for another two years to allow us to
complete the rulemaking that will revise the salvage and marine
firefighting requirements.
DATES: This extension is effective as of February 12, 2007. Termination
of the suspension will be on February 12, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-1998-3417 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov;
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251;
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh, Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329; or
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public will become
part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at
room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the same
address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. You may also access this docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule or
the partial suspension of regulations, call Lieutenant Commander Reed
Kohberger, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, Coast Guard
Headquarters, telephone 202-372-1471, or via e-mail:
Reed.H.Kohberger@uscg.mil. For questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Regulatory History
Requirements for salvage and marine-firefighting resources in
vessel response plans have been in place since February 5, 1993 (58 FR
7424). The existing requirements are general. The Coast Guard did not
originally develop specific requirements because each salvage and
marine firefighting response for an individual vessel is unique, due to
the vessel's size, construction, operating area, and other variables.
The Coast Guard's intent was to rely on the planholder to prudently
identify contractor resources to meet their needs. The Coast Guard
anticipated that the significant benefits of a quick and effective
salvage and marine-firefighting response would be sufficient incentive
for industry to develop salvage and marine firefighting capability
parallel to the development of oil spill removal organizations.
Early in 1997, it became apparent that there was disagreement among
planholders, salvage and marine-firefighting contractors, maritime
associations, public agencies, and other stakeholders as to what
constituted adequate salvage and marine-firefighting resources. There
was also concern as to whether these resources could respond to the
port nearest to the vessel's operating area within 24 hours.
On June 24, 1997, a notice of meeting was published in the Federal
Register (62 FR 34105) announcing a workshop to solicit comments from
the public on potential changes to the salvage and marine-firefighting
requirements currently found in 33 CFR part 155.
A public workshop was held on August 5, 1997, to address issues
related
[[Page 6169]]
to salvage and marine-firefighting response capabilities, including the
24-hour response time requirement, which was then scheduled to become
effective on February 18, 1998. The participants uniformly identified
the following three issues that they felt the Coast Guard needed to
address:
(1) Defining the salvage and marine firefighting capability that is
necessary in the plans;
(2) Establishing how quickly these resources must be on scene; and
(3) Determining what constitutes an adequate salvage and marine-
firefighting company.
Reason for Suspension
On February 12, 1998, a notice of suspension was published in the
Federal Register suspending the 24-hour requirement scheduled to become
effective on February 18, 1998, until February 12, 2001 (63 FR 7069) so
that the Coast Guard could address issues identified at a public
workshop through a rulemaking that would revise the existing salvage
and marine firefighting requirements. On January 17, 2001, a second
notice of suspension was published in the Federal Register suspending
the 24-hour requirement scheduled to become effective on February 12,
2001, until February 12, 2004 (66 FR 3876) because the potential impact
on small businesses from this new rulemaking requires the preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This was not determined
until a draft regulatory assessment was completed in November 2000. On
January 23, 2004, a third notice of suspension was published in the
Federal Register suspending the 24-hour requirement scheduled to become
effective on February 12, 2004, until February 12, 2007 (69 FR 3236)
because during the preceding three years, the Coast Guard had to
redirect the majority of its regulatory resources to issue security-
related regulations as required by the Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002. As a result, we were unable to complete our review of the
comments we received in response to a May 10, 2002, notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (67 FR 31868) on the proposed revisions to the
existing salvage and marine-firefighting requirements. Now that the
comments have been reviewed, and a draft programmatic environmental
assessment prepared, we will begin to prepare an updated regulatory
assessment.
The extension of the suspension period will continue to relieve the
affected industry from complying with the existing 24-hour requirements
until this rulemaking project is complete, and amendments to the
salvage and marine firefighting requirements become final.
Regulatory Evaluation
Although the final rule published in 1996 was a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget does not consider this extension a
significant action. As a result, it does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It is
not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considered whether this extension will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include 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 extension will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it reflects existing
conditions and relieves planholders from certain original requirements.
Any future regulatory action on this issue will address any economic
impacts, including impacts on small entities. Therefore, the Coast
Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this extension to a suspension of certain
requirements will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments
from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The
Ombudsman annually evaluates the enforcement activities and rates each
agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on
the enforcement actions of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-
734-3247).
Collection of Information
This action does not provide for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
We have analyzed this action under E.O. 13132 and have determined
that it does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
Because this action extends a suspension of certain requirements, it
does not preempt any state action.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action will not result in an unfunded mandate under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).
Taking of Private Property
This action will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This action 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.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed 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 6170]]
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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded
that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.
An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact are
available at http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf33/50180_web.pdf. We
have also reexamined that information and determined it is still
accurate.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 155 as follows:
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
0
1. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3715, 3719; sec.
2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sections 155.110-155.130, 155.350-155.400, 155.430, 155.440,
155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33
U.S.C. 1903(b); and Sec. Sec. 155.1110-155.1150 also issued 33
U.S.C. 2735.
Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials appear in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 150, 151,
and 153.
Sec. 155.1050 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 155.1050, paragraph (k)(3) is suspended until February 12,
2009.
Sec. 155.1052 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 155.1052, the last sentence in paragraph (f) is suspended
until February 12, 2009.
Dated: February 5, 2007.
J.G. Lantz,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 07-572 Filed 2-6-07; 10:42 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P