[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36825-36830]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 155 and 156
[USCG-2001-9046]
RIN 1625-AB12
Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices on Single-Hull Tank
Ships and Single-Hull Tank Barges Carrying Oil or Oil Residue as Cargo
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove its regulations for tank
level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices because compliant devices
remain unavailable. In July 2005, we published a final rule suspending
Coast Guard regulations for TLPM devices with a request for public
comments on the status of TLPM technology development and other means
of detecting leaks from oil cargo tanks into the water. We received two
comments supporting our suspension of the regulations for TLPM devices.
We received no new information on TLPM devices or alternatives for
detecting leaks into the water from single-hull tank vessels carrying
oil or oil residue as cargo. Based on the public response to the
suspension, the absence of new information regarding TLPM devices or
alternatives, and the results of a Congressionally-mandated study, the
Coast Guard revisited the feasibility and practicality of retaining
regulations for TLPM devices on single-hull tank vessels and concluded
that it is appropriate to remove these regulations.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before August 29, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2001-9046 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
(3) Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Deliveries
may be made between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and materials received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also find this
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Mr. Vincent Berg, Regulatory Development Manager, Office of
Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-523), Coast Guard, telephone
202-372-1493, or e-mail address, Vincent.F.Berg@uscg.mil. For technical
questions concerning tank level or pressure monitoring devices contact
Ms. Dolores Mercier, Technical Program Manager, Systems Engineering
Division (CG-521), Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1381, or e-mail
Dolores.Mercier@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting comments
B. Viewing comments and documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public meeting
II. Background and Purpose
III. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
[[Page 36826]]
any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2001-9046), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter. This
also allows us to contact you in the event further information is
needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your
submission because of technical difficulties and you cannot be
contacted, your submission may not be considered. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to
the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-9046) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Background and Purpose
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380), directed
the Coast Guard to promulgate a number of regulations, including a
variety of standards for the design and operation of equipment to
reduce the number and severity of tank vessel oil spill incidents.
Section 4110 of OPA 90 (46 U.S.C 3703 note) addressed initiatives to:
Establish standards for devices that measure oil levels in
cargo tanks or devices that monitor cargo tank pressure level
(Functionally, these tank level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices
measure changes in cargo volume, thereby detecting possible oil leaks
into the water); and
Issue regulations establishing requirements concerning the
use of these devices on tank vessels carrying oil or oil residue as
cargo.
In May 1991, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comments
related to TLPM devices on tank vessels carrying oil cargo. 56 FR
21116. In August of 1992, the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center completed a feasibility study (Volpe study) on TLPM devices for
the Coast Guard Marine Technical and Hazardous Materials Division. Some
important features of the Volpe study were:
Identifying ship motions, sloshing, air pocketing, and the
formation of foam in cargo tanks as the major obstacles to accurate
tank-level detection;
Finding that the attainable accuracy with electronic
surface level sensing systems is within 2 percent of the actual cargo
level; and
Concluding that the high cost of installing a modern tank
level sensing system will naturally lead to development of alternative
approaches to leak detection and alarming.
In February 1993, we solicited public comment on the study via
Federal Register Notice and we held a public meeting at Coast Guard
Headquarters in December 1994 to discuss proposed standards and rules
for TLPM devices. 58 FR 7292 and 59 FR 58810, respectively. As a result
of the comments received, on August 21, 1995, we published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish minimum performance standards
for TLPM devices. 60 FR 43427.
In March 1997, we published a temporary rule on performance
standards for TLPM devices. 62 FR 14828. In the temporary rule, we
advised the public of our conclusion that current technology could not
meet the sensitivity requirements proposed in the NPRM and requested
the submission of new or modified TLPM devices that could meet the
performance standards set out in the proposed rule. It was our intent
to evaluate submitted devices and confirm that they met the performance
standards required by the temporary rule. We would have assessed the
costs and benefits offered by these devices and used that information
to decide whether or not to develop regulations on the installation and
use of TLPM devices; but when the temporary rule expired in April 1999,
no devices had been submitted to us for evaluation. Therefore, based on
the absence of devices that would satisfy our proposed requirements and
the negligible contribution TLPM devices would make to prevent oil
pollution compared to the rest of the OPA 90 initiatives, we decided
not to proceed with regulations that required the use of TLPM devices
on single-hull tank vessels.
In 1999, Bluewater Network and Ocean Advocates brought suit in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In their
suit, the petitioners asked the Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering
us to promulgate TLPM regulations. In December 2000, the Court agreed
with the petitioners on this item and directed the Coast Guard to
promptly promulgate regulations setting TLPM standards and requiring
use of TLPM devices on tank vessels.
In October 2001, we published in the Federal Register another NPRM
entitled ``Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices.'' 66 FR 49877. In
September 2002, we published the Final Rule for ``Tank Level or
Pressure Monitoring Devices.'' 67 FR 58515. This final rule detailed
TLPM performance criteria and described the vessels required to install
and use TLPM devices by 2007. To date, however, we have identified no
devices meeting the performance criteria established in the final rule,
and none have been submitted by industry for our evaluation.
[[Page 36827]]
In 2004, Congress amended the language of section 4110 of OPA 90 in
section 702 of the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Authorization
Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat 1028 (2004)). The amended
statute grants the Coast Guard discretion in establishing performance
standards and carriage requirements for TLPM devices. Congress also
directed the Coast Guard to study alternatives to TLPM devices for
detecting leaks from oil cargo tanks into the water. We submitted the
final report to Congress entitled ``Report to Congress on Costs and
Benefits of Alternatives to Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices''
(Final Report) in March 2006. A copy of this report was added into the
docket for the original TLPM device rulemaking, USCG-2001-9046. We also
notified the public of the availability of the final report to Congress
through a notice published in the Federal Register on November 17,
2006. 71 FR 66960.
In July 2005, we published a final rule suspending the regulations
for TLPM devices for three years until July 21, 2008. 70 FR 41614. In
the final rule, we also solicited public comment on the status of TLPM
technology development and alternatives to TLPM devices. In response,
we received two comments supporting our suspension of the regulations
for TLPM devices and no new information on TLPM devices or
alternatives. In our Final Report, referenced above, we concluded that
the ratio of cost versus effectiveness for TLPM devices is greater than
it was when the original regulations were published in 2002. 67 FR
58515. As a result, we revisited the feasibility and practicality of
retaining regulations for TLPM devices on single-hull tank vessels and
concluded that it is appropriate to remove these regulations.
Since the suspension of regulations for TLPM devices would expire
on July 21, 2008 and no TLPM devices have been submitted to the Coast
Guard for approval, we published another final rule on May 5, 2008
extending the suspension for three additional years until May 5, 2011.
Now, given this background and the continued unavailability of
devices meeting the performance criteria established in the final rule,
we propose to remove the regulations in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 for
TLPM devices.
III. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Executive Order 12866
This proposed 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 has not reviewed it under that Order.
A draft Regulatory Assessment follows:
The effectiveness of TLPM devices and alternatives are dependent
upon the crew's ability to take corrective action when alerted. Some of
the factors affecting the amount of oil saved, or not spilled, include:
The alarm threshold;
The size and number of tanks involved;
The leakage rate;
The crew's capacity for taking action, such as equipment
and training; and
The time required to respond to an alarm.
While developing the 2002 TLPM device regulations (67 FR 58515,
September 17, 2002), we identified 27 pollution incidents during the
period from 1992 to 2001 where a TLPM device would have reduced the
amount of oil spilled. Our analysis included estimating the barrels of
oil that would have been prevented from entering the water by a TLPM
device, based on the amount spilled, the failure mechanism (such as
tank overfill and hull failure), and factors representing the
probability of effectiveness. After analyzing these cases, we found an
average of 339 barrels of oil per year would have been prevented from
entering the water from 1992 to 2001. We further projected that a TLPM
device would result in a benefit of preventing 874 barrels of oil
(discounted) from entering the water for the period 2006, when the
benefits began accruing, to 2015, when all single-hull tank vessels
would be phased out. This figure took into account the dwindling number
of single-hull tank vessels between the years 2000 and 2015 and the
diminishing risk of pollution.
For the 2002 rule, we estimated the cost to industry was $166.4
million (discounted at 7%) for the five-year phase-in period of the
rule, between 2003 and 2007. We calculated a cost-effectiveness figure
of about $190,000 per barrel of oil not spilled by dividing the cost of
the rule by the projected 874 barrels of oil (discounted at 7%)
prevented from entering the water. This means that it costs society
approximately $190,000 to keep each barrel of oil out of the water
through installation of a compliant TLPM device. The estimate of
benefits was based on an assumption that compliant TLPM device
technology would be available by 2005. However, no compliant TLPM
device technology existed at the publishing of the final rule in 2002
and none has been marketed since then. Table 1 shows the original
projections of oil not spilled for 2000 to 2015 as a result of the TLPM
device regulations. The full regulatory analysis for the 2002
rulemaking can be found in docket for USCG-2001-9046.
Table 1.--Barrels Not Spilled Attributable to TLPM Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value PV
Percent of total Schedule of Implementation Benefit for TLPM benefit (barrels
Calendar year (CY) available barrels not schedule (%) (barrels not not spilled,
capacity (U.S.) spilled spilled) 2002) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tank Ships (U.S. and International)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2000.................................................. 100.00 91.10 ................. ................. .................
CY 2001.................................................. 96.17 87.61 ................. ................. .................
CY 2002.................................................. 88.16 80.32 ................. ................. .................
CY 2003.................................................. 83.59 76.15 ................. ................. .................
CY 2004.................................................. 74.90 68.23 ................. ................. .................
CY 2005.................................................. 66.60 60.67 ................. ................. .................
CY 2006.................................................. 51.36 46.79 33 15.44 11.78
CY 2007.................................................. 47.35 43.14 66 28.47 20.30
CY 2008.................................................. 41.66 37.95 100 37.95 25.29
CY 2009.................................................. 37.25 33.93 100 33.93 21.13
CY 2010.................................................. 32.82 29.89 100 29.89 17.40
CY 2011.................................................. 27.11 24.70 100 24.70 13.44
CY 2012.................................................. 20.43 18.61 100 18.61 9.46
[[Page 36828]]
CY 2013.................................................. 15.54 14.16 100 14.16 6.73
CY 2014.................................................. 12.14 11.06 100 11.06 4.91
CY 2015.................................................. 0.00 ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ ................. ................. ................. 214.21 130.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Tank Barges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2000.................................................. 100.00 248.38 ................. ................. .................
CY 2001.................................................. 98.00 243.41 ................. ................. .................
CY 2002.................................................. 98.08 243.61 ................. ................. .................
CY 2003.................................................. 97.63 242.49 ................. ................. .................
CY 2004.................................................. 96.16 238.84 ................. ................. .................
CY 2005.................................................. 78.02 193.79 ................. ................. .................
CY 2006.................................................. 72.85 180.94 33 59.71 45.55
CY 2007.................................................. 67.77 168.33 66 111.10 79.21
CY 2008.................................................. 67.77 168.33 100 168.33 112.17
CY 2009.................................................. 66.59 165.40 100 165.40 103.00
CY 2010.................................................. 63.65 158.09 100 158.09 92.01
CY 2011.................................................. 63.65 158.09 100 158.09 85.99
CY 2012.................................................. 63.65 158.09 100 158.09 80.36
CY 2013.................................................. 63.65 158.09 100 158.09 75.11
CY 2014.................................................. 63.65 158.09 100 158.09 70.19
CY 2015.................................................. 0.00 ................. ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ ................. ................. ................. 1,294.99 743.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total...................................... ................. ................. ................. 1,509.20 874.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Present values discounted at 7%.
To determine if the benefits of installing a TLPM device have
increased since publication of the TLPM device regulations, we examined
pollution reports involving single-hull tank vessels for 2001 through
2007 The same one percent threshold in the original 2002 TLPM device
rulemaking was used to determine how much oil would be prevented from
entering the water. For example, if a cargo tank has a capacity of
400,000 gallons (9,524 barrels, 42 gallons = 1 barrel), a one percent
threshold would equal 4,000 gallons. Thus, in this example, a TLPM
device with the sensitivity currently required in regulations would
only detect a spill of 4,000 gallons or more; whereas the data shows
many pollution incidents result in spills less than 4,000 gallons.
We followed the same methodology used in the original rulemaking to
update our oil pollution information. Of the 599 cases we examined, we
found five new instances, resulting in a total of 715 barrels of oil
spilled, where a TLPM device would have helped prevent oil from a cargo
tank spilling into the water. Two of those cases alone accounted for
626 barrels of oil spilled.
If we consider the very best case and assume we can claim all 715
barrels of oil as a benefit attributable to a TLPM device, the new
average annual amount of oil that would be prevented from entering the
water by a TLPM device becomes 102 barrels per year versus our earlier
calculation of 339 barrels per year. Furthermore, from Table 1, we
project the amount of oil that project would be prevented from entering
the water between 2008 and 2015 is about 718 barrels (discounted). If
we divide the estimated cost of the rule in 2002 ($166.4 million) by
the 718 barrels, the new cost-effectiveness figure is about $232,000
per barrel of oil prevented from entering the water.
When we researched the technology that could potentially be applied
as an alternative to TLPM devices, we found that commercial, off-the-
shelf oil/water interface sensors are available to monitor cargo tank
levels. However, although the costs for these types of systems
initially appear to be lower than for the liquid level devices that
were reviewed as part of the original TLPM device regulations, these
costs do not account for the modifications that would be needed for
these systems to function as a TLPM device alternative. Developing and
testing these systems and confirming they meet performance requirements
would likely necessitate substantial research and development and add
to the equipment costs.
In 2002, we estimated the total cost to the affected industries of
implementing the measures outlined in the final rule would be
approximately $166.4 million dollars, all incurred during the 5-year
phase-in period. Since the Coast Guard published the final rule in
September 2002, no TLPM devices have been submitted to the Coast Guard
for approval and there are currently no TLPM devices on the market that
meet the performance requirements of 33 CFR 150.490 for a TLPM device.
The cost-effectiveness of regulations for TLPM devices continues to
degrade. In our March 2006 study on alternatives to TLPM devices, we
found that there are some other devices that monitor tank level or
pressure; but these devices do not meet the performance requirements of
33 CFR 150.490, and therefore could not be approved as TLPM devices
without a substantial investment by the manufacturers to modify and
test these devices for the performance standards currently in the
regulations. We have seen no indication the maritime industry is
willing to make that investment for the shrinking population of vessels
comprising the marketplace.
Through this NPRM, we would remove regulations for TLPM devices--a
type of shipboard equipment that does not currently exist in the
marketplace and which has no practical alternative. We estimate this
proposed rule will have no impact on industry.
[[Page 36829]]
B. 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.
We concluded that removing the performance standards for TLPM
devices and the requirements for their use will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since
industry did not adopt or implement any TLPM provisions. Therefore, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C 605(b) that this notice of proposed
rulemaking 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 of the Coast
Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new 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 State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
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 removes previously published
rules on performance standards and use of TLPM devices fall into the
category of vessel equipment and operation. Because the States may not
regulate within these categories, preemption under Executive Order
13132 is not an issue.
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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This 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.
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. As it is not a ``significant energy
action,'' this rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant energy action.''
L. 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 the 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 proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List''
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
[[Page 36830]]
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 155
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
33 CFR Part 156
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 as follows:
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 155 and the note
following citation continue to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp., p. 793. Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 through
155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and
155.1065(g) are also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Sections
155.480, 155.490, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are also issued under 46
U.S.C. 3703. Section 155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of
Pub. L. 101-380. Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying
oil or hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through
40, 150, 151, and 153.
Sec. 155.200 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 155.200, remove the definition for ``Sea state 5.''
Sec. 155.490 [Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve Sec. 155.490.
PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS
4. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 156 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703a, 3715; E.O.
11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793. Section 156.120(bb) and (ee)
are also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3703.
Sec. 156.120 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 156.120, remove paragraph (ee).
Dated: June 24, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security, and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-14800 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P