[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3236-3237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1440]
[[Page 3236]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[USCG-1998-3417]
RIN 1625-AA19 [formerly published as RIN 2115-AF60]
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 17, 2001, a 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 (63 FR 7069). The Coast Guard has decided to
extend this suspension period for another 3 years to allow us to
complete the rulemaking that proposes to revise the salvage and marine
firefighting requirements.
DATES: This extension is effective as of February 12, 2004. Termination
of the suspension will be on February 12, 2007.
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 question on this final
rule; partial suspension of regulation, call Lieutenant Reed Kohberger,
Office of Response, Response Operations Division, Coast Guard
Headquarters, telephone 202-267-0448, or via e-mail:
[email protected]. For questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-0271.
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 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 (63 FR 7069) 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.
The Coast Guard is extending the suspension period for an
additional 3 years, to run until February 12, 2007. During the past 3
years, the Coast Guard had to redirect the majority of its regulatory
resources to issue security-related regulations in response to the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. As a result, we have not
been able to complete our review of the comments we received in
response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the proposed revisions
to the existing salvage and marine firefighting requirements. Now that
the security regulations have been issued, we expect to be able to
redirect our resources to projects such as this one.
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.
[[Page 3237]]
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 (OMB) 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 (DHS).
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 a final
rule 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 will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate
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 a final rule, 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.
Environment
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed 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 in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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,
2007.
Sec. 155.1052 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 155.1052, the last sentence in paragraph (f) is suspended
until February 12, 2007.
Dated: January 16, 2004.
T.H. Gilmour,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 04-1440 Filed 1-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P