[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49222-49225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23518]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 1

[CGD 94-105]
RIN 2115-AE99


Coast Guard Rulemaking Procedures

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard revises the regulations describing its 
rulemaking procedures to provide for a ``direct final rule'' process 
for use with noncontroversial rules. Under the direct final rule 
procedure, a rule will become effective 90 days after publication in 
the Federal Register unless the Coast Guard receives written adverse 
comment within sixty days. This new procedure should expedite the 
promulgation of routine, noncontroversial rules by reducing the time 
necessary to develop, review, clear, and publish separate proposed and 
final rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this 
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the 
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington D.C. 
20593-0001 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT R. Goldberg, Staff Attorney, 
Regulations and Administrative Law Division, Office of Chief Counsel, 
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (202) 267-6004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On June 14, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled ``Coast Guard Rulemaking Procedures'' in the 
Federal Register (60 FR 31267) with a thirty day comment period which 
ended July 14. In response to a request for additional time, the Coast 
Guard published a notice in the August 1, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 
39130) reopening the comment period on the proposal for an additional 
thirty days, until August 31, 1995. Over both comment periods, the 
Coast Guard received fourteen letters commenting on the proposal. No 
public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received fourteen comments in response to its 
proposal to implement a direct final rule procedure from a variety of 
parties including an insurance broker, a shipping company, a commercial 
fisherman, a corporation interested in offshore operations, maritime 
consultants, industry associations and the Administrative Conference of 
the United States. One comment, from a national manufacturers 
association representing over 1,600 manufacturers association 
representing over 1,600 manufacturers of recreational boats and 
equipment, fully supported the proposal for an expedited rulemaking 
process. The comment from the Administrative Conference of the United 
States (Administrative Conference) expressed pleasure at the Coast 
Guard's proposal to use direct final rulemaking and took the 
opportunity to compare the Coast Guard's proposed procedure to the 
Administrative Conference's recently adopted Recommendation 95-4, 
``Procedures for Noncontroversial and Expedited Rulemaking.'' the other 
comments were generally supportive of the idea of a streamlined 
rulemaking process, but expressed concerns with the shortness of the 
proposed comment period, the list of subjects suggested by the Coast 
Guard for the direct final rule process, the possibility that there may 
not be 30 days notice before the effective date of the rule as required 
by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and with the lack of an 
adequate definition of an ``adverse comment''. Additionally, one 
comment contended that all rulemakings are ``controversial'' and 
therefore the direct final rule process is not appropriate for any 
rulemaking.
    Eight comments directly objected to the proposed thirty day comment 
period. The comment from the Administrative Conference supported this 
provision as providing the required comment under the APA, but took no 
specific position on the actual length of the period. The comments 
which objected to the length of the comment period argued that it often 
took much longer than thirty days for a proposal to be disseminated to, 
and analyzed by, potentially interested parties. According to the 
comments, this additional time is required because of a number of 
factors. One factor cited by three comments was the fact that many 
mariners who may be interested in a proposal are often out to sea for 
periods of time greater than thirty days. Other comments also noted the 
time delay caused by the postal system in receiving copies of the 
Federal Register and the fact that many people learn of new proposed 
rules through industry and trade publications which need time to 
publish and mail the information. Additionally, one comment raised the 
question of whether the short comment period satisfies Sec. 553(c) of 
the APA which requires an agency to give interested parties an adequate 
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. The comments suggested 
increased comment periods ranging from 60 to 160 days so that a rule 
published as a direct final rule would become effective in the range of 
90 to 180 days after publication.
    The Coast Guard understands that it takes time for information 
regarding proposed rules to reach interested parties. Public 
participation in the rulemaking process is important to, and highly 
encouraged by, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is planning to use the 
direct final rule procedure only for rules it considers to be 
noncontroversial and for which no adverse comment is anticipated. 
Consequently, the Coast Guard believes that the direct final rulemaking 
procedure provides the public an adequate opportunity to comment on a 
rule subject to this procedure before the rule becomes effective. If an 
adverse comment or a notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is 
received within the comment period, the direct final rule will be 
withdrawn without ever having taken effect. If the Coast Guard later 
decides to proceed with the rulemaking, a new notice of proposed 
rulemaking will be published. This process will give the pubic an 
adequate opportunity to participate in the rulemaking procedure before 
a rule goes into effect. The Coast Guard believes that a lengthy 
comment period would defeat the purpose of having an expedited 
rulemaking process. Nevertheless, to ensure that the 

[[Page 49223]]
public has a meaningful opportunity to participate, the Coast Guard is 
increasing the minimum comment period stated in Sec. 1.05-55(c) under 
the direct final rule process from 30 to 60 days, and preserving an 
option for any particular rulemaking to have a longer comment period.
    Three of the comments, including one from a national trade 
association representing 23 U.S.-flag carriers and one from a shipping 
company which operates for U.S.-flag ships, expressed concern over the 
list of subjects suggested as appropriate for the direct final rule 
process by the Coast Guard. Two of the comments expressed the opinion 
that the proposed procedure would be appropriate for some of the types 
of rulemakings suggested but not for all. In particular, both of these 
comments objected to the use of the direct final rule process for the 
waiver of navigation and vessel inspection laws and regulations, the 
regulation or description of anchorage areas, the regulation or 
description of shipping safety fairways and the regulation or 
description of offshore traffic separation schemes. The trade 
association also objected to the use of the proposed procedure to adopt 
technical standards set by outside organizations and to regulate the 
compatibility of cargoes. The shipping company comment also objected to 
using the procedure to establish safety and security zones.
    A comment from a national association of maritime educators 
commented that in the past, the association has offered comments on 
many subjects of the type included on the list of possible subjects and 
therefore viewed none of the proposed subjects as ``noncontroversial'' 
and objected to the entire list of subjects. That comment also stated 
that there is no such thing as a ``noncontroversial'' rule and stated 
that the decision whether a rule is deemed ``noncontroversial'' or not 
is a subjective rather than objective standard.
    The Coast Guard realizes that the direct final rule process is not 
the proper procedure for use with all rulemakings. On the other hand, 
there are numerous rulemakings which the Coast Guard does believe to be 
``noncontroversial'' in nature and for which the Coast Guard does not 
anticipate adverse comments. The suggested list of subjects stated in 
the NPRM was not meant to be a comprehensive or ironclad list of 
subjects for use with the direct final rule process. Every rulemaking 
will be evaluated independently to determine: (1) Whether it is likely 
to be noncontroversial in nature; and (2) whether the direct final rule 
process is appropriate. If during the comment period any adverse 
comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received, 
the rule will be withdrawn. If a rule is withdrawn and the Coast Guard 
decides to proceed with the rulemaking, a separate notice of proposed 
rulemaking will be published unless an exception to the APA requirement 
for notice and comment applies. The Coast Guard believes that this 
procedure will guarantee the public an adequate opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking procedure and inform the Coast Guard of 
opposition to a rulemaking which the Coast Guard viewed as 
noncontroversial. Both by requiring that a rulemaking be deemed to be 
noncontroversial before being published as a direct final rule and by 
requiring that if an adverse comment is received a rulemaking published 
under this process be withdrawn and a separate NPRM published to 
proceed, the Coast Guard believes that sufficient safeguards exist to 
ensure no rule is implemented without adequate opportunity for public 
participation.
    The comment from the Administrative Conference in addition to two 
other comments, expressed concern that the procedure proposed may not 
always satisfy Sec. 553(d) of the APA which requires thirty days notice 
prior to the effective date of a rule. The specific concern stated by 
the Administrative Conference is that the notice stating that the Coast 
Guard has received no adverse comment and therefore, the rule will go 
into effect as originally scheduled, may not be published thirty days 
before the effective date of the rule. The conference recommended 
either making the rule effective thirty days after the date of the 
described notice or specifying a date after the close of the comment 
period by which the Coast Guard will notify the public whether the 
direct final rule will become effective, with the rule's effective date 
at least 30 days after such specified date. The Coast Guard has decided 
to go forward with the second alternative and therefore will publish a 
specific date in the direct final rule by which the public will be 
notified of whether the rule will go into effect.
    One comment from a maritime safety specialist objected to the lack 
of adequate guidelines concerning what the Coast Guard would consider 
to be an ``adverse comment.'' In addition, the Administrative 
Conference in Recommendation 95-4, ``Procedures for Noncontroversial 
and Expedited Rulemaking'' (Recommendation) proposed a definition of 
adverse comment that differed from that proposed by the Coast Guard. 
The Administrative Conference acknowledged the difference between its 
own definition and the Coast Guard's, but viewed the Coast Guard's 
proposed definition as reasonable.
    Section 1.05-55(c) of the NPRM stated that an adverse comment would 
be any comment received by the Coast Guard which objects to a proposed 
rule as written. The preamble of the NPRM further explained that 
neither a comment submitted in support of a rule nor one suggesting 
that the policy or requirements of a rule should or should not be 
extended to a Coast Guard program outside the scope of the rule will be 
considered as adverse. On the other hand, the Administrative Conference 
in its Recommendation suggested that the definition of significant 
adverse comment be ``one where the commenter explains why the rule 
would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying 
premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a 
change.'' The Administrative Conference went on to state in its 
Recommendation that agencies ``should consider whether the comment 
raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a 
notice-and-comment process.'' Because the Coast Guard believes that the 
Administrative Conference's recommended definition of adverse comment 
provides better guidance and a clearer definition of what types of 
comments will be considered adverse, the Coast Guard has decided to 
adopt the Administrative Conference's recommended definition of adverse 
comment. An adverse comment is now defined in Sec. 1.05-55(f).
    The Administrative Conference comment also suggested that in 
addition to publishing the initial notice in the final rule section of 
the Federal Register, that a cross reference be inserted in the 
proposed rule section. The Coast Guard agrees with this idea and will 
do so.
    In addition to the changes discussed above, a few minor editorial 
changes were made to the language of the rule to promote the public's 
understanding of the direct final rule process.

Explanation of Procedure

    The Coast Guard is establishing a new direct final rulemaking 
procedure for noncontroversial rules. This process is consistent with 
the goals of the National Performance Review, a recent Presidential 
initiative to reorganize and streamline the Federal government. The 
process is also consistent with recommendations of the Administrative 
Conference of the United States and 

[[Page 49224]]
meets the requirements for providing an opportunity for public notice 
and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 
553).
    Under this procedure, the Coast Guard will publish direct final 
rules in the final rule and proposed rule sections of the Federal 
Register. The preamble to a direct final rule will indicate that no 
adverse comment is anticipated and that the rule will become effective 
not less than 90 days after publication unless written adverse comment 
or written intent to submit adverse comment is received within a 
specified time, usually not less than 60 days. The direct final rule 
will also state a date by which the Coast Guard will provide notice of 
whether the rule will be effective. This procedure will ensure that, as 
required by the APA, the public will be given notice of Coast Guard 
rulemaking actions and will have an opportunity to participate in the 
rulemaking by submitting comments.
    If no written adverse comment or written notice of intent to submit 
an adverse comment is received in response to the publication of a 
direct final rule, the Coast Guard will then publish a notice in the 
Federal Register, stating that no adverse comment was received and 
confirming that the rule will become effective as scheduled. However, 
if the Coast Guard receives any written adverse comment or any written 
notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, then the Coast Guard 
will publish a notice in the final rule and proposed rule sections of 
the Federal Register to announce withdrawal of the direct final rule. 
If adverse comments clearly apply to only part of a rule, and that part 
is severable from the remaining portions, such as a rule that deletes 
several unrelated regulations, the Coast Guard may adopt as final those 
parts of the rule on which no adverse comments were received. The part 
of the rule that was the subject of adverse comment will be withdrawn. 
If the Coast Guard decides to proceed with a rulemaking following 
receipt of adverse comments, a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) will be published, unless an exception to the APA requirement 
for notice and comment applies.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of 
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It 
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that 
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and 
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; 
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this 
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. 
The change in procedure will not impose any costs on the public. In 
cases where the rule would result in cost savings, the cost savings 
would occur sooner with the use of direct final rule procedure.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small 
entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard has evaluated this 
rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule will not have 
substantive impact on the public. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule 
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1B (as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994), this rule is 
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation as a 
regulation of a procedural nature. A ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedures, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Coast Guard, Freedom of information, Penalties.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard is 
amending Subpart 1.05 of Part 1 of Title 33, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subpart 1.05--[Amended]

    1. The authority citation for Subpart 1.05 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 553, App. 2; 14 U.S.C. 2, 631, 632, and 
633; 33 U.S.C. 471, 499; 49 U.S.C. 101, 322; 49 CFR 1.4(b), 1.45(b), 
and 1.46.

    2. Section 1.05-55 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1.05-55  Direct final rule.

    (a) A direct final rule may be issued to allow noncontroversial 
rules that are unlikely to result in adverse public comment to become 
effective more quickly.
    (b) A direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register 
with an effective date that is generally at least 90 days after the 
date of publication.
    (c) The public will usually be given at least 60 days from the date 
of publication in which to submit comments or notice of intent to 
submit comments.
    (d) If no adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse 
comment is received within the specified period, the Coast Guard will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register to confirm that the rule will 
go into effect as scheduled.
    (e) If the Coast Guard receives a written adverse comment or a 
written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, the Coast Guard 
will publish a notice in the final rule section of the Federal Register 
to announce withdrawal of the direct final rule. If an adverse comment 
clearly applies to only part of a rule, and it is possible to remove 
that part without affecting the remaining portions, the Coast Guard may 
adopt as final those parts of the rule on which no adverse comment was 
received. Any part of a rule that is the subject of an adverse comment 
will be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard decides to proceed with a 
rulemaking following receipt of an adverse comment, a separate Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published unless an exception to 
the Administrative Procedure Act requirements for notice and comment 
applies.
    (f) A comment is considered adverse if the comment explains why the 
rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's 
underlying premise or approach, or would be 

[[Page 49225]]
ineffective or unacceptable without a change.

    Dated: September 15, 1995.
J.E. Shkor,
U.S. Coast Guard Chief Counsel.
FR Doc. 95-23518 Filed 9-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M