[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3861-3862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1887]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 154 and 155
[USCG-98-3350]
Review of Cap Increases; Response Plans for Marine
Transportation-related (MTR) Facilities and Tank Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Current Coast Guard response plan regulations for MTR
facilities and tank vessels contain requirements for on-water oil
removal capacity (referred to as caps) that plan-holders transporting
or transferring groups I through IV petroleum oil are required to meet
in planning for a worst case discharge. The original caps were set in
1993 and were scheduled to increase by 25% on February 18, 1998,
provided the Coast Guard completed a review of the cap increases and
determined the cap increases were practicable. The Coast Guard's review
of the cap increases is on-going. Therefore, the Coast Guard will not
implement the cap increases as originally scheduled, and the 1993 caps
will remain in effect pending the results of the review. The Coast
Guard requests comments on the practicability of the cap increases.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility,
[USCG-98-3350], U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room
PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the same
address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
request for information. Comments, and documents as indicated in this
preamble, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the
Nassif Building at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also access the public
docket on the internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR John Caplis, Project Manager, Office of Response (G-MOR), at 202-
267-6922; e-mail:
[[Page 3862]]
[email protected]. Note: Comments to the docket may only be
accepted by mail to the address under ADDRESSES. This telephone is
equipped to record messages on a 24-hour basis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The regulatory history for these regulations are recounted in the
preambles of the final rules entitled ``Vessel Response Plans'' (61 FR
1052, January 12, 1996) and ``Response Plans for Marine Transportation-
Related Facilities'' (61 FR 7890, February 29, 1996).
Background and Purpose
One important goal of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) is to
increase the overall oil spill response capability in the United
States. To achieve this goal, minimum on-water oil removal capacities
were developed through two rulemakings and public meetings, including
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meetings. As a result, 33 CFR
154.1045(m) and 33 CFR 155.1050(o) set out caps which an owner or
operator must ensure available, through contract or other approved
means, in planning for a worst case discharge. These caps were
established taking into account 1993 technology and availability of
response resources.
In 1993, the Coast Guard set the caps at the present levels based
on the following reasons. First, in many geographic areas of the U.S.,
on-water recovery capability and containment and protection resources
simply did not exist for responding to a large spill--especially from a
very large or ultra large crude carrier. Second, the Coast Guard
believed Congress intended to encourage the development and enlargement
of the response community, but not to cause significant, adverse
economic impacts. To support this, the Coast Guard set a nationwide
criteria as opposed to geographic-specific criteria as an incentive to
improve the overall response capability in the United States. Third,
the caps acknowledged a reasonable and practical limit to the amount of
1993 technology resources that could be constructively used during the
first stages of a spill response. Lastly, the Coast Guard intended that
the caps would ensure a baseline recovery capability, and would not
limit the resources brought to bear during an actual oil discharge.
Owners or operators were and still are expected to activate the
response resources necessary for the particular circumstances of any
spill, regardless of what has been contracted for the advance.
The 1998 cap, a 25% increase from the 1993 levels, was proposed as
a planning target for increasing response capabilities. This increase
was discussed by the Vessel Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee as an incentive to expand response capabilities within the
United States to an obtainable and desirable level by 1998. The Coast
Guard concurred with the recommendation from the Committee to evaluate
the proposed cap increase before the increase would be implemented to
determine if it remains practicable.
The Coast Guard believes that in certain geographic areas existing
response capabilities already exceed the 1998 proposed cap. Several
states have enacted state requirements that meet or exceed the 1998
caps. However, the Coast Guard understands that in other regions plan-
holders may have great difficulty in meeting the 1998 increase.
Additionally, the Coast Guard believes, since 1993, significant
advances have occurred in the use and availability of high rate
response techniques and technology within the United States. The Coast
Guard intends to take into account these factors when reassessing the
1998 cap.
Reason for Equipment Caps Review
In accordance with the regulations 33 CFR 154.1045(n) and 33 CFR
155.1050(p), the Coast Guard is required to conduct a review of the 25%
cap increase. During the review, which is ongoing, the Coast Guard will
determine if the increase is practicable; if not, the Coast Guard will
propose an alternative cap which may be higher or lower. The review is
to include, but not be limited to, the following topics:
a. Increases in skimming efficiencies and improvements in design
technologies;
b. Advances in oil tracking technology;
c. Improvements in high rate response techniques;
d. Other applicable technologies;
e. Increases in the availability of private response resources.
The regulations also state that the scheduled cap increase would
occur on February 18, 1998, unless the review is not completed by the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard can not complete the review by February
18, 1998, and will not implement the cap increase as scheduled. Any
changes or additional requirements will occur through the public notice
and comment process and will not become effective until 90 days after
publication of a Federal Register notice reporting the results of the
review.
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit specific
comments with regard to the requirements of 33 CFR 154.1045(m) and 33
CFR 155.1050(o). The Coast Guard is seeking comments to determine if
the proposed increase to the cap remains practicable. Responses to the
following questions regarding the proposed cap increase will be helpful
in determining the practicality of these requirements:
(1) Is a 25% cap increase practicable? Nationally? Regionally?
(2) Have there been advances or improvements in the efficiency of
mechanical recovery designs that should be considered in determining a
new cap?
(3) Have there been improvements in oil tracking technologies that
should be considered in determining a new cap?
(4) Have there been improvements in high rate response technologies
such as dispersants, in situ burning, etc., that should be considered
in determining a new cap?
(5) Have there been large increases in the availability of private
resources within specific regions of the country?
Persons submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this request for information (USCG 98-XXX), and give the
reason for each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and
attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing, to the DOT Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. If you want
acknowledgment of receipt of your comments, enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. The Coast Guard will consider all
comments received during the comment period, and may propose a new cap
based on the comments.
Dated: January 21, 1998.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-1887 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M