[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17222-17227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8274]



[[Page 17221]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Part 154



Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities Handling 
Non-Petroleum Oils; Proposed Rule

40 CFR Part 112



Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related 
Facilities; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 17222]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 154

[USCG-1999-5149]
RIN 2115-AF79


Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities 
Handling Non-Petroleum Oils

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations requiring 
response plans for marine transportation-related facilities that 
handle, store, or transport animal fats or vegetable oils. 
Specifically, the proposal downgrades the initial classification of 
affected facilities, clarifies planning and equipment requirements, and 
further harmonizes our regulations with the Environmental Protection 
Agency's response planning regulations. This proposal addresses a 
statutory mandate and an industry petition.

DATES: Comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before 
July 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may mail your comments to the Docket Management 
Facility, (USCG-1999-5149), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001, or deliver them 
to 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. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. The Docket 
Management Facility maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 
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 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: For questions on this proposed rule, 
contact Mr. Mark Meza, Project Manager, Office of Response (G-MOR) 
Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-0304; email [email protected]. For 
questions on viewing, or submitting material to, the docket, contact 
Dorothy Walker, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 
202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments. You should include your 
name and address, identify this rulemaking (USCG-1999-5149) and the 
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and 
give the reason for each comment. Please submit 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 Docket Management 
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. You should enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope, if you want acknowledgment that we 
received your comments.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. It may change this proposed rule in view of the 
comments.
    The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a 
public hearing by writing to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a 
hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for 
oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold 
a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277). 
Section 343(b) of that act mandates the Coast Guard to amend, by March 
31, 1999, 33 CFR part 154 to comply with the Edible Oil Regulatory 
Reform Act (EORRA) (Pub. L. 104-55).
    On March 14, 1997, the National Oil Processors Association (NOPA) 
petitioned the Coast Guard to change response plan regulations for 
marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities to more fully 
differentiate animal fat and vegetable oil facilities from other oil 
facilities.
    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) addresses the mandate 
from Congress and the petition from NOPA. This NPRM proposes amendments 
only to response plan requirements for MTR facilities that handle, 
store, or transport animal fats and vegetable oils.

Legislative and Regulatory History

    On August 18, 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
(OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380) in response to several major oil spills. OPA 
90 amended section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)) establishing requirements, and an 
implementation schedule, for facility response plans. The FWPCA, as 
amended by OPA 90, directs the President to issue regulations requiring 
response plans for MTR facilities transferring oil.
    The President delegated the authority to issue these regulations to 
the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard via the Secretary of the Department of 
Transportation. On February 5, 1993, the Coast Guard published an 
interim final rule (IFR) in the Federal Register entitled ``Response 
Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities''(58 FR 7330).
    On November 20, 1995, Congress passed the Edible Oil Regulatory 
Reform Act (EORRA). This Act requires Federal agencies to differentiate 
between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or vegetable origin, 
and other oils and greases, in issuing regulations. The Act also 
requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects and the 
physical, chemical, biological, and other properties of the different 
classes of fats, oils, and greases.
    On February 29, 1996, having met the requirements of the EORRA and 
based on comments received to the IFR, the Coast Guard published its 
final rule (FR) on response plans for MTR facilities in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 7890). These regulations are codified in 33 CFR part 
154, subparts F through I. The final rule added two new subparts to the 
response plan regulations (subparts H and I). Subpart H contains 
planning requirements for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities and 
subpart I contains planning requirements for other non-petroleum oils 
facilities. The final rule also allows animal fat and vegetable oil 
facilities to propose needed response equipment and personnel for worst 
case discharges (WCD), rather than the specific equipment and personnel 
required for petroleum oil facilities.
    On October 19, 1996 Congress passed the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-324). Section 1130 of that act requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress an annual report 
describing how new Coast Guard regulations meet EORRA requirements. The 
Secretary of Transportation submitted reports on April 11, 1997, and 
March 3, 1998. The reports, available in the public docket for this 
proposed rule, describe how the Coast Guard's regulations meet the 
EORRA requirements.
    In a letter dated March 14, 1997, NOPA filed a petition with the 
Coast Guard requesting amendments to the

[[Page 17223]]

MTR facility response plan regulations. The petition requested separate 
and appropriate regulations for facilities that handle animal fats and 
vegetable oils. A detailed listing of the petitioners' requests follows 
this section.
    On October 27, 1997, Congress passed the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 
105-66). Section 341 of that Act stated that the Coast Guard could not 
use any of the available funds to issue, implement, or enforce a 
regulation or to establish an interpretation or guideline under the 
EORRA that did not recognize and provide for differences in--
     Physical, chemical, biological, and other relevant 
properties; and
     Environmental effects.
    On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999. Section 343(b) of 
that act states that not later than March 31, 1999, the Coast Guard 
shall issue regulations amending 33 CFR part 154 to comply with the 
requirements of the EORRA.
    On October 21, 1998, Congress also passed the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-276), which contains a 
similar requirement for EPA to amend, not later than March 31, 1999, 
its regulations to comply with EORRA. On January 16, 1998, NOPA filed, 
with EPA, a petition virtually identical to the one filed with the 
Coast Guard. In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA 
proposes modifications to its response plan rules for animal fat and 
vegetable oil facilities. Each agency's NPRM accounts for the 
characteristics of facilities in its jurisdiction. To further harmonize 
requirements, the two agencies have worked together to develop their 
respective NPRMs. The Coast Guard and EPA will continue to work 
together to draft their respective final rules.

Petition to the Coast Guard

    The petition filed by NOPA requests the following changes to our 
existing regulations.
    (a) Downgrading the initial classification of affected facilities 
from significant and substantial harm to substantial harm. The Coast 
Guard proposes this change. A detailed justification for downgrading 
the initial classification of animal fat and vegetable oil facilities 
follows this section.
    (b) Relaxing the current response time for response resources to be 
at a spill site from 12 hours to 24 hours. The petitioners also 
requested that we relax response time in high volume ports (HVPs) from 
6 hours to 12 hours. The Coast Guard does not propose relaxing response 
times. The request could have the effect of doubling the response time 
in the event of a spill. This change would significantly reduce the 
effectiveness of a response. Immediate action is critical when 
mitigating a spill. A quick response prevents problems with controlling 
and collecting oil. Control and collection are more difficult when the 
oil has dispersed or combined with water. Relaxing the times for 
delivery of dispersants limits their usefulness because dispersants, 
when needed, must be applied before significant emulsification and 
distribution of the oil.
    (c) Revising the regulations to explicitly state the alternative of 
taking no action if mitigation activity is more harmful to the 
environment. The Coast Guard does not propose this change. Stating no 
action in the regulations may lead industry to conclude that no action 
is an option in any circumstance. The Federal On-Scene Coordinator 
(FOSC) already has the authority to decide on the appropriate level of 
response action, ranging from taking no action to taking vigorous and 
extensive action. Response levels are based on factors such as--
     Spill amount;
     Proximity to threatened areas;
     Type of oil;
     Weather conditions; and
     Currents and tides.
    (d) Relaxing the requirement for equipment exercises from 
semiannual to annual. The Coast Guard does not propose this change. 
Such action would reduce by half the number of exercises for an animal 
fat or vegetable oil facility. Such action would make these exercises 
too infrequent. Semiannual equipment exercises ensure facilities 
maintain their ability to respond to spills.
    (e) Clarifying the provision that facilities may use public fire 
fighting resources under the terms of cooperative agreements. The 
current wording in the regulations permits public resources that are 
supported by local municipal, county, city, or state organizations, as 
well as other resources, which may be supported by industry. However, 
under a separate regulatory project (USCG-1998-3497), the Coast Guard 
is reviewing the possible conditions under which the industry as a 
whole needs fire fighting resources, and may propose further guidelines 
based on that review. Therefore, the Coast Guard will retain the 
current wording in subpart H because it is sufficiently clear to meet 
the intent of the petitioner's request. We may revise the regulations 
in the future based on our ongoing review.
    (f) Allowing a facility, as a condition of participating in Area 
Exercises, be the lead exercise developer and final decision authority 
on exercise design. The Coast Guard does not propose this change. The 
Coast Guard anticipates that the facility would, of necessity, be a key 
participant, and often the lead, in planning for an Area Exercise. 
However, to require their leadership and final approval would unduly 
limit the authority of the FOSC and constrain the Area Committee in 
fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
    (g) Eliminating the requirement for annual plan reviews while 
retaining the requirement to report changes to plans as they occur. The 
Coast Guard does not propose this change. The Coast Guard concluded 
that thorough and regular review of plans is desirable and necessary. 
Formal plan reviews ensure plan holders keep critical information such 
as phone contacts, reporting requirements, and equipment inventories 
up-to-date.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes the following three changes to our 
existing regulations.
    (a) Downgrading the initial classification of affected facilities 
from significant and substantial harm to substantial harm. Initially, 
the Coast Guard would consider all animal fat and vegetable oil 
facilities as substantial harm facilities and the Captain of the Port 
(COTP) would have the authority to upgrade each facility to a 
significant and substantial harm based on the criteria in our proposed 
33 CFR 154.1216(b). The Coast Guard's Marine Safety Information System 
(MSIS) database collects information on various marine activities. By 
using MSIS to review facility spill history between 1992 and 1998, we 
found that 28 of 31 spills (90%) of animal fats and vegetable oils were 
less than 1,000 gallons; 23 of 28 (82%) were less than 100 gallons. 
While animal fats and vegetable oils are just as damaging to the 
environment as other oils, when spilled in bulk, we propose to 
reclassify animal fat and vegetable oil facilities from significant and 
substantial harm to substantial harm taking into account this history 
of spills of very small amounts.
    (b) Requiring planning for an average most probable discharge 
(AMPD). The spill history used to justify downgrading animal fat and 
vegetable oil facilities shows a pattern of relatively small spill 
volumes. These volumes meet the criteria for AMPD volumes defined in 33 
CFR 154.1020. Accordingly, we

[[Page 17224]]

propose requiring AMPD planning. By proposing AMPD planning, the Coast 
Guard will further harmonize our regulations with EPA's. The Coast 
Guard does not think requiring AMPD planning will increase planning 
burdens for animal fat and vegetable oil facilities. Under 33 CFR 
154.545, we already require oil facilities to plan for AMPD volumes. 
Animal fat or vegetable oil facilities may use the requirements under 
33 CFR 154.545 to satisfy our proposed AMPD planning requirements. Our 
proposed 33 CFR 154.545(e) explicitly allows this option.
    (c) Requiring at least 1,000 feet of boom. Current regulations 
require at least 1,000 feet of boom for Group I through Group IV 
petroleum oils. Groups of oils are explained in the definitions for 
persistent and non-persistent oils under 33 CFR 154.1020. Current 
regulations also require a minimum of 200 feet of boom for mobile and 
fixed substantial harm animal fat or vegetable oil facilities. We 
consider 200 feet inadequate for fixed animal fat or vegetable oil 
facilities. The Coast Guard proposes requiring, to be on scene within 
one hour, the greater of 1,000 feet of boom or twice the length of the 
longest vessel that regularly conducts operations at a fixed facility. 
The Coast Guard estimates that fixed animal fat and vegetable oil 
facilities already have access to at least 1,000 feet of boom through 
existing worse case discharge (WCD) volume planning. We do not propose 
any changes to the minimum requirement of 200 feet of boom for mobile 
facilities.

Changes Proposed by EPA

    In its NPRM, EPA proposes tables to calculate planning volumes for 
animal fat or vegetable oil facilities. EPA's proposed tables are 
similar to existing tables in both agencies' regulations. Current Coast 
Guard and EPA regulations allow animal fat and vegetable oil facilities 
to determine how to calculate planning volumes. The Coast Guard and EPA 
allowed this self-determination because, when drafting the final rules, 
neither the Coast Guard nor EPA had the necessary data on animal fats 
and vegetable oils to create such tables. In addition, the agencies 
determined that current guidelines and practices provided the regulated 
industry with flexibility in meeting required planning criteria. Since 
then, EPA has obtained scientific studies and information on the 
behavior of animal fats and vegetable oils, and has used these studies 
to develop the proposed tables. These tables are based on the behavior 
of animal fats and vegetable oils and on their chemical and physical 
properties. The tables separate oils based on their specific gravity. 
Oils with a specific gravity greater than one generally sink below the 
water surface. As proposed by EPA, the owner or operator of a facility 
handling, storing, or transporting an oil with a specific gravity 
greater than one, is responsible for determining appropriate resources 
to mitigate such an oil spill. Proposed resources should include:
     Equipment to locate oil on the bottom or suspended in the 
water;
     Containment boom or other equipment to contain any oil 
floating on the surface; and
     Dredges, pumps or other equipment to recover oil from the 
bottom and shoreline.
    At this time, the Coast Guard does not propose the tables. The 
Coast Guard seeks public comment on the appropriateness of the tables 
for the Coast Guard's distinct regulated community and geographic 
areas.
    EPA has documents containing information used to create their 
proposed tables. EPA has provided copies of these documents to us to 
include in the Coast Guard docket. EPA has cited these documents in the 
notice of denial of petition to amend the facility response plan rule 
[62 FR 54508 (October 20, 1997)] and in their NPRM on Oil Pollution 
Prevention and Response at Non-Transportation-Related Facilities 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

                                                           Table 1.--Removal Capacity Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Spill location                                      Rivers and canals                         Nearshore/inland Great Lakes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sustainability of on-water oil recovery                              3 days                                          4 days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Percent         Percent                         Percent         Percent
          Specific gravity (S.G.) of AF/VO oil                Percent        recovered       recovered        Percent        recovered       recovered
                                                           natural loss    floating oil       onshore      natural loss      floating         onshore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G.<0.8................................................              40              15              45              50              20              30
0.8S.G.<1.0..................................              20              15              65              30              20              50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table 2.--Emulsification Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Specific gravity (S.G.) of AF/VO oil                Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G.<0.8................................................             1.0
0.8S.G.<1.0..................................             2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planning Volume = WCD  x  T1  x  T2;

Where

WCD = Worst case discharge volume defined in 33 CFR 1029.
T1 = Value from Table 1.
T2 = Value from Table 2.

Regulatory Evaluation

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has informally reviewed 
the proposed rule and has made a preliminary determination that the 
rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866. OMB may reassess the significance depending on 
the comments received. This proposed rule is not significant under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). A draft assessment is available in 
the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A 
summary of the assessment follows:

Summary of Costs

    As a result of research conducted by the Coast Guard Marine Safety 
Offices, the Coast Guard estimates that there are 80 fixed facilities 
affected by this proposed rule. This proposed rule includes three 
measures that impact industry. The first measure, downgrading animal 
fat or vegetable oil facilities from significant and substantial harm 
to substantial harm would not result in any additional costs to the 
industry. The second measure, requiring average most probable discharge 
planning, could result in minor additional costs to the industry by 
increasing the amount of information a facility has to report. The 
Coast Guard estimates that owners or operators of facilities will spend 
4 hours changing their response plans. The additional cost per response 
would be $140 ($35 per hour  x  4 burden hours). The total estimated 
annual cost for all 80 facilities would be $11,200 (80 facilities  x  
$140 per response plan). Finally, the Coast Guard does not expect that 
requiring a

[[Page 17225]]

minimum amount of boom for fixed facilities will add any cost to the 
proposed rule. When planning for a WCD under current regulations, we 
estimate fixed animal fat and vegetable oil facilities, regardless of 
their classification, already identify in their response plans the 
greater of 1,000 feet or twice the length of the longest vessel that 
regularly conducts operations at the facility of boom, that can be 
deployed on scene within one hour of an incident. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard estimates that 100 percent of the regulated, fixed facilities 
already meet this requirement.
    The proposed rule would decrease costs to the government. Those 
facilities downgraded from significant and substantial harm to 
substantial harm would not need Coast Guard approval of their response 
plans. Therefore, the workload of Coast Guard field units would 
decrease.

Summary of Benefits

    The proposed rule would further harmonize Federal agency 
regulations, formalize discharge planning for smaller and more common 
spills, and maintain an adequate quantity of boom at the facilities. 
The downgrade in classification of affected facilities to substantial 
harm further harmonizes Coast Guard and EPA regulations. The Coast 
Guard found that 28 of 31 spills (90%) of animal fats and vegetable 
oils were less than 1,000 gallons; 23 of 28 (82%) were less than 100 
gallons. Planning for the average most probable discharge would address 
these smaller, more frequent spills. Finally, the Coast Guard proposes 
that fixed facility owners and operators have ready access to 1,000 
feet of boom or twice the length of the longest vessel that regularly 
conducts operations at the facility. This requirement ensures that 
adequate boom is readily available for most discharges and that 
existing levels of boom are maintained.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard considers whether this proposed rule, if adopted, 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.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of 
this proposed rule on small entities is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    The Coast Guard has identified 80 fixed animal fat and vegetable 
oil facilities that would be affected by this proposed rule. The 
proposed additional level of response planning would result in only 
minor additional informational reporting burdens. Each of the 80 
affected facilities would incur 4 additional hours of information 
reporting burden. This would result in an additional cost of $140 per 
facility 
(4 hours  x  $35 per hour). The Coast Guard chose to require facilities 
to plan for AMPD spills because the spill history of these facilities 
shows a pattern of relatively small spill volumes.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you 
think that your business or organization qualifies as a small entity 
and that this proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on 
your business or organization, please submit a comment to the Docket 
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why you 
think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this proposed 
rule will economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist 
small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can 
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking 
process. If your small business or organization is affected by this 
rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for 
compliance, please contact the Project Development Division (G-MSR-1) 
at 202-267-0756.
    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 proposed rule provides for a collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined 
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c) ``collection of information'' includes reporting, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar 
actions. The title and description of the respondents, and an estimate 
of the total annual burden follow. Included in the estimate is the time 
for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection.
    Title: Response Plans For Marine-Transportation-Related Facilities 
Handling Non-petroleum Oils.
    Summary of Collection: This proposed rule contains collection-of-
information requirements in the following section: Sec. 154.1220 and 
Sec. 154.1225.
    Need for Information: This proposed rule would require owners or 
operators of each facility to modify their facility response plans to 
plan for an AMPD of animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Proposed Use of Information: The proposed use of this information 
is to ensure that such facilities are prepared to respond in the event 
of a spill incident. The information would be reviewed by the Coast 
Guard to assess the effectiveness of the facility response plans.
    Description of the Respondents: An owner or operator of a facility 
that handles, stores or transports animal fats and vegetable oils.
    Number of respondents: 80 facilities.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Burden of response: 4 hours per respondent.
    Estimated Total Annual burden: 320 hours.
    As required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection 
of information.
    The Coast Guard solicits public comment on the proposed collection 
of information to (1) evaluate whether the information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the Coast Guard, including 
whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the 
accuracy of the Coast Guard's estimate of the burden of the collection, 
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection on those who 
are to respond, as by allowing the submittal of responses by electronic 
means or the use of other forms of information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information should 
submit

[[Page 17226]]

their comments both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where 
indicated under ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.
    Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Before the 
requirements for this collection of information become effective, the 
Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Federal Register of OMB's 
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

Federalism

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

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this 
proposed rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) 
and (e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed rule is 
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This 
rule will not result in--
    (a) Significant cumulative impacts on the human environment;
    (b) A substantial controversy or substantial change to existing 
environmental conditions;
    (c) Impacts which are more than minimal on properties protected 
under 4(f) the DOT Act, as superseded by Public Law 97-449 and section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or
    (d) Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local laws, or 
administrative determinations relating to the environment. 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Other Executive Orders on the Regulatory Process

    In addition to the statutes and Executive Orders already addressed 
in this preamble, the Coast Guard considered the following Executive 
Orders in developing this NPRM and reached the following conclusions:
    E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. This proposed rule will not 
effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under this Order.
    E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. This 
proposed rule will not impose, on any State, local, or tribal 
government, a mandate that is not required by statute and that is not 
funded by the Federal government.
    E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets 
applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of this Order to 
minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant 
rule and does not concern an environmental risk to safety 
disproportionately affecting children.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 154

    Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 154 as follows:

PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN 
BULK

    1. The authority citation for part 154 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6) and 
(M)(2); sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 49 CFR 1.46.

    Subpart F is also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735.


Sec. 154.545  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 154.545(e), add the words ``and subpart H'' after the 
words ``of subpart F''.


Sec. 154.1020  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 154.1020, in the definition for Facility that could 
reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial harm, 
remove all words after ``under Sec. 154.1015(c)'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``and Sec. 154.1216.''.
    4. In Sec. 154.1020, in the definition for Facility that could 
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm, remove all words 
after ``under Sec. 154.1015(b)'' and add, in their place, the words 
``and Sec. 154.1216.''.
    5. Revise Sec. 154.1210 to read as follows:


Sec. 154.1210  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart are intended for use in 
developing response plans and identifying response resources during the 
planning process. They are not performance standards.
    (b) This subpart establishes oil spill response planning 
requirements for an owner or operator of a facility that handles, 
stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils including--
    (1) A fixed MTR facility capable of transferring oil in bulk, to or 
from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more; and
    (2) A mobile MTR facility used or intended to be used to transfer 
oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more.
    6. Add Sec. 154.1216 to read as follows:


Sec. 154.1216  Facility classification.

    (a) The Coast Guard classifies facilities that handle, store, or 
transport animal fats or vegetable oils as ``substantial harm'' 
facilities because they may cause substantial harm to the environment 
by discharging oil.
    (b) The COTP may change the classification of a facility that 
handles, stores, or transports animal fats or vegetable oils. The COTP 
will consider the following factors, and any other relevant factors, 
before changing the classification of a facility:
    (1) The type and quantity of oils handled.
    (2) The spill history of the facility.
    (3) The age of the facility.
    (4) The public and commercial water supply intakes near the 
facility.
    (5) The navigable waters near the facility. Navigable waters is 
defined in 33 CFR 2.05-25.
    (6) The fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments.
    7. Revise Sec. 154.1220 to read as follows:


Sec. 154.1220  Response plan submission requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of an MTR facility identified in 
Sec. 154.1216 as a substantial harm facility, shall prepare and submit 
to the cognizant COTP a response plan that meets the requirements of 
this subpart and all sections of subpart F of this part, as 
appropriate, except Secs. 154.1015, 154.1016, 154.1017, 154.1028, 
154.1035, 154.1045 and 154.1047.
    (b) The owner or operator of an MTR facility classified by the COTP 
under Sec. 154.1216(b) as a significant and substantial harm facility, 
shall prepare and submit for review and approval of the cognizant COTP 
a response plan that meets the requirements of this subpart and all 
sections of subpart F of this part, as appropriate, except 
Secs. 154.1015, 154.1016, 154.1017, 154.1028, 154.1045 and 154.1047.
    (c) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this 
section, the response plan for a mobile MTR facility must meet the 
requirements of Sec. 154.1041 subpart F.
    8. In Sec. 154.1225, revise the section heading and paragraphs (a) 
introductory

[[Page 17227]]

text, (a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 154.1225  Specific response plan development and evaluation 
criteria for fixed facilities that handle, store, or transport animal 
fats and vegetable oils.

    (a) The owner or operator of a fixed facility that handles, stores, 
or transports animal fats or vegetable oils must include information in 
the response plan that identifies--
    (1) The procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case 
discharge and to an average most probable discharge of an animal fat or 
vegetable oil to the maximum extent practicable; and
* * * * *
    (b) The owner or operator of a fixed facility must make sure the 
equipment listed in the response plan will operate in the geographic 
area(s) where the facility operates. To determine if the equipment will 
operate, the owner or operator must--
    (1) Use the criteria in table 1 and section 2 of appendix C of this 
part; and
    (2) Consider the limitations in the area contingency plan for the 
COTP zone where the facility is located, including--
    (i) Ice conditions;
    (ii) Debris;
    (iii) Temperature ranges; and
    (iv) Weather-related visibility.
    (c) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats or vegetable oils must name the personnel and 
list the equipment, including those specified in Sec. 154.1240, that 
are available by contract or by a method described in Sec. 154.1228(a).
    (d) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats or vegetable oils must ensure that the response 
resources in paragraph (c) of this section are able to effectively 
respond to an incident within the amount of time indicated in the 
following table, unless otherwise specified in Sec. 154.1240:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Tier 1
                                   (hrs.)       Tier 2         Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area........          6  N/A..........  N/A
Great Lakes....................         12  N/A..........  N/A
All other river and canal,              12  N/A..........  N/A
 inland, nearshore, and
 offshore areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats or vegetable oils must--
    (1) List in the plan the personnel and equipment that the owner or 
operator will use to fight fires.
    (2) If there is not enough equipment or personnel located at the 
facility, arrange by contract or a method described in Sec. 154.1228(a) 
to have the necessary personnel and equipment available to fight fires.
    (3) Identify an individual located at the facility who will work 
with the fire department on fires, involving an animal fat or vegetable 
oil. The individual--
    (i) Verifies that there are enough trained personnel and operating 
equipment within a reasonable distance to the incident to fight fires.
    (ii) Can be the qualified individual defined in Sec. 154.1020 or an 
appropriate individual located at the facility.
* * * * *
    9. Add Sec. 154.1240 to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec. 154.1240  Specific requirements for animal fats and vegetable oils 
facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm 
to the environment.

    (a) The owner or operator of a facility, classified under 
Sec. 154.1216 as a facility that could reasonably expect to cause 
substantial harm to the environment, must submit a response plan that 
meets the requirements of Sec. 154.1035, except as modified by this 
section.
    (b) The plan does not need to list the facility or corporate 
organizational structure that the owner or operator will use to manage 
the response, as required by Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii).
    (c) The owner or operator must ensure and identify, by contract or 
a method described in Sec. 154.1228, that the response resources 
required under Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iv) are available.
    (d) For a fixed facility, the owner or operator must also 
identify--
    (1) By contract, at least 1,000 feet of containment boom or two 
times the length of the longest vessel that regularly conducts 
operations at the facility, whichever is greater, and the means of 
deploying and anchoring the boom within 1 hour of an incident. Based on 
site-specific or facility-specific information, the COTP may require 
the facility owner or operator to make available additional quantities 
of containment boom within 1 hour of an incident;
    (2) Adequate sorbent material located at the facility;
    (3) Oil recovery devices and recovered oil storage capacity capable 
of being at the incident's site within 2 hours of an incident; and
    (4) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to an incident 
involving the type of oil handled.
    (e) For a mobile facility, the owner or operator must also--
    (1) Meet the requirements of Sec. 154.1041;
    (2) Have at least 200 feet of containment boom and the means of 
deploying and anchoring the boom within 1 hour of an incident. Based on 
site-specific or facility-specific information, the COTP may require 
the facility owner or operator to make available additional quantities 
of containment boom within 1 hour of an incident;
    (3) Have adequate sorbent material capable of being at the site of 
an incident within 1 hour of its discovery;
    (4) Oil recovery devices and recovered oil storage capacity capable 
of being at incident's site within 2 hours of an incident; and
    (5) Other equipment necessary to respond to an incident involving 
the type of oil handled.

    Dated: March 24, 1999.
J.C. Card,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 99-8274 Filed 4-2-99; 12:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P