[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54759-54760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Ch. I

[USCG-1998-3473]
RIN 2115-AF61


Emergency Response Plans for Passenger Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing and terminating its advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking concerning emergency response plans 
(ERPs) for U.S.-flag inspected passenger

[[Page 54760]]

vessels operating in domestic service. It is doing this to concentrate 
its resources on homeland security. It expects that there will be no 
public disagreement with its position since there was no significant 
public support for this rulemaking during the comment period.

DATES: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn and 
terminated on August 26, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Linda Fagan, Office of Compliance 
(G-MOC), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-267-2978.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 26, 1998, we published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled ``Emergency Response Plans for Passenger Vessels'' 
in the Federal Register (63 FR 9916). The rulemaking concerned the 
development of plans for passenger vessels to respond to emergencies, 
such as collisions, allisions, groundings, and fires.

Withdrawal and Termination

    After the terrorist attacks on the United States in September, 
2001, the Coast Guard has re-evaluated all of its active rulemakings to 
concentrate its resources on homeland security.
    The Coast Guard would like to graciously acknowledge and extend a 
thank you with regards to the comments received from the public during 
the ANPRM phase of the rulemaking. All comments are available for 
public review at the Web site of the Document Management System (DMS) 
http://dms.dot.gov/ by referring to the docket number [USCG-1998-3473]. 
There were a total of fifteen comments received, two of which obliquely 
supported the rulemaking. The supporting comments claimed that existing 
regulations and guidance from the Coast Guard adequately address ERPs. 
They go on to say that any rules or regulations must be extremely 
flexible and contain as few mandates as possible so all ERPs are 
specific to routes and vessels and allow for the development and 
implementation of safe and cost-effective plans. The Coast Guard's 
response to these recommendations is that there will almost certainly 
be a significant amount of new security mandates contained in the rules 
just now being proposed. These mandates would govern certain elements 
of emergency-response planning so as to entail new equipment or 
measures that would result in enhanced vessel security. Therefore, the 
withdrawal and termination of this rulemaking is justified--all the 
more, given the two supporting comments. These, summarized below, 
clearly indicate how marginal the support is for this rulemaking.
    First Supporting Comment: ``[E]xisting regulations and guidance 
from the Coast Guard adequately address emergency response plans.'' If 
there is a rulemaking, it ``should be flexible based on the type and 
size of vessel, passenger capacity, shore-based management structure, 
availability of resources and facilities * * * for search and rescue, 
routes, traffic[,] and operating conditions. * * * [A]ny rules or 
regulations must be extremely flexible and contain as few mandates as 
possible so all emergency response plans are route and vessel specific 
and allow for the development and implementation of safe and cost 
effective plans.'' Mandated full-scale emergency exercises for moored 
vessels would obstruct operations, causing significant loss of 
revenues. Classroom training and simulated drills provide excellent 
tools at minimal costs.
    Second Supporting Comment: ``The proposed requirements, 
particularly for vessels not subject to OPA 90 or the ISM Code, do make 
sense. Compliance should be mandatory for all vessels certified to 
carry 100 or fewer passengers, dependent on geographical operational 
area, and even for moored, `` `nostalgic' '' casino-boats. One big 
problem is lack of training for non-maritime ``crew'': wait staff 
(waitresses and waiters, bartenders, and the like), cooks, and others 
in the steward's department. These ``crew'' members have the most 
contact with the public and will be depended on in an emergency, yet 
they have the least knowledge and training.
    The thirteen negative comments received from the public are likely 
to be similar in nature and tone to what can be reasonably projected 
for the new security regulations, but the ratio of positive comments to 
negative should be higher given the National impetus to focus on 
security. The negative comments generally stated that the target 
population, high-consequence--low-probability vessels, does not need 
added regulation and that the very term ``low probability'' argues 
against further regulatory action. The comments mentioned that if there 
is no problem, or is no projection of a future problem, then no 
regulatory action is required. The likely rulemakings on the security 
of vessels should address practices respecting high-consequence--low-
probability vessels, the precise population that ERP proposed to 
address.

    Dated: August 18, 2002.
Paul J. Pluta,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, 
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 02-21688 Filed 8-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P