[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6168-6170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[USCG-1998-3417]
RIN 1625-AA19


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 23, 2004, a notice of 
suspension was published in the Federal Register, suspending the 24-
hour requirement scheduled to become effective on February 12, 2004, 
until February 12, 2007 (69 FR 3236). The Coast Guard has decided to 
extend this suspension period for another two years to allow us to 
complete the rulemaking that will revise the salvage and marine 
firefighting requirements.

DATES: This extension is effective as of February 12, 2007. Termination 
of the suspension will be on February 12, 2009.

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 questions on this rule or 
the partial suspension of regulations, call Lieutenant Commander Reed 
Kohberger, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, Coast Guard 
Headquarters, telephone 202-372-1471, or via e-mail: 
[email protected]. For questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 
Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.

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

[[Page 6169]]

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 (66 FR 3876) 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. On 
January 23, 2004, a third notice of suspension was published in the 
Federal Register suspending the 24-hour requirement scheduled to become 
effective on February 12, 2004, until February 12, 2007 (69 FR 3236) 
because during the preceding three years, the Coast Guard had to 
redirect the majority of its regulatory resources to issue security-
related regulations as required by the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act of 2002. As a result, we were unable to complete our review of the 
comments we received in response to a May 10, 2002, notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) (67 FR 31868) on the proposed revisions to the 
existing salvage and marine-firefighting requirements. Now that the 
comments have been reviewed, and a draft programmatic environmental 
assessment prepared, we will begin to prepare an updated regulatory 
assessment.
    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.

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 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.

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 certain 
requirements 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 annually evaluates the enforcement activities and rates 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 certain requirements, 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with

[[Page 6170]]

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, 
performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; 
and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted 
by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this 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 at http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf33/50180_web.pdf. We 
have also reexamined that information and determined it is still 
accurate.

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, 
2009.


Sec.  155.1052  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  155.1052, the last sentence in paragraph (f) is suspended 
until February 12, 2009.

    Dated: February 5, 2007.
J.G. Lantz,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 07-572 Filed 2-6-07; 10:42 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P