[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26212-26221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0576]
RIN 1625-AB75


Higher Volume Port Area-State of Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is redefining the boundaries of the existing 
higher volume port area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, 
in Washington. This rulemaking is required to make the Code of Federal 
Regulations consistent with statute, and is related to the Coast 
Guard's maritime stewardship (environmental protection) mission.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0576, which is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, CG-MER-1, Coast Guard; telephone 
202-372-1227, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VI. Discussion of the Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CGAA 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, 
124 Stat. 2905, Oct. 15, 2010)
CGAA 2015 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-120, 
130 Stat. 27, Feb. 8, 2016)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
CRF Capital recovery factor
FR Federal Register
GSA General Services Administration
HVPA Higher volume port area
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NSFCC National Strike Force Coordination Center
OMB Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 26213]]

OSRO Oil spill removal organization
Pub. L. Public Law
SBA Small Business Administration
Stat. Statute
U.S.C. United States Code
VRP Vessel response plan

II. Basis and Purpose

    The purpose of this rule is to align the list of higher volume port 
areas (HVPAs) in 33 CFR 155.1020 with statutory changes made to the 
State of Washington's higher volume port area, the Washington HVPA. 
Section 316 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (CGAA 2015) 
expanded the Washington HVPA.\1\ The Washington HVPA had included the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca seaward of Port Angeles, but section 316 
expanded it immediately to an area seaward of Cape Flattery, which is 
where the Strait of Juan de Fuca joins the Pacific Ocean. Regulations 
in 33 CFR 155.1020 still reflect the prior, Port Angeles location. 
Therefore, this rulemaking updates the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) to match the statutory requirement already in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 114-120, 130 Stat. 27 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is issued in accordance with section 316 of the CGAA 
2015. The legal basis to update the CFR is Title 33 of the United 
States Code (U.S.C.) section 1231 and 1321(j), which require the 
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to 
issue regulations necessary for implementing the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act, and require the President to issue regulations mandating 
response plans and other measures to protect against oil and hazardous 
substance spills. The President's authority under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) is 
delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order 12777, and the 
Secretary's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by DHS Delegation 
No. 0170.1(II)(70), (73), and (80).

III. Regulatory History

    On October 15, 2010, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 
(CGAA 2010) directed the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to modify 
the definition of ``higher volume port area'' in 33 CFR 155.1020, to 
expand the Washington HVPA past Cape Flattery.\2\ On December 7, 2011, 
the Coast Guard published a notification \3\ announcing our intent to 
comply with the mandate in section 710 of the CGAA 2010. On May 22, 
2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
\4\ to revise the boundaries of the existing HVPA in the Strait of Juan 
de Fuca and Puget Sound. The NPRM had a 90-day comment period that 
closed on August 20, 2015. No public meeting was requested, and none 
was held.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Public Law 111-281, section 710, 124 Stat. 2986 (2010).
    \3\ 76 FR 76299.
    \4\ 80 FR 29582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the close of the NPRM comment period, the CGAA 2015 expanded 
the HVPA immediately without requiring rulemaking before the change 
took effect. The Coast Guard applies the requirements of the expanded 
HVPA of the CGAA 2015 and has done so since the effective date of the 
Act. Although rulemaking is not required to implement the statute, a 
conforming change to the CFR is still necessary to ensure the 
regulations align with the statute. In this final rule, the Coast Guard 
is making conforming changes and responding to public comments received 
on the proposed rule. In Section V of this preamble, we discuss the 
comments that we received and how we addressed them.

IV. Background

    Oil or hazardous material pollution prevention regulations for U.S. 
and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters, appear in Coast Guard 
regulations at 33 CFR part 155. Those regulations require a vessel 
response plan (VRP) describing measures that the vessel owner or 
operator has taken or will take to mitigate or respond to an oil spill 
from the vessel. The VRP must demonstrate the vessel's ability, 
following a spill, to secure response resources within given time 
periods. These measures typically include the services of nearby 
response resources under a contract between the vessel's owner or 
operator and an oil spill removal organization (OSRO) that owns the 
response resources. The regulations provide for three different 
timeframes within which a combination of required response resources 
must arrive on the scene, which are described as Tiers 1, 2, and 3.
    In 33 CFR part 155, subparts D (petroleum oil as cargo), F (animal 
fat or vegetable oil as cargo), G (non-petroleum oil as cargo), and J 
(petroleum oil as fuel or secondary cargo) all share the same 
definition of ``higher volume port area.'' Required response times are 
significantly reduced in HVPAs. For example, Tier 1 response times for 
an oil tanker within an HVPA are half of that required for the same 
vessel operating in open ocean. As defined in 33 CFR 155.1020, the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, WA, constitute one of the 14 
HVPAs designated around the country.
    Since 1996, 33 CFR 155.1020 has defined the seaward boundary of the 
Washington HVPA as an arc 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance to 
Port Angeles, WA. Port Angeles is approximately 62 nautical miles 
inland from the Pacific Ocean entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 
at Cape Flattery, WA, and therefore the Washington HVPA, as defined in 
33 CFR 155.1020, did not include any Pacific Ocean waters. Section 710 
of the CGAA 2010 required the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to 
relocate the HVPA's arc so that it extended seaward from Cape Flattery, 
not Port Angeles. This added 50 nautical miles of Pacific Ocean water 
and an additional 12 nautical miles in the western portion of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Waters discussed in this preamble are shown on National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chart 18460 (Cape Flattery, 
WA) and chart 18465 (Port Angeles, WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    We received comments on our NPRM from five sources: An 
environmental group, two state environmental agencies, an Indian tribal 
council, and an individual resident of the region. These public 
comments could not anticipate the 2015 legislation that was enacted 
after the close of the comment period in August 2015, and which 
overwrote the 2010 legislation that prompted the Coast Guard to issue 
the NPRM. However, the Coast Guard addresses all the public comments 
here in order to improve clarity and foster better relationships with 
stakeholders.
    Legislative intent. The tribal council explained its role in 
developing the 2010 legislation mandating this rulemaking, and said the 
purpose of the legislation was to ``enhance oil spill response capacity 
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, commensurate with the history of oil 
spills in this region, the sensitivity of the area's natural resources 
and the risk for future spills from increasing tank and non-tank vessel 
traffic.'' The council asserted that the NPRM did not reflect this 
intent in the proposed regulatory text.
    Response: We acknowledge the council's role in developing the 2010 
legislation. However, the text of section 710 is unambiguously limited 
to the expansion of the HVPA. Section 316 of CGAA 2015 expanded the 
Washington HVPA without the need for the Coast Guard to conduct a 
rulemaking. Neither Act gave the Coast Guard discretion to choose a 
different size or location for the Washington HVPA, or provided other 
direction regarding this HVPA.
    Adequacy of response resources. The environmental group, one of the 
state environmental agencies, the tribal council, and the local 
resident all expressed concern that expansion of the

[[Page 26214]]

HVPA would reduce the ability of OSROs to respond adequately to oil or 
other hazardous substance spills throughout the HVPA. The local 
resident and the state environmental agency said we did not provide 
sufficient details on how we will implement the expanded HVPA. The same 
group asked us to coordinate with governmental agencies and regional 
and tribal groups to collectively determine how best to balance 
response assets in the HVPA. The environmental group and the resident 
expressed concern over the potential impact of anticipated increases in 
the number of vessels carrying those substances in the HVPA.
    Response: Title 33 CFR part 155 does not allow the Coast Guard to 
direct OSROs where equipment must be staged, or require OSROs to 
purchase any additional equipment. The Coast Guard requires that OSROs 
demonstrate their ability to respond adequately to a spill within an 
HVPA's response timelines. Thus, there is no provision to coordinate 
with governmental agencies and regional and tribal groups to 
collectively determine how best to balance response assets in the HVPA.
    The Coast Guard National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC) 
verifies OSRO capability through Preparedness Assessment Visits and 
response time calculations. The same method is used in classifying all 
OSROs. Two OSROs are currently classified for coverage in the HVPA. 
Vessel owners or operators need only reference the classified OSRO in 
their VRP. If an owner or operator chooses to use a non-classified 
OSRO, then they must list all the equipment and describe how they meet 
the requirements in appendix B to 33 CFR part 155. All VRPs receive the 
same detailed review for response adequacy to ensure the vessel's 
readiness for response in the geographic area it is operating.
    We acknowledge the concerns of commenters with regard to reduced 
response capabilities throughout the HVPA. This rulemaking in no way 
reduces or changes any response requirements that currently exist. 
Implementation of the revised HVPA does not change the requirement of 
vessel owners and operators to identify classified OSROs or identify 
their own equipment sufficient to meet part 155 appendix B 
requirements. This is required in order for the vessel to receive an 
approved VRP necessary for operating in the HVPA.
    We also acknowledge concerns about increased vessel transits and, 
it is implied, a higher likelihood of spills. VRPs are for response 
planning purposes. Consistent with the National Planning Criteria, they 
are evaluated using the worst-case discharge from a single vessel.
    Pre-NPRM tribal consultation. The tribal council ``strongly 
disagree[s]'' with our analysis of Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal 
Governments) requirements, which concluded that, for this rulemaking, 
tribal consultation is not required by the Executive Order. The council 
says we should have consulted with it because of our shared trust 
responsibility for the commenter's treaty protected area.
    Response: The Coast Guard enjoys a close working relationship with 
many tribal governments, including the council represented by the 
commenter. The Coast Guard welcomes ongoing communications and informal 
consultation, as well as suggestions for improving communications with 
tribes. The consultation described in section 5(b) of Executive Order 
13175 is triggered by a regulation that has tribal implications and 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments. Section 5(b) Executive Order 13175 also only requires 
consultation when the regulation being developed ``is not required by 
statute.'' In this case, section 710 of CGAA 2010 required that the 
Coast Guard promulgate a regulation to expand the Washington HVPA. As 
discussed above, however, after the close of the NPRM comment period, 
section 316 of CGAA 2015 expanded the Washington HVPA by statutory 
mandate. Therefore, the Coast Guard maintains that the consultation 
described in Executive Order 13175 does not apply. As noted, however, 
we do not believe that the absence of Executive Order 13175 
consultation prevents the Coast Guard from receiving and incorporating 
input from tribal governments. In the 5 years between the 2010 
legislation and the 2015 publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard met 
or spoke with tribal representatives about the Washington HVPA 
expansion. We appreciated the input and look forward to continued 
collaboration with the tribal representatives.
    Future tribal consultation. The tribal council asked us to enter 
into government-to-government consultation after the rule is adopted, 
and to develop a protocol for consultation and coordination going 
forward. The council also suggested that we consult with the State of 
Washington to ``establish a harmonized view about how industry and 
OSROs will be expected to comply with the HVPA shift.''
    Response: The Coast Guard invites communication and dialogue with 
tribal councils in order to maintain a positive working relationship. 
The Coast Guard's Thirteenth District, in particular, values its 
longstanding and ongoing relationship with the Makah Tribal Council. 
The Thirteenth District meets with tribes, and will continue to meet 
with tribes, to discuss a variety of issues. The involvement of local 
units like the Thirteenth District is essential for ensuring the Coast 
Guard's proper understanding of stakeholder input, and the Thirteenth 
District is best positioned to work with the council, through their 
longstanding and ongoing relationship as memorialized in their 2013 
Memorandum of Agreement, on any implementation arrangements that are 
appropriate for discussion with the public. Although the process 
described in Executive Order 13175 is not the appropriate mechanism for 
consultation and coordination after the rule becomes final, the Coast 
Guard is committed to addressing concerns raised by our regulations and 
their implementation.
    As described above, this rule makes no changes to the requirements 
for planholders or for classifying OSROs, so we do not anticipate a 
shift in implementation process. Through existing practices, the NSFCC 
confirms that classified OSROs meet their regulatory responsibilities. 
Owners or operators using non-classified OSROs must describe in their 
VRP how they meet appendix B requirements. Although we do not see a 
specific need for formal consultation with the State of Washington, the 
Thirteenth Coast Guard District maintains open lines of communication 
with the State. The Coast Guard will continue to work with its Federal, 
State, local, and tribal partners to ensure response readiness 
following publication of this final rule.
    Additional resources and Neah Bay restaging. One of the state 
environmental agencies said that the expanded HVPA ``should result in 
the acquisition and staging of additional equipment that is capable of 
open water recovery and storage in Neah Bay.'' The State agency also 
said that, in approving VRPs and evaluating OSROs identified by those 
VRPs, we should consider whether they reflect the restaging of response 
assets in Neah Bay. The tribal council said our rule should ensure that 
``additional equipment is purchased and staged in a geographic location 
to promptly respond to a spill in the western reaches of the expanded 
HVPA, without adversely impacting responses'' elsewhere in the HVPA, 
and said Neah Bay is the ``logical and appropriate'' staging area for 
additional response equipment, which should be rated for an open-ocean 
environment.

[[Page 26215]]

    Response: While Neah Bay may be a logical and appropriate location 
for the staging of response equipment, other locations may also be 
logical and appropriate. The Coast Guard does not direct OSROs to where 
equipment must be staged, or require OSROs to purchase any additional 
equipment. The Coast Guard requires that OSROs demonstrate their 
ability to respond adequately to a spill within an HVPA's response 
timelines.
    Benefits. One of the state environmental agencies and the tribal 
council asked what basis we had for stating in the NPRM \6\ that of 283 
spills of oil or other hazardous substances in the affected area 
between 1995 and 2013, we could identify no spill response that would 
have benefitted from the HVPA's expansion. The council cited three oil 
spills that adversely affected the tribe including the General Meigs, 
the Nestucca, and the Tenyo Maru. The agency and the council both noted 
that we did not ask them for information that might have changed that 
conclusion. The council expressed concern over ``the limited historical 
oil spill data'' used in our analysis, and ``formally request[ed]'' 
that we conduct ``a more rigorous analysis of historical oil spills'' 
and give the commenter the ``opportunity to review the Coast Guard's 
methodology regarding'' what effect HVPA expansion might have had on 
the response to previous spills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NPRM, 80 FR 29582 at 29586, col. 3 (May 22, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Although Congress expanded the HVPA after these comments 
were submitted, making our spill analysis redundant, it may be helpful 
to explain the context for our regulatory analyses. The statement 
referred to by these commenters appeared in the ``regulatory analyses'' 
for the NPRM.\7\ As explained in the NPRM, based on information from 
Coast Guard personnel who have experience in casualty case 
investigations and analysis, we found none of the 283 cases or spills 
that would have benefited from the HVPA expansion. As for the three 
spills cited by the council, we cannot conclude that the expanded HVPA 
would have mitigated the damage caused by those incidents. The 33 CFR 
part 155 regulations do not apply to a warship or naval auxiliary 
vessel such as the troopship General Meigs.\8\ The Nestucca and Tenyo 
Maru incidents did not occur within the existing or expanded bounds of 
the HVPA. We were therefore unable to use these incidents in our 
benefit analysis for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NPRM, 80 FR 29582 at 29586-29587 (May 22, 2015).
    \8\ 33 CFR 155.100(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule is substantively unchanged from what we proposed in the 
NPRM. It expands the boundaries of the Washington HVPA in the CFR to 
make those boundaries consistent with section 316 of the CGAA 2015. The 
old definition of ``higher volume port area'' in 33 CFR 155.1020 
includes any water area within 50 nautical miles seaward of the 
entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port Angeles, WA to and 
including Cape Flattery, WA. In order to align the regulations with 
section 316 of the CGAA 2015, we are amending that definition by 
striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA'' in 
its place.
    Port Angeles lies about 62 nautical miles east of the entrance to 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. By moving the arc so that it centers on 
Cape Flattery, which lies at the entrance to the Strait, the redefined 
Washington HVPA will cover an additional 50 nautical miles of Pacific 
Ocean water, while continuing to cover all the waters now included 
within the current HVPA. The larger Washington HVPA may affect the time 
and resources needed to respond to an oil spill from a vessel because 
it is harder and more time-consuming to transit rough Pacific Ocean 
waters than it is to transit the sheltered waters of the Strait and the 
Sound. We discuss these possibilities in more detail in the Regulatory 
Analyses section that follows.
    This rule also makes two editorial changes in 33 CFR 155.1020. 
First, we correct the spelling of ``Strait of Juan De Fuca'' to 
``Strait of Juan de Fuca.'' Second, we add a note to paragraph (13) of 
the definition of ``higher volume port area'' to highlight that the 
western boundary of the Washington HVPA in 33 CFR part 155 differs from 
that in 33 CFR part 154 for facilities transferring oil or hazardous 
materials in bulk. The difference stems from section 316 of the CGAA 
2015 (Pub. L. 114-120) and the statutory language that specifically 
addresses the definition in 33 CFR part 155. The statutory expansion in 
the CGAA 2015 is not written to address 33 CFR part 154, and therefore 
33 CFR subchapter O will contain two differing definitions of ``higher 
volume port area'' for the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to this rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control 
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation 
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, 
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and 
controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not 
a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the 
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum ``Guidance 
Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017). A regulatory analysis 
follows.
    We received no public comments on the estimated costs of the 
proposed rule, nor did we receive any additional information or data 
that alters our assessment of the proposed rule. However, we received 
two public comments on the benefit analysis presented in the proposed 
rule regarding the same topic. We presented our full response to these 
two public comments in section V of this preamble. Because no casualty 
case mentioned in one of the comments would have benefited from the 
expanded HVPA, we also determined that our assessment of the benefits 
of the proposed rule remains unchanged. Therefore, we adopt the 
preliminary regulatory analysis for the proposed rule as final. A 
summary of that analysis follows.
    This final rule is needed to conform Coast Guard regulations to the 
statutory changes made by section 316 of CGAA 2015. Currently, the CFR 
says the Washington HVPA boundary is

[[Page 26216]]

measured from Port Angeles in a 50 nautical mile seaward arc westward 
to the Pacific Ocean. This final rule will amend the definition of the 
term ``higher volume port area'' to match the relocated point at which 
the seaward arc is measured from Port Angeles to Cape Flattery, WA, an 
approximately 62 nautical mile westward shift. As a result, the 
Washington HVPA will cover an additional 50 nautical miles of open 
ocean and an additional 12 nautical miles in the western portion of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca. A VRP must list the OSRO provider that the 
vessel owner or operator has contracted with and stipulate the vessel's 
ability to secure response resources within specific regulatory 
timeframes (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) in the event of an oil spill. This final 
rule will codify the changes delineated in the CGAA 2015 and it will 
not require changes to VRPs.
Affected Population
    Part 155 of 33 CFR directly applies to and regulates vessel owners 
and operators. The final rule has the potential to impact vessel 
response planholders covering vessels that transit the Washington HVPA 
and OSROs that provide response resources in the event of an oil spill. 
Based on the Coast Guard's review of VRPs, two OSROs may be impacted by 
the final rule. One OSRO has about 500 response resource contracts and 
the other OSRO has about 650 contracts with planholders that own 
vessels that call on the expanded Washington HVPA. For the OSRO that 
has 500 contracts, about 3 percent or 15 of those contracts are with 
U.S. planholders; for the OSRO that has 650 contracts, about 2 percent 
or 13 of those contracts are with U.S. planholders.
Costs
    Vessel owners and operators will not need to revise or modify a 
current VRP to take into account the expansion of the HVPA. Current 
VRPs already specify one or both of the OSROs that provide response 
resources to vessel owners and operators in the affected waters. Vessel 
owners and operators must only list the NSFCC-classified OSRO by name 
and include the contact information for each OSRO in the VRP; no other 
information or details regarding the geographic location of response 
equipment are required in the VRP.
    In addition to identifying the OSRO in the VRP, vessel owners and 
operators must ensure the availability of response resources from the 
OSRO through a contract or other approved means. Depending on how the 
contract language is formulated, a contract may need to be modified to 
reflect the change in the HVPA geographical definition. For example, 
one OSRO provided information which stated that contracts will need to 
be modified slightly to incorporate the geographic change of the 
expanded HVPA, while the other OSRO provided information which stated 
that no changes or modifications to existing contracts are necessary on 
the part of either OSRO or the planholders. For the purpose of this 
analysis, we estimate costs to modify a contract for the planholders of 
the OSRO that stated that changes are necessary. This OSRO has about 
500 planholders with written contractual agreements to secure response 
resource services in the event of an oil spill; of this amount, only 
about 3 percent or 15, are with U.S. planholders. Based on information 
we obtained from industry in formulating the Nontank Vessel Response 
Plan final rule (78 FR 60100), it will take a general and operations 
manager approximately 2 hours of planholder time to amend the contract 
and send the contract to the OSRO for approval. If a plan preparer 
amends the contract on behalf of the planholder, we estimate it will 
take the same amount of time. We found that 36 percent of planholders 
perform this work internally and 64 percent hire a plan preparer to 
perform this work on their behalf. The amendment of a contract is a 
one-time cost; we estimate little or no submission cost for planholders 
because nearly 100 percent of contracts are submitted by email to the 
responsible OSRO.
    Accounting for planholders who perform the work internally and 
using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2016 National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for General and 
Operations Manager (Occupation Code 11-1021), we obtain a mean hourly 
wage rate of $73.98. We then use BLS' 2016 Employer Cost for Employee 
Compensation databases to calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52 to 
obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of about $112.45 for this 
occupation.\9\ For plan preparers, we obtained publicly available fully 
loaded billing rates for senior regulatory consultants and program 
managers from three environmental service companies using the General 
Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Acquisition eLibrary for 
service contracts.\10\ We took the average of these three rates to 
obtain a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $145.11[we used three labor 
categories: Senior Regulatory Consultant with a wage rate of $184.22 
for contract number GS-10F-0263U (page number 16), Program Manager with 
a wage rate of $115.86 for contract number GS-10F-0074T (page number 
4), and Senior Project Manager with a wage rate of $135.25 for contract 
number GS-10F-0335R (page number 32)]. Of about 500 planholders who 
have contracts with this OSRO, only about 15 are U.S. planholders. Of 
the 15 U.S. planholders, about 36 percent will amend the contract 
internally. We estimate the one-time cost to these planholders is about 
$1,214 ($112.45 x 2 hours x 500 planholders x 0.03 x 0.36, rounded). 
For the remaining 64 percent of U.S. planholders who have plan 
preparers amend the contracts on their behalf, we estimate the one-time 
cost is about $2,786 ($145.11 x 2 hours x 500 planholders x 0.03 x 
0.64, rounded); the total combined estimated one-time cost to U.S. 
planholders to amend the contracts is about $4,001, rounded and 
undiscounted. We estimate the average one-time or initial cost for each 
U.S. planholder to amend a contract is about $267 ($4,001/15 U.S. 
planholders). We estimate the 10-year discounted cost is about $3,739 
using a 7 percent discount rate and the annualized cost is about $532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Information can be viewed at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/naics3_483000.htm. Once on this page, scroll down to review the 
wage rate for 11-1021, General and Operations Manager with a mean 
hourly wage of $73.98. A loaded labor rate is what a company pays 
per hour to employ a person, not the hourly wage. The loaded labor 
rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, 
etc.). The load factor for wages is calculated by dividing total 
compensation by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS' 
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation/Transportation and Materials 
Moving Occupations, Private Industry report (Series IDs, 
CMU2010000520000D and CMU2020000520000D for all workers using the 
multi-screen data search). Using 2016 Q4 (Quarter 4) data, we divide 
the total compensation amount of $28.15 by the wage and salary 
amount of $18.53 to get the load factor of 1.52. See the following 
website, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm. Once on this page, 
scroll down to ``Pay and Benefits'' and click the multi-screen data 
search button to access the database, ``Employer Cost for Employee 
Compensation.'' We used the mean hourly wage rate of $73.98 and 
multiplied by 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of about 
$112.45.
    \10\ GSA Contract GS-10F-0263U accessed 05/24/2017, https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS10F0263U/0ME78D.2QP6TJ_GS-10F-0263U_GSAADVANTAGEYR6.PDF; GSA Contract GS-10F-0074T accessed 05/24/
2017, https://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/contractorInfo.do?contractNumber=GS-10F-0074T&contractorName=ENVIRONMENTAL+MANAGEMENT+SERVICES+INC&executeQuery=YES (once at the GSA eLibrary web page, the reader must use the 
hyperlink labeled ``Contractor T&Cs/Pricelist'' to obtain the wage 
rate used in this analysis), and https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS10F0335R/0OMBPD.3723M6_GS-10F-0335R_ENVCOSTMGMTTANDC071315.PDF; accessed 05/24/2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining 485 planholders are foreign. For 36 percent of them 
who will amend the contracts internally, we

[[Page 26217]]

estimate the one-time cost is about $39,268 ($112.45 x 2 hours x 485 
planholders x 0.36, rounded). For the remaining 64 percent of foreign 
planholders who have a plan preparer amend the contracts on their 
behalf, we estimate the one-time cost is about $90,084 ($145.11 x 2 
hours x 485 planholders x 0.64, rounded); combined the total estimated 
one-time cost to foreign planholders to amend the contracts is about 
$129,352, rounded, or about $267 per planholder ($129,352/485 foreign 
planholders).
    The final category of potential costs relates to the OSROs' 
abilities to meet the specified response times in the new geographic 
area of the HVPA. Based on information provided to the Coast Guard, one 
OSRO stated that additional response equipment will not be required and 
capital expenditures will not be necessary as a result of the expanded 
HVPA under current Coast Guard OSRO classification guidelines. Based on 
data from the other OSRO, we estimate that total initial capital costs 
could be as high as $5.5 million for temporary storage equipment and 
warehousing with annual capital recurring costs of approximately 
$250,000 for equipment maintenance, and up to $1 million for barge 
recertification (included in the $5.5 million estimate), warehousing, 
and other necessary resource equipment. However, we lack independent 
methods to verify these estimates. Moreover, the actual costs the OSRO 
may incur depend considerably on how they choose to comply with our 
regulations, which give OSROs substantial flexibility with respect to 
pre-positioning response resources.
    To the extent one OSRO will incur additional costs due to this 
final rule (such as increased capitalization costs), we expect that 
these costs are generally passed onto their VRP planholders equally, 
although the OSRO that provided this information conceded that this was 
speculative at this point due to the uncertainty of expenditures that 
may be needed as described below. Using the highest value of capital 
costs provided to us of $5.5 million, we use the capital recovery cost 
factor to determine the amount needed annually to recover this payout 
since we assume the OSRO will finance the expenditures and attempt to 
recapture them equally over the life of the equipment. The capital 
recovery factor (CRF), or ratio as it is often referred to, is the 
ratio of a constant annuity to the present value of the annuity over a 
given period of time using an acceptable discount rate, as in this 
case, 7 percent. The ratio also includes the general life expectancy of 
the investment and can be simply described as the ``share of the net 
cost that must be recovered each year to `repay the cost of the fixed 
input at the end of its useful life.' '' \11\ If we use a standard life 
expectancy of 20 years, we calculate the net amount that must be 
recovered by the OSRO annually is about $519,161, undiscounted (The 
capital recovery factor is written as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://web.stanford.edu/group/FRI/indonesia/courses/manuals/pam/pam-book/Output/chap9.html.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JN18.000

where i is the discount rate and n is the number of years or the life 
expectancy of the investment).\12\ If we assume this cost is 
distributed equally over the 650 planholders (U.S. and foreign 
planholders who own vessels that transit the HVPA) under contract with 
this OSRO, the amount needed to be recovered by the OSRO to recapture 
this initial investment is estimated is about $800 (rounded from 
$798.71) from each planholder annually, most likely in the form of 
higher retainer fees. However, only about 2 percent, or 13 of the 650 
planholders are U.S. planholders. Therefore, for the 13 U.S. 
planholders, we estimate the total capital cost of this final rule is 
about $10,400 (650 planholders x 0.02 x $800) annually, undiscounted, 
in addition to annual maintenance costs of about $385 per planholder 
($250,000/650 planholders), undiscounted, in years 2 through 10 of the 
analysis period. We estimate the total 10-year discounted cost to the 
13 U.S. planholders is about $75,390 using a 7 percent discount rate 
(the 10-year discounted cost is estimated is about $91,624 using a 3 
percent discount rate) and the annualized cost is about $10,741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We calculate the value of the numerator to be about 0.27 
and the value of the denominator to be about 2.87, rounded. The CRF 
is then calculated to be about 0.0944. Multiplying by the initial 
investment of $5.5 million, we obtain an annualized recovery amount 
of about $519,161 rounded, or the annualized amount the OSRO must 
recover to repay for its initial investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all 28 U.S. planholders, we estimate the total initial-year 
cost is about $14,401 ($4,001 + $10,400), undiscounted. We estimate the 
total annual recurring cost is about $10,785 ($10,400 + $385), 
undiscounted (see Table 1 for further details).
    It follows that the remaining 637 planholders are foreign. Again, 
if we assume this OSRO passes along its capital cost in the form of 
higher retainer fees to foreign planholders, we estimate the total 
capital cost of this final rule to foreign planholders is about 
$509,600 (637 x $800) annually, undiscounted, in addition to annual 
maintenance costs of about $245,000 (637 x $385), undiscounted, in 
years 2 through 10 of the analysis period. We estimate the total 10-
year discounted cost to foreign planholders is about $3.6 million using 
a 7 percent discount rate (the 10-year discounted cost is estimated is 
about $4.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate). As stated earlier, 
we neither have knowledge of the OSROs billing structure nor how costs 
are distributed among planholders, although in our discussion with one 
OSRO, we learned that the composition of a planholder's vessel fleet 
affects the amount of the retainer fee because vessels such as nontank 
ships require different response resources as opposed to towing 
vessels, for example.
    Table 1 summarizes the total estimated cost of the final rule to 28 
U.S. planholders over a 10-year period of analysis.

                                        Table 1--Summary of Estimated Costs of the Final Rule to U.S. Planholders
                                           [7 Percent discount rate, 10-year period of analysis, 2017 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Update contracts for 15 U.S.      OSRO equipment and other               Total costs
                                                                    planholders              capital costs for 13 U.S.   -------------------------------
                          Year                           --------------------------------           planholders
                                                                                         --------------------------------  Undiscounted     Discounted
                                                           Undiscounted     Discounted     Undiscounted     Discounted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          $4,001          $3,739         $10,400          $9,720         $14,401         $13,459
2.......................................................               0               0          10,785           9,420          10,785           9,420
3.......................................................               0               0          10,785           8,804          10,785           8,804
4.......................................................               0               0          10,785           8,228          10,785           8,228

[[Page 26218]]

 
5.......................................................               0               0          10,785           7,690          10,785           7,690
6.......................................................               0               0          10,785           7,187          10,785           7,187
7.......................................................               0               0          10,785           6,716          10,785           6,716
8.......................................................               0               0          10,785           6,277          10,785           6,277
9.......................................................               0               0          10,785           5,866          10,785           5,866
10......................................................               0               0          10,785           5,483          10,785           5,483
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............           3,739  ..............          75,390  ..............          79,129
        Annualized......................................  ..............             532  ..............          10,734  ..............          11,266
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    As Table 1 shows, for 15 U.S. planholders who may need to revise 
their contracts, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost of the final 
rule is about $3,739 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent 
discount rate, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost is about 
$3,884). We estimate the annualized cost is about $532 for these 15 
planholders.
    For the OSRO that may incur capital costs as a result of this final 
rule and pass these costs along to its 13 U.S. planholders, we estimate 
the 10-year discounted cost is about $75,390 at a 7 percent discount 
rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the 10-year 
discounted cost is about $91,624). We estimate the annualized cost is 
about $10,734 at a 7 percent discount rate for these 13 planholders.
    We estimate the total present discounted cost of the final rule to 
all 28 U.S. planholders about $79,129 at a 7 percent discount rate 
(using a 3 percent discount rate, is we estimate the total 10-year 
discounted cost is about $95,509). We estimate the annualized cost is 
about $11,266 at a 7 percent discount rate.
    We do not anticipate that this final rule will impose new costs on 
the Coast Guard or require the Coast Guard to expend additional 
resources because we do not expect any changes are required to the VRPs 
of vessels in the HVPA.
Alternatives
    Due to the specific nature of section 710(a) of the CGAA 2010 and 
section 316 of the CGAA 2015, we are limited in the alternative 
approaches we can use to comply with Congress' intent. We considered 
three alternatives (including the preferred alternative) in the 
development of the final rule: (1) Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking 
``Port Angeles, WA'' in the definition of ``higher volume port area'' 
of that section and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA''; (2) revise 33 CFR 
155.1020 by striking ``50 nautical miles'' in the definition of 
``higher volume port area'' and inserting ``110 nautical miles''; and 
(3) take no action. The Regulatory Analyses section further discusses 
the analysis of the preferred alternative (i.e., express adoption of 
the wording from section 710(a)) in comparison with other regulatory 
approaches considered.
Analysis of Alternatives
    We considered three alternatives (including the preferred 
alternative) in the development of this final rule. The key factors 
that we evaluated in considering each alternative included: (1) The 
degree to which the alternative comported with the congressional 
mandate in section 710 of the CGAA 2010; (2) what benefits, if any, are 
derived, such as enhancement of personal and environmental safety and 
security; and (3) cost effectiveness. The alternatives considered are 
as follows:
    Alternative 1: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``Port Angeles, 
WA'' in the definition of ``higher volume port area'' of that section 
and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' Since 1996, 33 CFR 155.1020 has 
defined the seaward boundary of the Washington HVPA as an arc 50 
nautical miles seaward of the entrance to Port Angeles, WA. The change 
will relocate the arc's center to Cape Flattery, covering approximately 
50 additional nautical miles of open ocean.
    Alternative 2: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``50 nautical 
miles'' in the definition of ``higher volume port area'' and inserting 
``110 nautical miles.'' This change would affect the other 13 HVPAs 
throughout the United States because the level of response resources 
required would cause significantly reduced response times resulting 
from a 110-mile outward shift of the existing HVPAs from their 
entrances. A shift of this distance would require the purchasing and 
positioning of heavier and more expensive equipment such as oceangoing 
tugs and barges. In addition, OSROs would incur considerable costs of 
potentially retrofitting existing HVPAs with shoreside docks. Since 
this would include all HVPAs, the economic impact on the response 
resource industry, as a whole, would be greater as opposed to a single 
HVPA. Furthermore, this option would be inconsistent with the existing 
boundaries of the expanded HVPA in section 710(a) of CGAA 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-281, 124 Stat. 2905) as amended by section 316 of the CGAA 2015.
    Alternative 3: Take no action. This option was not selected as it 
would not implement the intent of section 316 of the CGAA 2015, which 
specifically requires the Coast Guard to implement the modified 
definition of the term ``higher volume port area'' by striking ``Port 
Angeles, WA'' and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' It also precludes 
the protection intended by Congress for the waters at the entrance to 
and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
    We chose Alternative 1, which codifies the regulation directly and 
specifically implements section 316 of the CGAA 2015 as described 
earlier. We rejected Alternative 2, because it would result in 
different HVPA boundaries in regulation and statute and adds burden, 
both in the Puget Sound region and in the other HVPAs throughout the 
United States. We rejected Alternative 3, the ``no action'' 
alternative, because it would not implement section 316.
Benefits
    We did not identify any historic cases that could support the 
development of quantifiable benefits associated with this final rule. 
Using the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law

[[Page 26219]]

Enforcement (MISLE) database with casualty cases transferred from 
MISLE's predecessor, the Marine Safety Management System database, we 
examined 283 spill cases from 1995 to 2013, beginning with the first 
spills that appeared in our database for this geographic region. We 
also examined 378 additional cases from 2014 through 2016. Based on 
information from Coast Guard personnel who have experience in casualty 
case investigations and analysis, we found no cases or spills that 
would have definitively benefitted from the expanded HVPA.
    Qualitatively, oil spills are likely to result in a negative impact 
to the ecosystem and the economy of the surrounding area. These social 
welfare effects are not accounted for solely by the amount of oil 
spilled into the water. In many cases, the scope of the impact is 
contingent on the vulnerability and resiliency of the affected area. 
Due to the sensitivity or vulnerability of a location, a barrel of 
spilled oil may not have the same impact in one area as it would in 
another. Depending on the ecosystem, VRPs could mitigate impacts to 
habitats that house multiple species. An area with an ecosystem that is 
damaged as a result of previous environmental incidents or damaged due 
to the cumulative effects of environmental injuries over time can be 
expected to have higher benefits from oil spill mitigation.
    The primary benefit of this final rule is to ensure that in the 
event of a spill, adequate response resources are available and can be 
mobilized within the expanded HVPA. This will ensure a timely response 
by vessel owners and operators and the OSROs in an effort to reduce the 
likelihood, and mitigate the impact of an oil spill on the marine 
environment that might occur in the expanded HVPA.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises 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.
    Regarding vessel owners and operators, as previously discussed, 
this final rule will codify the requirements in the CGAA 2015 of an 
expanded HVPA, and it will not require vessel owners and operators to 
make changes to VRPs. Therefore, owners and operators of vessels that 
transit the HVPA will not incur additional VRP modification costs as a 
result of this final rule. However, as assumed earlier for the purpose 
of this analysis, if contracts would need to be modified, as stated by 
one OSRO on the part of the planholders, U.S. planholders will bear 
some costs of this final rule as shown earlier in the ``Costs'' portion 
of section VII. A. of this preamble. We estimate that each of the 15 
U.S. planholders will incur an average one-time cost of about $267 to 
amend its contract with the OSRO.
    Also, regarding capital costs, it is unclear whether or how these 
costs impact vessel owners and operators without knowledge of the 
OSROs' billing structures. Additionally, proprietary information is not 
available that would allow us to determine the distribution of costs 
among many vessel owners and operators contracting with each OSRO. 
Nevertheless, in our earlier analysis, if we assume capital costs are 
incurred by one of the OSROs and we assume this cost would be passed 
along equally to U.S. planholders in the form of higher retainer fees, 
we estimate each of the 13 U.S. planholders will incur an annual cost 
of about $800 from one particular OSRO in addition to $385 in 
maintenance costs in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period for a 
total planholder cost of about $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the 
analysis period.
    We assume for the purpose of this analysis that the two OSROs that 
provide response resource capabilities to the HVPA in Puget Sound may 
incur costs from this final rule and may likely pass along these costs 
to planholders in the form of higher retainer fees or planholders may 
incur one-time costs to amend their contracts with one of the OSROs. 
Using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 
for businesses and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size 
standards for small businesses, we determined the size of each OSRO. 
One OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 541618 with an SBA size standard 
of $15 million, which is under the subsector group 541 of the NAICS 
code with the description of ``Professional, Scientific, and Technical 
Services.'' The other OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 562998 with an 
SBA size standard of $7.5 million, which is under the subsector group 
562 of the NAICS code with the description of ``Waste Management and 
Remediation Services.'' Based on the information discussed earlier in 
this section and annual revenue data from publicly available and 
proprietary sources, Manta and ReferenceUSA, neither OSRO is considered 
to be small.
    There are about 1,400 U.S. planholders that have either a tank, 
nontank, or combined VRP. Based on the affected population of this 
final rule relative to the size of the industry as a whole, in this 
case U.S. VRP owners (planholders), this final rule will potentially 
affect 28 or about 2 percent of the total population of U.S. 
planholders in the United States. As described earlier and dependent 
upon the OSRO considered, we estimate a U.S. planholder may incur an 
annual cost between $385 and $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the 
analysis period (and between $267 and $800 in the initial year because 
we assume maintenance costs are not incurred in the initial year of the 
analysis period) as a result of this final rule. 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.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996,\13\ we want to assist small entities in 
understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the final rule 
will affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please consult Mr. Christopher Friese (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The Coast Guard will not retaliate 
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any 
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 104-121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This final rule will call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

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

[[Page 26220]]

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have 
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    As noted earlier in the preamble, this rule implements section 710 
of the CGAA 2010, as amended by section 316 of the CGAA 2015, which 
specifically directs the Coast Guard to amend 33 CFR 155.1020 by 
removing ``Port Angeles, WA'' and replacing it with ``Cape Flattery, 
WA.'' This rule carries out the Congressional mandate by amending the 
regulations to reflect this required change. Furthermore, this rule 
does not appear to have a substantial direct effect upon the laws or 
regulations of the State of Washington. Additionally, nothing in this 
rule preempts or prohibits state removal activities related to the 
discharge of oil or hazardous substances under the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act.\15\ Therefore, this rule is consistent with the 
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described 
in Executive Order 13132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 311, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1321(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 \16\ requires Federal 
agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory 
actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in 
the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this final rule will not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), 
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We discuss Executive 
Order 13175 in more detail in section V of this preamble.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this final 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.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act \17\ directs 
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an 
explanation of why using these standards will be inconsistent with 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did 
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in 
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,\18\ and 
have made a determination that this is one of a category of actions 
that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 
the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration 
supporting this determination is available in the docket where 
indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule is 
categorically excluded under section 6(b) of the ``Appendix to National 
Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy.'' \19\ This rule involves 
Congressionally-mandated regulations designed to protect the 
environment, specifically, regulations implementing the requirements of 
the Act (redefining and enlarging the boundaries of the existing 
Washington HVPA in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f.
    \19\ 67 FR 48244 (July 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155

    Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 155 as follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 
1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., 
p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 
Section 155.1020 also issued under section 316 of Pub. L. 114-120. 
Section 155.480 also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101-
380.

0
2. In Sec.  155.1020, paragraph (13) of the definition of ``Higher 
volume port area'':
0
a. Remove the words ``Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port Angeles'' and add 
in their place the words ``Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery''.
0
b. Add a note to read as follows:


Sec.  155.1020  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 26221]]

    Higher volume port area * * *
    (13) * * *

    Note 1 to paragraph (13) of this definition: The western 
boundary of the Strait of Juan de Fuca higher volume port area in 
this part differs from that in Sec.  154.1020 of this chapter. The 
difference stems from section 316(b) of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-120), which expands only the 
definition in this part.

* * * * *

    Dated: May 31, 2018.
Dana S. Tulis,
Director of Incident Management and Preparedness Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-12081 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P