Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response Plans for Oil, 6168-6170 [07-572]

Download as PDF 6168 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations miles to its intersection with SR 47; then (9) Proceed south on SR 47 for approximately 0.5 mile to its intersection with SR 534 at the village of Gardenville Center; then (10) Proceed southeasterly through Gardenville Center on SR 534 to its intersection with SR 544; then (11) Proceed northeasterly on SR 544 to its intersection with SR 73 on the Hammonton map; then (12) Proceed north-northwesterly on SR 73 to its intersection with SR 70 in Cropwell; then (13) Proceed east on SR 70 to its intersection with U.S. 206 in Red Lion; then (14) Proceed north on U.S. 206, onto the Trenton map, to the intersection of U.S. 206 and an unnamed road locally known as CR 537, in the village of Chambers Corner; then (15) Proceed northeasterly on CR 537, through the village of Jobstown; then (16) Continue northeasterly on CR 537, through the villages of Smithburg and Freehold, to its intersection with SR 18, east-northeast of Freehold; then (17) Proceed easterly on SR 18 to its intersection with the Garden State Parkway; then (18) Proceed north on the Garden State Parkway to its intersection with SR 36 and proceed east along SR 36 onto the Long Branch map; then (19) Using the Long Branch map, continue east on SR 36 to where it intersects with Joline Avenue; then (20) Proceed northeasterly on Joline Avenue to the Atlantic Ocean shoreline; then (21) Follow the Atlantic Ocean shoreline south, encompassing all coastal islands, onto the Trenton, Hammonton, Atlantic City, and Cape May maps, to the city of Cape May; then (22) Proceed west, then north, along the eastern bank of the Delaware River, onto the Atlantic City, Dover, and Wilmington maps to the beginning point. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES Dated: December 4, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: January 29, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. 07–575 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–31–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Feb 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 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 Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule; partial suspension of regulation. AGENCY: ACTION: 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. 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 ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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: Reed.H.Kohberger@uscg.mil. 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 marinefirefighting 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 marinefirefighting 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 E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM 09FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES to salvage and marine-firefighting response capabilities, including the 24hour 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 24hour 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 24hour 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Feb 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 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.). PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6169 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 E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM 09FER1 6170 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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. 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] Environment [OST Docket No. 2006–26442] 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. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 155 as follows: I PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 1. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as follows: I 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 §§ 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. § 155.1050 [Amended] 2. In § 155.1050, paragraph (k)(3) is suspended until February 12, 2009. hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES I § 155.1052 [Amended] 3. In § 155.1052, the last sentence in paragraph (f) is suspended until February 12, 2009. I VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:58 Feb 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 71 RIN 2105–AD65 Standard Time Zone Boundary in Pulaski County, IN Office of the Secretary (OST), the Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: DOT is relocating the time zone boundary in Indiana to move Pulaski County, Indiana, from the Central Time Zone to the Eastern Time Zone. This action serves the convenience of commerce, the statutory standard for a time zone change, and is taken in response to a petition filed by the Pulaski County Commissioners and County Council. DATES: The effective date of this rule is 2 a.m. CST, Sunday, March 11, 2007, which is the changeover date from standard time to daylight saving time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith S. Kaleta, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room 10428, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202) 366– 9283. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current Indiana Time Observance Indiana is divided into 92 counties. Under Federal law, 74 Indiana counties are in the Eastern Time Zone and 18 are in the Central Time Zone. The Central Time Zone counties include seven in the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, Starke, Newton, Jasper, and Pulaski) and eleven in the southwest (Knox, Daviess, Martin, Gibson, Pike, Dubois, Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, and Perry). The remaining 74 counties are in the Eastern Time Zone. The entire State began to observe daylight saving time in 2006. Neighboring States observe both Eastern and Central time. Illinois and western Kentucky observe Central time, while eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and the portion of Michigan adjoining Indiana observe Eastern time. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 In January 2006, DOT completed a rulemaking proceeding establishing new time zone boundaries that resulted in the current time zone observance. In that rulemaking in response to a petition from Pulaski County as well as other Indiana counties, the County was moved to the Central Time Zone. Pulaski County is bordered to the north and west by counties in the Central Time Zone and to the south and east by counties in the Eastern Time Zone. In February 2006, Pulaski County filed a Petition requesting a time zone change back to the Eastern Time Zone, and subsequently filed an Amended Petition. In August 2006, Knox, Daviess, Martin, Pike, and Dubois Counties in Southwestern Indiana (the Southwestern Counties) filed a Joint Petition for a Time Zone Change (Joint Petition). This Final Rule addresses only Pulaski County. DOT is evaluating the Joint Petition and supplemental information from the Southwestern Counties before making a determination whether to propose a time zone change or deny the Joint Petition. Statutory Requirements Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260–64), the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is ‘‘regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.’’ DOT Procedures To Change a Time Zone Boundary DOT has typically used a set of procedures to address time zone issues. Under these procedures, DOT will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding to change a time zone boundary if the highest elected officials in the area provide adequate supporting data for the proposed change. We ask that the petition include, or be accompanied by, detailed information supporting the requesting party’s contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce. The principal standard for deciding whether to change a time zone is defined very broadly to include consideration of all the impacts upon a community of a change in its standard of time. We also ask that the supporting documentation address, at a minimum, each of the following questions in as much detail as possible. E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM 09FER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6168-6170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
Reed.H.Kohberger@uscg.mil. 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