Commercial Diving Operations, 414-416 [E8-31415]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
414
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
foreign-produced direct product of the
technology is not subject to the EAR
unless: (1) It is exported from the
country of manufacture to a destination
in Country Group D:1 or E:2 (Cuba); or
(2) it is exported from the United States
after having been shipped to the United
States from the country of manufacture.
However, all foreign-produced direct
product of technology or software
exported under License Exception ENC
under either paragraph (a)(1) (for
internal development of new products
by a ‘license-free zone’ (Supplement No.
3 to part 740) ‘‘private sector end-user’’)
or (a)(2) (to a ‘‘U.S. subsidiary’’ for
internal use or development) are
currently subject to the EAR by the
terms of the notes to paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2).
Request for Comment
BIS is seeking public comment on the
impact such a revision to section
736.2(b)(3)(i) would have on both U.S.
manufacturers of encryption technology
and software and foreign manufacturers
of products (including under contract to
U.S. companies who own and maintain
the intellectual property, branding,
marketing and distribution rights to the
end-products manufactured offshore)
that are derived in whole or in part from
U.S.-origin encryption technology or
software. BIS is also seeking information
about the cost of compliance with such
a revision, including U.S. Government
review of foreign direct products prior
to export from abroad. BIS is also
seeking information on the burdens of
complying with multiple sets of laws,
foreign and U.S., which could result
from the potential revision.
BIS would also like information about
the various (commercial and military)
applications of foreign products that are
derived in whole or in part from U.S.origin encryption technology or
software. In addition, BIS is seeking
information from foreign-manufacturers
of encryption items about the factors
that they or their competitors might
consider in deciding to produce or use
U.S.-origin encryption technology or
software.
Additionally, BIS is interested in
specific information (URL addresses,
technical specifications, etc.) about the
availability of foreign encryption
technology and software that is
equivalent to U.S.-origin encryption
technology and software classified
under ECCNs 5E002 and 5D002. Finally,
BIS seeks information on the impact on
the U.S. information technology
manufacturing base and American jobs
if encryption products continue to be
not subject to the EAR when exported
from abroad or reexported to countries
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:59 Jan 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
other than those listed in Country Group
D:1 and E:2, simply by being
manufactured under an export license,
when identical products manufactured
onshore by U.S. companies (or overseas
by U.S. subsidiaries pursuant to LE ENC
or LE ENC-eligible ‘‘private sector endusers’’) are subject to the EAR.
Dated: December 29, 2008.
Christopher R. Wall,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–31371 Filed 1–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 197
[USCG–1998–3786]
RIN 1625–AA21
Commercial Diving Operations
Coast Guard, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend the commercial diving
regulations. We request public comment
on industry standards and current
practices that might be incorporated in
our regulations or accepted as regulatory
equivalents; the use of third-party
auditing; new requirements for
compliance documentation; the
adoption of recommendations made
following the investigation of a 1996
fatality; and possible additional
regulatory revisions. This rulemaking
will promote the enhancement of
maritime safety which is a strategic goal
of the Coast Guard.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before March 9, 2009 or reach the
Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
1998–3786 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these methods. For instructions
on submitting comments, see the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Rogers
Henderson, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone
(202) 372–1411. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background and Purpose
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–1998–3786),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG–
1998–3786’’ in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the balloon
shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM
06JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert USCG–
1998–3786 in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the item in the
Docket ID column. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one
would aid this rulemaking, we will hold
one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
II. Abbreviations
ACDE Association of Commercial Diving
Educators
ADC Association of Diving Contractors
ADCI Association of Diving Contractors
International
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
IMCA International Marine Contractors
Association
NOSAC National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:59 Jan 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
III. Background and Purpose
In 1994, an industry group known as
the Association of Diving Contractors
(ADC) (now the Association of Diving
Contractors International, or ADCI),
asked the Coast Guard to update
commercial diving operation regulations
in 46 CFR Part 197, Subpart B. Among
other things, ADC recommended that
we incorporate their consensus
standards by reference. In response, we
began this rulemaking and published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM, 63 FR 34840, June 26, 1998;
comment period extended, 63 FR 50848,
Sept. 23, 1998). The ANPRM referenced
ADC’s recommendations, and sought
public comment on the necessity and
scope of potential regulatory revisions.
Public comments received in response
to the 1998 ANPRM revealed a deep
split of opinion over incorporation of
the ADC standards. Although the
majority of commenters favored
incorporation of the ADC standards,
many said those standards were either
inadequate or, alternatively, were
unnecessarily burdensome and costly
for small businesses. Other industry
groups—the Association of Commercial
Diving Educators (ACDE) and the
International Marine Contractors
Association (IMCA)—offered their own
proposals. No further regulatory action
was taken. However, the Coast Guard
continued to recognize the need for
further regulation to improve the safety
of commercial diving.
Earlier this year, the Coast Guard
received recommendations for
commercial diving regulatory
improvements from the National
Offshore Safety Advisory Committee
(NOSAC), a Federal advisory committee
that advises the Coast Guard on matters
related to operations and safety on the
outer continental shelf including
commercial diving safety. We have
placed those recommendations in the
docket for this rulemaking and are in
the process of analyzing them for
possible action. To assist in our
analysis, we are soliciting public
comments on the NOSAC
recommendations, and on other ways in
which we might improve our
regulations, in light of experience and
lessons learned since 1978, and since
our first ANPRM in 1998. As noted,
commercial diving industry groups were
active in responding to the 1998
ANPRM, and we look forward to
hearing from them again. We encourage
those groups to work together to explore
possible areas of agreement as to the
regulatory changes that might do most
to improve diver safety throughout the
industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
415
To assist you in organizing your
comments, we invite your consideration
of the following observations:
1. Industry standards. Our 1978
regulations in Part 197 provide a
minimum framework for commercial
diving safety. We are aware that in
many regulated industries, regulated
persons and companies often develop
voluntary standards that provide
protection at levels equal or superior to
the protection that regulations can
provide. Increasingly since 1978,
Federal agencies, including the Coast
Guard, have encouraged the
development of, and compliance with,
these standards. They provide
regulatory flexibility and can be
effective, efficient tools for attaining
regulatory safety objectives. We would
like to know whether such standards
exist, or could be developed, for the
commercial diving industry. We could
consider incorporating such standards
in our Part 197 regulations, or we could
consider accepting compliance with
such standards as equivalent to
compliance with our regulations.
As previously discussed, public
comments on our 1998 ANPRM
revealed a deep split of opinions over
the adequacy, effectiveness, and cost of
the then-current industry standards. The
apparent lack of industry consensus as
to the value of the then-current
standards was a major reason why the
Coast Guard took no further regulatory
action in the ensuing decade. Therefore,
we strongly encourage commercial
diving industry groups to work together
to define standards to which all or most
commercial diving operations can
subscribe.
2. Third-party audits. The Coast
Guard prefers to use regulations as a
tool to encourage compliance, before
injuries or deaths occur, rather than as
a way of punishing violators in the wake
of a tragedy. A third-party audit system
could augment Coast Guard resources
and help commercial diving operators
avoid casualties before they happen, by
providing regular monitoring of an
operator’s compliance with Part 197 or
with an equivalent industry standard.
The Coast Guard could regulate thirdparty auditors, and require commercial
diving operators to be audited following
promulgation of a final rule, and then
annually and after any accident
resulting in a diver’s injury or death.
3. Compliance documentation. Even
with annual compliance audits, there
remains the potential for accidents
leading to injury or death. The best
protection against accidents are the
diving operation’s safety policies and
practices, which need to be encouraged
at all organizational levels beginning
E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM
06JAP1
416
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules
with industry owners and operators.
The Coast Guard believes that in many
industries, owners and operators are
more aware of safety requirements and
do more to make sure their employees
follow those requirements when they
must document their compliance with
those requirements.
4. Rig No. 12 report. The Coast Guard
devotes significant resources to studying
the causes of accidents that result in
serious property losses, injury, or death,
so that similar accidents can be avoided
in the future. Lessons learned from
tragedy make special demands on us to
give them serious consideration and to
implement them if possible. In the
docket for this rulemaking at https://
www.Regulations.gov, we are placing
the formal investigation report into a
commercial diving death at Cliff’s
Drilling Rig No. 12 in 1996. The report
includes 13 recommendations and the
Coast Guard is considering adopting
most of these, in some cases with
modifications.
5. Regulatory priorities. We have
indicated our interest in industry
standards, third-party audits,
compliance documentation, and the Rig
No. 12 report recommendations. In
addition, we invite you to comment on
overall regulatory approaches or on
specific regulatory requirements that
you believe should be a priority for this
rulemaking. We are also inviting
comments on current industry practices
and changes in circumstances from
conditions existing in 1998.
6. Costs and Benefits. We request
comments on the costs and benefits of
regulatory revisions suggested by the
commenters. Providing us with specific
information on the costs and benefits of
regulatory suggestions will assist us
with fully evaluating the merits of such
suggestions. We are especially
interested in information providing data
on the cost of regulatory suggestions on
small entities, and State, local, and
tribal governments.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Stewardship, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8–31415 Filed 1–5–09; 8:45 am]
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
12:59 Jan 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1301
[STB Ex Parte No. 676]
Rail Transportation Contracts Under 49
U.S.C. 10709
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation
Board (Board or STB) proposes to
amend its rules to provide that where an
agreement for rail carriage contains the
disclosure statement to be set forth in
this new rule, the Board will not find
jurisdiction over a dispute involving the
rate or service under the agreement and
will treat that agreement as a rail
transportation contract governed by 49
U.S.C. 10709; and conversely where an
agreement for rail carriage fails to
contain the disclosure statement, the
Board will find jurisdiction over a
dispute involving the rate or service
under the agreement, absent clear and
convincing evidence that the parties
intended to enter into a rail
transportation contract governed by 49
U.S.C. 10709; and the shipper was made
aware that it could request service
under a common carrier tariff rate that
would be subject to STB jurisdiction.
DATES: Comments on this proposal are
due by February 5, 2009. Reply
comments are due by March 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted either via the Board’s e-filing
format or in the traditional paper
format. Any person using e-filing should
attach a document and otherwise
comply with the instructions at the E–
FILING link on the Board’s Web site, at
https://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person
submitting a filing in the traditional
paper format should send an original
and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn.: STB Ex Parte No. 676, 395
E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001.
Copies of written comments will be
available for viewing and self-copying at
the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room
131, and will be posted to the Board’s
Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Strafford at (202) 245–0356.
(Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in STB
Ex Parte No. 669 served on March 29,
2007 (2007 NPRM) and published in the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Register on April 4, 2007 (72 FR
16316–18), the Board sought to address
two concerns arising from hybrid rail
pricing mechanisms such as the one
involved in Kansas City Power & Light
Company v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company, STB Docket No. 42095 (STB
served Mar. 27, 2007) (KCPL), which,
despite having characteristics of a rail
transportation contract beyond the
Board’s jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.
10709, are designated by the carrier as
common carriage rates subject to the
Board’s jurisdiction.
The first concern was uncertainty.
Although Congress expressly removed
all matters and disputes arising from rail
transportation contracts from the
Board’s jurisdiction, 49 U.S.C. 10709(c),
the statute provides no clear
demarcation between a contract rate and
common carriage rate. The issue of
whether a rate is a contract rate or
common carriage rate has been
examined on a case-by-case basis in
light of the parties’ intent. See Aggregate
Volume Rate on Coal, Acco, UT to
Moapa, NV, 364 I.C.C. 678, 689 (1981).
With the enactment of the ICC
Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), it
became more difficult to distinguish
between the two types of rates, as
railroads are no longer required to file
with the agency either tariffs containing
their common carriage rates or
summaries of their non-agricultural
contracts.
The second concern was that
increased use of hybrid pricing
arrangements could create an
environment where collusive activities
in the form of anticompetitive price
signaling could occur. Although the
terms of a rail transportation contract
generally are kept confidential, the
terms and conditions of common
carriage rates must be publicly disclosed
upon request, 49 U.S.C. 11101, thereby
increasing the possibility of collusive
behavior in a highly concentrated
industry.
In the 2007 NPRM, the Board
proposed to address these two concerns
by interpreting the term ‘‘contract’’ in 49
U.S.C. 10709 as embracing ‘‘any
bilateral agreement between a carrier
and a shipper for rail transportation in
which the railroad agrees to a specific
rate for a specific period of time in
exchange for consideration from the
shipper, such as a commitment to
tender a specific amount of freight
during a specific period or to make
specific investments in rail facilities.’’
Both shippers and carriers opposed
that proposal. After reviewing their
comments, the Board concluded that its
original proposal might have
unintended and undesirable
E:\FR\FM\06JAP1.SGM
06JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 414-416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31415]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 197
[USCG-1998-3786]
RIN 1625-AA21
Commercial Diving Operations
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the commercial diving
regulations. We request public comment on industry standards and
current practices that might be incorporated in our regulations or
accepted as regulatory equivalents; the use of third-party auditing;
new requirements for compliance documentation; the adoption of
recommendations made following the investigation of a 1996 fatality;
and possible additional regulatory revisions. This rulemaking will
promote the enhancement of maritime safety which is a strategic goal of
the Coast Guard.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before March 9, 2009
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
1998-3786 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Rogers Henderson, U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone (202) 372-1411. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background and Purpose
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-1998-3786), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-1998-3786'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
[[Page 415]]
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-1998-3786 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
ACDE Association of Commercial Diving Educators
ADC Association of Diving Contractors
ADCI Association of Diving Contractors International
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IMCA International Marine Contractors Association
NOSAC National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee
III. Background and Purpose
In 1994, an industry group known as the Association of Diving
Contractors (ADC) (now the Association of Diving Contractors
International, or ADCI), asked the Coast Guard to update commercial
diving operation regulations in 46 CFR Part 197, Subpart B. Among other
things, ADC recommended that we incorporate their consensus standards
by reference. In response, we began this rulemaking and published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM, 63 FR 34840, June 26,
1998; comment period extended, 63 FR 50848, Sept. 23, 1998). The ANPRM
referenced ADC's recommendations, and sought public comment on the
necessity and scope of potential regulatory revisions.
Public comments received in response to the 1998 ANPRM revealed a
deep split of opinion over incorporation of the ADC standards. Although
the majority of commenters favored incorporation of the ADC standards,
many said those standards were either inadequate or, alternatively,
were unnecessarily burdensome and costly for small businesses. Other
industry groups--the Association of Commercial Diving Educators (ACDE)
and the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA)--offered
their own proposals. No further regulatory action was taken. However,
the Coast Guard continued to recognize the need for further regulation
to improve the safety of commercial diving.
Earlier this year, the Coast Guard received recommendations for
commercial diving regulatory improvements from the National Offshore
Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC), a Federal advisory committee that
advises the Coast Guard on matters related to operations and safety on
the outer continental shelf including commercial diving safety. We have
placed those recommendations in the docket for this rulemaking and are
in the process of analyzing them for possible action. To assist in our
analysis, we are soliciting public comments on the NOSAC
recommendations, and on other ways in which we might improve our
regulations, in light of experience and lessons learned since 1978, and
since our first ANPRM in 1998. As noted, commercial diving industry
groups were active in responding to the 1998 ANPRM, and we look forward
to hearing from them again. We encourage those groups to work together
to explore possible areas of agreement as to the regulatory changes
that might do most to improve diver safety throughout the industry.
To assist you in organizing your comments, we invite your
consideration of the following observations:
1. Industry standards. Our 1978 regulations in Part 197 provide a
minimum framework for commercial diving safety. We are aware that in
many regulated industries, regulated persons and companies often
develop voluntary standards that provide protection at levels equal or
superior to the protection that regulations can provide. Increasingly
since 1978, Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, have
encouraged the development of, and compliance with, these standards.
They provide regulatory flexibility and can be effective, efficient
tools for attaining regulatory safety objectives. We would like to know
whether such standards exist, or could be developed, for the commercial
diving industry. We could consider incorporating such standards in our
Part 197 regulations, or we could consider accepting compliance with
such standards as equivalent to compliance with our regulations.
As previously discussed, public comments on our 1998 ANPRM revealed
a deep split of opinions over the adequacy, effectiveness, and cost of
the then-current industry standards. The apparent lack of industry
consensus as to the value of the then-current standards was a major
reason why the Coast Guard took no further regulatory action in the
ensuing decade. Therefore, we strongly encourage commercial diving
industry groups to work together to define standards to which all or
most commercial diving operations can subscribe.
2. Third-party audits. The Coast Guard prefers to use regulations
as a tool to encourage compliance, before injuries or deaths occur,
rather than as a way of punishing violators in the wake of a tragedy. A
third-party audit system could augment Coast Guard resources and help
commercial diving operators avoid casualties before they happen, by
providing regular monitoring of an operator's compliance with Part 197
or with an equivalent industry standard. The Coast Guard could regulate
third-party auditors, and require commercial diving operators to be
audited following promulgation of a final rule, and then annually and
after any accident resulting in a diver's injury or death.
3. Compliance documentation. Even with annual compliance audits,
there remains the potential for accidents leading to injury or death.
The best protection against accidents are the diving operation's safety
policies and practices, which need to be encouraged at all
organizational levels beginning
[[Page 416]]
with industry owners and operators. The Coast Guard believes that in
many industries, owners and operators are more aware of safety
requirements and do more to make sure their employees follow those
requirements when they must document their compliance with those
requirements.
4. Rig No. 12 report. The Coast Guard devotes significant resources
to studying the causes of accidents that result in serious property
losses, injury, or death, so that similar accidents can be avoided in
the future. Lessons learned from tragedy make special demands on us to
give them serious consideration and to implement them if possible. In
the docket for this rulemaking at https://www.Regulations.gov, we are
placing the formal investigation report into a commercial diving death
at Cliff's Drilling Rig No. 12 in 1996. The report includes 13
recommendations and the Coast Guard is considering adopting most of
these, in some cases with modifications.
5. Regulatory priorities. We have indicated our interest in
industry standards, third-party audits, compliance documentation, and
the Rig No. 12 report recommendations. In addition, we invite you to
comment on overall regulatory approaches or on specific regulatory
requirements that you believe should be a priority for this rulemaking.
We are also inviting comments on current industry practices and changes
in circumstances from conditions existing in 1998.
6. Costs and Benefits. We request comments on the costs and
benefits of regulatory revisions suggested by the commenters. Providing
us with specific information on the costs and benefits of regulatory
suggestions will assist us with fully evaluating the merits of such
suggestions. We are especially interested in information providing data
on the cost of regulatory suggestions on small entities, and State,
local, and tribal governments.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, U.S.
Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-31415 Filed 1-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
