Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes, 59617-59620 [2010-24221]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Table of Contents for Preamble
33 CFR Parts 104, 105, and 160
[Docket No. USCG–2004–19963]
RIN 1625–AA93
Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports;
Certain Dangerous Cargoes
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is adopting,
with changes, an interim rule published
December 16, 2005, regarding certain
dangerous cargo (CDC) and notice of
arrival requirements. The interim rule
defined certain dangerous cargo residue
(CDC residue) as limited to certain dry
cargo and made other changes to
regulations in 33 CFR parts 104, 105,
and 160. After reviewing comments on
the interim rule, the Coast Guard issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2009
that proposed to change the CDC
residue definition to include certain
bulk liquids and liquefied gases in
residue quantities, revise the definition
of CDC to reflect the proposed change in
the CDC residue definition, and adopt
other changes introduced by the 2005
interim rule. This final rule will relieve
an unnecessary burden on industry by
including more lower-risk cargoes in the
CDC residue category and thereby
reducing the number of notice of arrival
submissions required based on the cargo
a vessel is carrying.
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, are a
part of docket USCG–2004–19963 and
are available for inspection or copying
at the 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, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also
find this docket on the Internet by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2004–19963 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
e-mail Lieutenant Sharmine Jones,
Office of Vessel Activities, Coast Guard;
telephone 202–372–1234, e-mail
Sharmine.N.Jones@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
VI. 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
CDC Certain dangerous cargo
CDC residue Certain dangerous cargo
residue
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory
Committee
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOA Notice of arrival
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Regulatory History
The Coast Guard published an interim
rule on December 16, 2005, titled
‘‘Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports;
Certain Dangerous Cargoes; Electronic
Submission’’ (70 FR 74663). That
interim rule adopted the definition of
certain dangerous cargo (CDC), which a
2004 temporary final rule (69 FR 51176,
August 18, 2004) introduced. By
revising § 104.105 in Title 33 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR),
the interim rule also made permanent
the application of vessel security
requirements in 33 CFR part 104 to
barges carrying CDC. The interim rule,
however, removed the remainder of the
temporary changes made to 33 CFR
parts 104 and 105 because they involved
past submission and compliance
deadlines and were no longer necessary.
The interim rule also introduced
changes that were not included in the
2004 temporary final rule, including—
• Adding another optional method, via
Microsoft InfoPath, for electronic
submission of notices of arrival (NOAs).
• Clarifying that Coast Guard NOA
regulations in 33 CFR part 160, subpart
C, do not apply to U.S. recreational
vessels.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59617
• Adding a definition of ‘‘CDC residue’’
that identified certain dry cargo in bulk
that, at or below specified quantities,
did not trigger NOA requirements. The
2005 definition of CDC residue only
included residue quantities of bulk
ammonium nitrate or ammonium nitrate
fertilizer that remained onboard after
the vessel discharges all saleable cargo;
no other cargo residues fell within the
interim rule definition of CDC residue.
In response to the 2005 interim rule,
the Coast Guard received a comment
from the Chemical Transportation
Advisory Committee (CTAC) suggesting
that the Coast Guard revise the
definition of CDC residue to include
some bulk liquids and liquefied gases.
The Coast Guard requested CTAC’s
Hazardous Cargoes Transportation
Security Subcommittee to assist in our
rulemaking. They reviewed the current
requirement that a CDC vessel remain a
CDC vessel until the removal of all bulk
liquid and liquefied gas CDC cargoes,
including residue quantities of such
cargoes, from the vessel. The Committee
completed its recommendation on
August 24, 2006, and submitted it to the
Coast Guard for review and
consideration. (See the CTAC
Recommendations Related to Residues
of CDC Cargoes, August 24, 2006, which
is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.) The Coast Guard
concurred with CTAC’s
recommendations to—
• Keep cargoes of Anhydrous
Ammonia, Chlorine, Ethane, Ethylene
Oxide, Methane (LNG), Methyl
Bromide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Vinyl
Chloride as CDC at all times, even when
only residue quantities remain onboard.
• Allow other cargoes that would be
considered CDC in larger quantities to
be defined as CDC residue if the amount
that remains onboard in a cargo system
after discharge is not accessible through
normal transfer procedures.
The Coast Guard took steps to
implement these recommendations. On
December 23, 2009, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled ‘‘Notification of Arrival in U.S.
Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes’’ (74
FR 68208). In it, the Coast Guard
proposed to amend the definitions of
CDC and CDC residue in accordance
with CTAC’s recommendation. With the
exception of the revision of these two
definitions, the NPRM proposed to
adopt the current regulations introduced
by the interim rule in 2005 as final.
We received two comments on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested and none was held.
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
59618
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
III. Basis and Purpose
Under authority of the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (see, specifically,
33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1231) and the
Maritime Transportation Security Act
(46 U.S.C. Chapter 701), as delegated by
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard
is adopting, with changes, the interim
rule published on December 16, 2005
(70 FR 74663) regarding CDC and NOA
requirements. This final rule reflects the
adoptions and changes as proposed in
the Coast Guard’s 2009 NPRM (74 FR
68208). This rule will also relieve an
unnecessary burden on industry by
including more lower-risk cargoes in the
CDC residue category and reducing the
number of NOA submissions required
based on the cargo a vessel is carrying.
Additionally, it will complete this
rulemaking, which has already
introduced existing requirements into
33 CFR parts 104, 105, and 160.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
IV. Background
NOA regulations require the
submission of information about certain
vessels and their voyages, including
cargoes, crews, and other persons
onboard to the Coast Guard’s National
Vessel Movement Center before those
vessels arrive at a port or place in the
United States. The Coast Guard uses the
information contained in the NOA to
implement appropriate safety and
security measures, including security
screening and escorts into port.
In 2003, the Coast Guard became
concerned about the potential security
hazards of bulk ammonium nitrate and
propylene oxide cargoes transported on
U.S. waters. After consultation with
CTAC and the Towing Safety Advisory
Committee (TSAC), (see, e.g., TSAC
Report on Task 03–03, Recommendation
124, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking), the Coast Guard
determined that these substances should
be considered CDC (69 FR 51176, 51177,
August 18, 2004) and, as noted,
published a temporary final rule in 2004
(69 FR 51176), followed by an interim
rule in 2005 (70 FR 74663). The Coast
Guard’s definition of CDC appears in 33
CFR 160.204. CDC includes substances
or materials that have been determined
to pose an unreasonable risk to health,
safety, and property if improperly
handled. Existing regulations require
most vessels carrying CDC to submit
NOAs.
V. Discussion of Comments and
Changes
The Coast Guard received one letter
containing two comments on the
proposal to change the definition of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
CDC so that residue quantities of some
chemicals are not classified as CDC.
This commenter commended the Coast
Guard for working with CTAC to
develop ‘‘this more sophisticated and
nuanced approach to security
requirements for CDCs in residue form.’’
First, the commenter concurred with
the Coast Guard’s proposal that eight
CDCs—anhydrous ammonia, chlorine,
ethane, ethylene oxide, methane (LNG),
methyl bromide, sulfur dioxide, and
vinyl chloride—should maintain their
CDC classification when in residue
form. Regardless of how small the
quantities of these eight substances that
remain onboard in a cargo system after
discharge are, they will still be defined
as CDC. Second, as manifested in our
revised definition of CDC residue, the
commenter also believed that in the case
of all other CDCs, industry practices are
sufficiently effective in diluting CDC
residues, that it is prudent for the Coast
Guard to develop a different set of
security requirements for vessels with
these types of residues onboard.
The Coast Guard agrees with the
assessment to change the definition of
CDC residue and to exclude certain
CDCs from that definition. Because of
this change, fewer vessels carrying only
lower-risk cargoes will trigger NOA or
other security requirements that apply
to vessels carrying CDC.
This commenter also noted that while
standing by her recommendation, she
does not want her ‘‘endorsement of the
revised definition of CDC residue [to] be
seen as an endorsement of the current
process for submitting NOAs generally.’’
The commenter encourages the Coast
Guard to use these two parallel
rulemakings ‘‘to seriously evaluate the
impractical process requiring operators
to submit NOAs to * * * the National
Vessel Movement Center and the Inland
River Vessel Movement Center[],
depending on a vessel’s position on the
inland river system.’’
The NOA CDC NPRM focused on
changing the definition of CDC residue.
Revising where vessels should report
based on requirements in both 33 CFR
parts 160 and 165 is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will address this comment about the
National Vessel Movement Center and
the Inland River Vessel Movement
Center in its broader, ‘‘Vessel
Requirements for Notices of Arrival and
Departure, and Automatic Identification
System’’ (RIN 1625–AA99) rulemaking.
The Coast Guard did not make any
changes from the NOA CDC proposed
rule based on these comments. This
final rule remains the same as proposed
in the NPRM.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. Accordingly, OMB has not
reviewed it under that Order.
In the NPRM, published on December
23, 2009 (74 FR 68208, 68212), we
estimated that there are on average
2,800 vessels currently carrying CDCs
that make approximately 25,000 port
arrivals a year. With this rule, some of
these vessels will no longer be required
to submit NOAs when transporting
residue quantities of certain CDCs. As
detailed in the NPRM, we estimate a 5
percent annual reduction in the number
of NOAs submitted as a result of this
final rule, which is equivalent to a
$22,000 decrease in cost burden for
vessel operators that transport certain
CDCs in residue status.
We received no public comments or
additional information that would alter
our assessment of the impacts presented
in the NPRM.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would 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.
In the NPRM, we certified that under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. We received no public
comments or additional information
that would alter our certification of the
rule.
This rule will not increase the NOA
reporting costs to vessel operators
shipping CDC. We estimate that this
rule will reduce the burden to vessel
operators shipping residue quantities of
certain CDCs. Therefore, the Coast
Guard certifies that under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offered to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
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).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In our NPRM, however, we noted
it would modify an existing collection
under OMB Control Number 1625–0100,
Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival, by
reducing the number of responses. We
received no public comments or
additional information that would alter
our estimates in the NPRM of the
burden imposed by this rule through the
ANOA collection of information.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we
submitted a copy of the proposed rule
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for its review of the collection of
information. We received no comments
from either OMB or the public on the
collection of information portion of our
NPRM, and we have made no changes
to the final rule from what we proposed
in the NPRM.
On January 29, 2010, OMB approved
collection 1625–0100 until January 31,
2012, without change. You are not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) 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. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This 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 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 rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
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 does 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.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59619
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (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
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.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one
of a category of actions which does not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded under section 2.B.2, figure
2–1, paragraph (34)(a) and (d) of the
Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 104
Maritime security, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Vessels.
33 CFR Part 105
Maritime security, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures.
33 CFR Part 160
Administrative practice and
procedure, Harbors, Hazardous
materials transportation, Marine safety,
Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels,
Waterways.
■ For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
59620
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
amendments to 33 CFR parts 104, 105,
and 160 introduced by the interim rule
published at 70 FR 74669 on December
16, 2005, as final with the following
changes:
PART 160—PORTS AND WATERWAYS
SAFETY—GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 160
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is
also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
1225 and 46 U.S.C. 3715.
carried under 46 CFR 151.50–31 or
listed in 46 CFR 154.7:
(i) Ammonia, anhydrous;
(ii) Chlorine;
(iii) Ethane;
(iv) Ethylene oxide;
(v) Methane (LNG);
(vi) Methyl bromide;
(vii) Sulfur dioxide; and
(viii) Vinyl chloride.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 20, 2010.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
Prevention Policy.
2. In § 160.204, revise paragraphs (7)
through (9) of the definition for ‘‘Certain
dangerous cargo (CDC)’’ and the entire
definition of ‘‘Certain dangerous cargo
residue (CDC residue)’’ to read as
follows:
[FR Doc. 2010–24221 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am]
§ 160.204
Coast Guard
■
Definitions.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
*
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
Certain dangerous cargo (CDC) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(7) All bulk liquefied gas cargo carried
under 46 CFR 151.50–31 or listed in 46
CFR 154.7 that is flammable and/or
toxic and that is not carried as certain
dangerous cargo residue (CDC residue).
(8) The following bulk liquids except
when carried as CDC residue:
(i) Acetone cyanohydrin;
(ii) Allyl alcohol;
(iii) Chlorosulfonic acid;
(iv) Crotonaldehyde;
(v) Ethylene chlorohydrin;
(vi) Ethylene dibromide;
(vii) Methacrylonitrile;
(viii) Oleum (fuming sulfuric acid);
and
(ix) Propylene oxide, alone or mixed
with ethylene oxide.
(9) The following bulk solids:
(i) Ammonium nitrate listed as a
Division 5.1 (oxidizing) material in 49
CFR 172.101 except when carried as
CDC residue; and
(ii) Ammonium nitrate based fertilizer
listed as a Division 5.1 (oxidizing)
material in 49 CFR 172.101 except when
carried as CDC residue.
Certain dangerous cargo residue (CDC
residue) includes any of the following:
(1) Ammonium nitrate in bulk or
ammonium nitrate based fertilizer in
bulk remaining after all saleable cargo is
discharged, not exceeding 1,000 pounds
in total and not individually
accumulated in quantities exceeding
two cubic feet.
(2) For bulk liquids and liquefied
gases, the cargo that remains onboard in
a cargo system after discharge that is not
accessible through normal transfer
procedures, with the exception of the
following bulk liquefied gas cargoes
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0872]
RIN 1625–AA00
Natchez Fireworks Safety Zone; Lower
Mississippi River, Mile Marker 365.5 to
Mile Marker 363, Natchez, MS
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Lower Mississippi
River from mile marker 365.5 to 363
extending the entire width of the river.
This safety zone is needed to protect
persons and vessels from the potential
safety hazards associated with a
fireworks display. Entry into this zone
is prohibited to all vessels, mariners,
and persons unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Lower Mississippi River or a
designated representative. The COTP
Lower Mississippi River or a designated
representative must authorize vessels
that desire to operate in this zone.
DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m.
through 8:30 p.m. on September 28,
2010.
SUMMARY:
Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2010–
0872 and are available online by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2010–0872 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They
are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior
Grade Jason Erickson, Coast Guard;
telephone 901–521–4753, e-mail
Jason.A.Erickson@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because
immediate action is needed to protect
the participants in the fireworks
display, spectators, and mariners from
the safety hazards associated with a
fireworks display taking place on a
confined waterway.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. This is because immediate
action is needed to protect the
participants in the fireworks display,
spectators, and mariners from the safety
hazards associated with a fireworks
display taking place on a confined
waterway.
Basis and Purpose
On September 13, 2010, the Coast
Guard received an Application for
Approval of Marine Event for a
fireworks display on the Lower
Mississippi River. This safety zone is
needed to protect participants,
spectators, and other mariners from the
possible hazards associated with a
fireworks show taking place on the
Lower Mississippi River. The fallout
zone extends into the navigable channel
of the river.
Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary safety zone for all waters of
the Lower Mississippi from mile marker
365.5 to 363 extending the entire width
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59617-59620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24221]
[[Page 59617]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 104, 105, and 160
[Docket No. USCG-2004-19963]
RIN 1625-AA93
Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting, with changes, an interim rule
published December 16, 2005, regarding certain dangerous cargo (CDC)
and notice of arrival requirements. The interim rule defined certain
dangerous cargo residue (CDC residue) as limited to certain dry cargo
and made other changes to regulations in 33 CFR parts 104, 105, and
160. After reviewing comments on the interim rule, the Coast Guard
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2009 that proposed to change
the CDC residue definition to include certain bulk liquids and
liquefied gases in residue quantities, revise the definition of CDC to
reflect the proposed change in the CDC residue definition, and adopt
other changes introduced by the 2005 interim rule. This final rule will
relieve an unnecessary burden on industry by including more lower-risk
cargoes in the CDC residue category and thereby reducing the number of
notice of arrival submissions required based on the cargo a vessel is
carrying.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are a part of docket USCG-2004-19963 and are available for inspection
or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to https://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2004-19963 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Sharmine Jones, Office of Vessel Activities,
Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1234, e-mail Sharmine.N.Jones@uscg.mil.
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
VI. 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
CDC Certain dangerous cargo
CDC residue Certain dangerous cargo residue
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOA Notice of arrival
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Regulatory History
The Coast Guard published an interim rule on December 16, 2005, titled
``Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes;
Electronic Submission'' (70 FR 74663). That interim rule adopted the
definition of certain dangerous cargo (CDC), which a 2004 temporary
final rule (69 FR 51176, August 18, 2004) introduced. By revising Sec.
104.105 in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR), the
interim rule also made permanent the application of vessel security
requirements in 33 CFR part 104 to barges carrying CDC. The interim
rule, however, removed the remainder of the temporary changes made to
33 CFR parts 104 and 105 because they involved past submission and
compliance deadlines and were no longer necessary.
The interim rule also introduced changes that were not included in the
2004 temporary final rule, including--
Adding another optional method, via Microsoft InfoPath, for
electronic submission of notices of arrival (NOAs).
Clarifying that Coast Guard NOA regulations in 33 CFR part
160, subpart C, do not apply to U.S. recreational vessels.
Adding a definition of ``CDC residue'' that identified certain
dry cargo in bulk that, at or below specified quantities, did not
trigger NOA requirements. The 2005 definition of CDC residue only
included residue quantities of bulk ammonium nitrate or ammonium
nitrate fertilizer that remained onboard after the vessel discharges
all saleable cargo; no other cargo residues fell within the interim
rule definition of CDC residue.
In response to the 2005 interim rule, the Coast Guard received a
comment from the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)
suggesting that the Coast Guard revise the definition of CDC residue to
include some bulk liquids and liquefied gases. The Coast Guard
requested CTAC's Hazardous Cargoes Transportation Security Subcommittee
to assist in our rulemaking. They reviewed the current requirement that
a CDC vessel remain a CDC vessel until the removal of all bulk liquid
and liquefied gas CDC cargoes, including residue quantities of such
cargoes, from the vessel. The Committee completed its recommendation on
August 24, 2006, and submitted it to the Coast Guard for review and
consideration. (See the CTAC Recommendations Related to Residues of CDC
Cargoes, August 24, 2006, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.) The Coast Guard concurred with CTAC's recommendations to--
Keep cargoes of Anhydrous Ammonia, Chlorine, Ethane,
Ethylene Oxide, Methane (LNG), Methyl Bromide, Sulfur Dioxide, and
Vinyl Chloride as CDC at all times, even when only residue quantities
remain onboard.
Allow other cargoes that would be considered CDC in larger
quantities to be defined as CDC residue if the amount that remains
onboard in a cargo system after discharge is not accessible through
normal transfer procedures.
The Coast Guard took steps to implement these recommendations. On
December 23, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled ``Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous
Cargoes'' (74 FR 68208). In it, the Coast Guard proposed to amend the
definitions of CDC and CDC residue in accordance with CTAC's
recommendation. With the exception of the revision of these two
definitions, the NPRM proposed to adopt the current regulations
introduced by the interim rule in 2005 as final.
We received two comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested and none was held.
[[Page 59618]]
III. Basis and Purpose
Under authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (see,
specifically, 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1231) and the Maritime Transportation
Security Act (46 U.S.C. Chapter 701), as delegated by Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard is adopting,
with changes, the interim rule published on December 16, 2005 (70 FR
74663) regarding CDC and NOA requirements. This final rule reflects the
adoptions and changes as proposed in the Coast Guard's 2009 NPRM (74 FR
68208). This rule will also relieve an unnecessary burden on industry
by including more lower-risk cargoes in the CDC residue category and
reducing the number of NOA submissions required based on the cargo a
vessel is carrying. Additionally, it will complete this rulemaking,
which has already introduced existing requirements into 33 CFR parts
104, 105, and 160.
IV. Background
NOA regulations require the submission of information about certain
vessels and their voyages, including cargoes, crews, and other persons
onboard to the Coast Guard's National Vessel Movement Center before
those vessels arrive at a port or place in the United States. The Coast
Guard uses the information contained in the NOA to implement
appropriate safety and security measures, including security screening
and escorts into port.
In 2003, the Coast Guard became concerned about the potential
security hazards of bulk ammonium nitrate and propylene oxide cargoes
transported on U.S. waters. After consultation with CTAC and the Towing
Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), (see, e.g., TSAC Report on Task 03-
03, Recommendation 124, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking), the Coast Guard determined that these substances should be
considered CDC (69 FR 51176, 51177, August 18, 2004) and, as noted,
published a temporary final rule in 2004 (69 FR 51176), followed by an
interim rule in 2005 (70 FR 74663). The Coast Guard's definition of CDC
appears in 33 CFR 160.204. CDC includes substances or materials that
have been determined to pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety,
and property if improperly handled. Existing regulations require most
vessels carrying CDC to submit NOAs.
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received one letter containing two comments on the
proposal to change the definition of CDC so that residue quantities of
some chemicals are not classified as CDC. This commenter commended the
Coast Guard for working with CTAC to develop ``this more sophisticated
and nuanced approach to security requirements for CDCs in residue
form.''
First, the commenter concurred with the Coast Guard's proposal that
eight CDCs--anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, ethane, ethylene oxide,
methane (LNG), methyl bromide, sulfur dioxide, and vinyl chloride--
should maintain their CDC classification when in residue form.
Regardless of how small the quantities of these eight substances that
remain onboard in a cargo system after discharge are, they will still
be defined as CDC. Second, as manifested in our revised definition of
CDC residue, the commenter also believed that in the case of all other
CDCs, industry practices are sufficiently effective in diluting CDC
residues, that it is prudent for the Coast Guard to develop a different
set of security requirements for vessels with these types of residues
onboard.
The Coast Guard agrees with the assessment to change the definition
of CDC residue and to exclude certain CDCs from that definition.
Because of this change, fewer vessels carrying only lower-risk cargoes
will trigger NOA or other security requirements that apply to vessels
carrying CDC.
This commenter also noted that while standing by her
recommendation, she does not want her ``endorsement of the revised
definition of CDC residue [to] be seen as an endorsement of the current
process for submitting NOAs generally.'' The commenter encourages the
Coast Guard to use these two parallel rulemakings ``to seriously
evaluate the impractical process requiring operators to submit NOAs to
* * * the National Vessel Movement Center and the Inland River Vessel
Movement Center[], depending on a vessel's position on the inland river
system.''
The NOA CDC NPRM focused on changing the definition of CDC residue.
Revising where vessels should report based on requirements in both 33
CFR parts 160 and 165 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The Coast
Guard will address this comment about the National Vessel Movement
Center and the Inland River Vessel Movement Center in its broader,
``Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and
Automatic Identification System'' (RIN 1625-AA99) rulemaking.
The Coast Guard did not make any changes from the NOA CDC proposed
rule based on these comments. This final rule remains the same as
proposed in the NPRM.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that
Order.
In the NPRM, published on December 23, 2009 (74 FR 68208, 68212),
we estimated that there are on average 2,800 vessels currently carrying
CDCs that make approximately 25,000 port arrivals a year. With this
rule, some of these vessels will no longer be required to submit NOAs
when transporting residue quantities of certain CDCs. As detailed in
the NPRM, we estimate a 5 percent annual reduction in the number of
NOAs submitted as a result of this final rule, which is equivalent to a
$22,000 decrease in cost burden for vessel operators that transport
certain CDCs in residue status.
We received no public comments or additional information that would
alter our assessment of the impacts presented in the NPRM.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would 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.
In the NPRM, we certified that under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We received no public comments or additional
information that would alter our certification of the rule.
This rule will not increase the NOA reporting costs to vessel
operators shipping CDC. We estimate that this rule will reduce the
burden to vessel operators shipping residue quantities of certain CDCs.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies that under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
[[Page 59619]]
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
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 rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In our NPRM,
however, we noted it would modify an existing collection under OMB
Control Number 1625-0100, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival, by reducing
the number of responses. We received no public comments or additional
information that would alter our estimates in the NPRM of the burden
imposed by this rule through the ANOA collection of information.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of the
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review of the collection of information. We received no comments from
either OMB or the public on the collection of information portion of
our NPRM, and we have made no changes to the final rule from what we
proposed in the NPRM.
On January 29, 2010, OMB approved collection 1625-0100 until
January 31, 2012, without change. You are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
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. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
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 does 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.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this 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.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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 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.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which does not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2,
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) and (d) of the Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 104
Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Vessels.
33 CFR Part 105
Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
33 CFR Part 160
Administrative practice and procedure, Harbors, Hazardous materials
transportation, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the
[[Page 59620]]
amendments to 33 CFR parts 104, 105, and 160 introduced by the interim
rule published at 70 FR 74669 on December 16, 2005, as final with the
following changes:
PART 160--PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY--GENERAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is
also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 46 U.S.C.
3715.
0
2. In Sec. 160.204, revise paragraphs (7) through (9) of the
definition for ``Certain dangerous cargo (CDC)'' and the entire
definition of ``Certain dangerous cargo residue (CDC residue)'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 160.204 Definitions.
* * * * *
Certain dangerous cargo (CDC) * * *
* * * * *
(7) All bulk liquefied gas cargo carried under 46 CFR 151.50-31 or
listed in 46 CFR 154.7 that is flammable and/or toxic and that is not
carried as certain dangerous cargo residue (CDC residue).
(8) The following bulk liquids except when carried as CDC residue:
(i) Acetone cyanohydrin;
(ii) Allyl alcohol;
(iii) Chlorosulfonic acid;
(iv) Crotonaldehyde;
(v) Ethylene chlorohydrin;
(vi) Ethylene dibromide;
(vii) Methacrylonitrile;
(viii) Oleum (fuming sulfuric acid); and
(ix) Propylene oxide, alone or mixed with ethylene oxide.
(9) The following bulk solids:
(i) Ammonium nitrate listed as a Division 5.1 (oxidizing) material
in 49 CFR 172.101 except when carried as CDC residue; and
(ii) Ammonium nitrate based fertilizer listed as a Division 5.1
(oxidizing) material in 49 CFR 172.101 except when carried as CDC
residue.
Certain dangerous cargo residue (CDC residue) includes any of the
following:
(1) Ammonium nitrate in bulk or ammonium nitrate based fertilizer
in bulk remaining after all saleable cargo is discharged, not exceeding
1,000 pounds in total and not individually accumulated in quantities
exceeding two cubic feet.
(2) For bulk liquids and liquefied gases, the cargo that remains
onboard in a cargo system after discharge that is not accessible
through normal transfer procedures, with the exception of the following
bulk liquefied gas cargoes carried under 46 CFR 151.50-31 or listed in
46 CFR 154.7:
(i) Ammonia, anhydrous;
(ii) Chlorine;
(iii) Ethane;
(iv) Ethylene oxide;
(v) Methane (LNG);
(vi) Methyl bromide;
(vii) Sulfur dioxide; and
(viii) Vinyl chloride.
* * * * *
Dated: September 20, 2010.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24221 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P