Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes, 44528-44544 [2012-18399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44528
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In § 117.258, a new paragraph (a) is
added and the current regulation is
revised and redesignated as paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
§ 117.258
Apalachicola River.
(a) The draw of the Apalachicola and
Northern Railroad Bridge, mile 4.5
(GIWW mile 347.0 EHL), at
Apalachicola, is maintained in the fully
open-to-navigation position and
untended. The bridge will not be
returned to service until proper
notification is published in Federal
Register.
(b) The draw of the CSX Railroad
Bridge, mile 105.9, at River Junction
shall open on signal if at least eight
hours notice is given.
Dated: July 13, 2012.
Peter Troedsson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2012–18343 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[Docket No. USCG–2004–19621]
RIN 1625–AA89
Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the
Great Lakes
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes
replacing its existing interim rule with
a new rule to regulate the operation of
U.S. and foreign vessels carrying bulk
dry cargo such as limestone, iron ore,
and coal on the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes, and the operation of U.S. bulk
dry cargo vessels anywhere on the Great
Lakes. Specifically, the Coast Guard
proposes new requirements for the
discharge of bulk dry cargo residue
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
(DCR) on the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes. The Coast Guard also announces
the availability of the tiered Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
prepared in support of this proposal.
The proposed rule would continue to
allow non-hazardous and non-toxic
discharges of bulk DCR in limited areas
of the Great Lakes. However, vessel
owners and operators would need to
minimize DCR discharges using
methods they would be required to
document in DCR management plans.
The proposed rule would prohibit
limestone and clean stone DCR
discharges in some waters where they
are now permitted. The proposed rule
promotes the Coast Guard’s strategic
goals of maritime mobility and safety
and protection of natural resources.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before October 29, 2012 or reach
the Docket Management Facility by that
date. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach
OMB on or before October 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG2004–19621 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 four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
Collection of Information Comments:
If you have comments on the collection
of information discussed in section
VII.D. of this document, you must also
send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget. To ensure that your comments
to OIRA are received on time, the
preferred methods are by email to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov (include
the docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk
Officer for Coast Guard, DHS’’ in the
subject line of the email) or fax at 202–
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
395–6566. An alternate, though slower,
method is by U.S. mail to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email John C. Morris, Office
of Operating and Environmental
Standards (CG–OES–3), U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone 202–372–1433, email
John.C.Morris@uscg.mil. 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. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments on Interim Rule
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
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. 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–2004–19621),
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
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
address, an email 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, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2004–19621’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ 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, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments 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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2004–
19621’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
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 plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one to the docket using one of the
methods specified under ADDRESSES.
In your request, explain why you
believe a public meeting would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
AB Able Bodied Seaman
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DCR Dry Cargo Residue
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR Federal Register
ICR Information Collection Request
IR Interim Rule
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
ROD Record of Decision
PIC Person in charge
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
§ Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
VGP Vessel General Permit
III. Basis and Purpose
This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes a rule to
replace the interim rule (73 FR 56492,
Sep. 29, 2008) now in effect. It also
announces the availability of the tiered
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), which we previously announced
we would prepare in support of this
proposed rule (scoping notice, 73 FR
79496; Dec. 29, 2008). The legal basis
for this rulemaking is section 623(b) of
the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004 (‘‘the Act,’’
Pub. L. 108–293). Section 623(b) of the
Act gives the Coast Guard the authority,
‘‘notwithstanding any other law * * *
to promulgate regulations governing the
discharge of dry bulk cargo residue on
the Great Lakes.’’
The purpose of this rulemaking, as a
whole, is to exercise the authority
conferred on the Coast Guard by the Act
in a way that appropriately balances the
needs of maritime commerce and
environmental protection, by
determining how, if at all, the discharge
of dry cargo residue (DCR) can continue
in the Great Lakes within a regulatory
framework that imposes
environmentally appropriate conditions
on DCR discharges. The purpose of this
SNPRM phase of the rulemaking is to
propose a rule that would allow some
DCR discharges to continue, under a
regulatory framework that imposes
additional conditions on the vessels
from which those discharges take place.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44529
IV. Background
Prior to opening this rulemaking, we
published a notice of inquiry requesting
information about the then-current
status of dry cargo operations in the
Great Lakes (69 FR 77147, Dec. 27, 2004;
correction, 70 FR 1400, Jan. 5, 2005).
The regulatory history for this
rulemaking began with an
announcement of our intent to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in support of the rulemaking and
a request for public comments on the
scope of the EIS (‘‘scoping notice,’’ 71
FR 12209, March 9, 2006). On June 8,
2006, we published a notice for a public
meeting on the scope of the EIS, and
again requested public comments (71 FR
33312). The scoping meeting was held
in Cleveland, OH, on July 6, 2006. Our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
and notice of the availability of the
accompanying draft environmental
impact statement appeared on May 23,
2008 (73 FR 30014). Public meetings on
the NPRM and DEIS were announced on
June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273) and held in
Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on July
15 and 17, 2008, respectively.
Availability of the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) was announced
on August 22, 2008, by the
Environmental Protection Agency (73
FR 49667) and by the Coast Guard (73
FR 49694), and the Record of Decision
(ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS
was signed September 23, 2008. An
interim rule was published September
29, 2008 (73 FR 56492). On December
29, 2008 (73 FR 79496), we published a
second scoping notice announcing our
intent to prepare a new ‘‘tiered’’
(updated) EIS in support of a final rule,
requested public comments, and
announced a public scoping meeting,
which was held in Chicago, IL, on
January 28, 2009.
There are several factors that must be
taken into account when addressing
DCR discharges in the waters of the U.S.
side of the Great Lakes. The Lakes
support a significant volume of bulk dry
cargo shipping that remains within the
Great Lakes system. The Lakes are, in
places, very deep and wide and either
adjoin Canadian waters or are landlocked. Therefore, vessels that remain
within the Great Lake system—unlike
their East, West, or Gulf Coast
counterparts—are continually subject to
the navigable waters laws of both the
United States and Canada.
The legislative conference report
prepared in support of section 623(b) of
the Act expressed Congress’s
expectation that in regulating Great
Lakes DCR discharges, given these
special characteristics, the U.S. Coast
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44530
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Guard would adopt an approach ‘‘that
appropriately balances the needs of
maritime commerce and environmental
protection.’’ House Report 108–617.
Our interim rule amended 33 CFR
151.66, a Coast Guard regulation that
implements the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (APPS) 33 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq. That regulation generally prohibits
the discharge of DCR—an ‘‘operational
waste’’ and, hence, ‘‘garbage’’ as both
terms are defined in 33 CFR 151.05—in
all U.S. navigable waters. The interim
rule amended that prohibition with
respect to the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes. It allows non-hazardous and nontoxic DCR discharges in limited areas of
the Great Lakes, provided that carriers
observe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and it encourages carriers
to adopt voluntary control measures for
minimizing discharges. The interim rule
applies to the owners and operators of
U.S., Canadian, and other foreign
vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the
U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and also
to the owners and operators of U.S.
vessels carrying bulk dry cargo when
they are on the Canadian waters of the
Great Lakes. Non-self-propelled barges
are excluded unless they are part of an
integrated tug-and-barge unit.
Our Record of Decision in support of
the interim rule concluded that the
interim rule’s only adverse
environmental impacts would be minor
and indirect, and that an outright ban of
DCR discharges could cause an adverse
economic impact for carriers and related
industries in the Great Lakes region.
Therefore, we found that allowing DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes, under the
conditions imposed by the interim rule,
struck ‘‘the best balance between
economic and environmental concerns
that can be achieved, given currently
available information.’’ ROD, p. 4. The
conditions the interim rule imposed on
DCR discharges were intended to limit
even minor and indirect impacts of DCR
discharges, and to give us the regulatory
tools we needed to monitor discharges
in the future.
We stated in the interim rule that,
before taking action in this rulemaking,
we would ‘‘determine if, in the long
term, the optimal balancing of
commercial and environmental interests
requires the mandatory use of DCR
control measures, the adjustment of the
geographical boundaries within which
those discharges are currently allowed,
or other regulatory changes.’’ (73 FR at
56495.) We have now made a tentative
determination of that issue and, in this
SNPRM, we propose a rule based on
that tentative determination. We request
your comments on that determination
and on the proposed rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
V. Discussion of Comments on Interim
Rule
In response to our September 2008
interim rule and December 2008 scoping
notice, we received comments from 19
sources, including 5 State agencies
(representing 4 States, with 1 State
providing comments from 2 separate
agencies, and 1 agency submitting
multiple comments), 4 industry groups,
2 non-industry groups, 1 Indian Tribal
group, and 7 individuals.
Three commenters expressed support
for the interim rule or said DCR
discharges should be permitted because
of their low environmental impact and
the high cost of eliminating discharges.
Eight commenters expressed opposition
to the interim rule or favored
prohibiting all DCR discharges in the
Great Lakes; one of the eight said our
rule should move toward eliminating
those discharges. These comments were
unsupported by argument or evidence
and therefore we can only acknowledge
them.
Three State agency commenters said
the interim rule is inconsistent with
their State laws and with their coastal
zone management plans. The interim
rule states that it does not expressly
preempt State laws and that it expressly
cautions carriers that they must comply
with all applicable Federal and State
laws regulating DCR discharges. It also
states that the Coast Guard will work
with States and carriers to make sure
carriers are informed of any State laws
that could impose more restrictions on
DCR discharges than the Coast Guard
allows. 73 FR at 56497 col. 2.
Two State agency commenters said
that DCR discharges are harmful
because they provide favorable substrate
conditions for invasive or exotic
species. We acknowledge this as a
legitimate concern, but point out that
our tiered DEIS continues to support our
2008 ROD’s finding that, with the
mitigating measures the interim rule
provides, any such adverse
environmental impact is only minor and
indirect. Furthermore, except for the
Western Basin of Lake Erie, our
proposed rule prohibits the discharge of
any type of DCR within 3 miles of any
shoreline in the Great Lakes. (The
existing exception for the Western Basin
recognizes that some vessels carrying
limestone or clean stone never leave
that area, so a complete prohibition on
DCR discharges on those vessels could
pose an extreme hardship on them.)
This change to the interim rule would
eliminate the introduction of any
additional DCR substrate to shallower
near-shore waters, the preferred habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of several invasive species found in
freshwater.
Two State agency commenters
disagreed with our characterization of
DCR as non-toxic and non-hazardous.
Our tiered DEIS continues to support
the interim rule’s characterization of
any DCR discharge it allows as nontoxic and non-hazardous.
Two State agency commenters
pointed out that Lake Superior is the
subject of a ‘‘Demonstration Lake’’
agreement between several States and
the Province of Ontario, Canada,
pursuant to which the parties commit
themselves to the elimination of
pollutants in Lake Superior. The
International Joint Commission’s 1990
designation of Lake Superior as a
‘‘demonstration area’’ led to a Binational
Program to Restore and Protect the Lake
Superior Basin, under which a zerodischarge standard applies, but only to
particularly toxic heavy metals and
organochlorine compounds. The
Binational Program does not apply a
zero discharge standard to other
materials, such as DCR, so long as
discharges of those other materials do
not threaten identified key near-shore
and wetland habitats. Our
environmental analysis identified such
habitats, based on all the data supplied
to us by commenters or otherwise
available to us. Both the interim rule
and the proposed rule prohibit
discharges in those habitats and other
special protection areas.
Two State agency commenters said
the interim rule is at odds with the
EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP) for
discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels. EPA requires VGP
permittees to engage in specific
behaviors or best management practices
in order to minimize those discharges;
the approach this SNPRM proposes for
our rule. However, there is no conflict
between the VGP and the interim rule,
because the VGP specifically excludes
from its coverage ‘‘discharges of bulk
dry cargo residues as defined at 33 CFR
151.66(b),’’ citing the interim ruleamended version of 33 CFR 151.66. See
VGP (Feb. 5, 2009), sec. 1.2.3.4; docket
number EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0055–0717
(available at https://
www.regulations.gov). One State agency
commenter asked us to require specific
technological and procedural measures
for controlling DCR, pointing out for
example that decks can be swept while
cargo loading is in progress, and that
shoreside facilities can stop their
conveyor belts while a vessel
repositions itself during loading
operations. Another commenter offered
information about specific control
measures, recommended requiring the
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
use of best management practices to
minimize DCR discharges, and
recommended that we regulate
shoreside facilities because vessels have
no control over those facilities. Our
proposed rule’s ‘‘broom clean’’
requirement does not specify how to
comply with that requirement, but one
way would be to sweep the deck while
loading takes place. We assume that the
other control measures cited by these
commenters would be among the
voluntary options vessel owners and
operators would consider in preparing
the DCR management plans that we
propose to require. With respect to
shoreside facilities, we understand that
vessels do not control those facilities,
but they can voluntarily arrange with a
facility to identify measures that the
facility is willing to take to help the
vessel comply with 33 CFR 151.66’s
requirements. As we subsequently
discuss, we think that our regulatory
focus needs to be on vessels rather than
on shoreside facilities.
One State agency commenter said that
we should voluntarily extend the
interim rule’s comment period and the
period for consulting with States within
the framework of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA). The Coast
Guard routinely grants State requests for
additional time to evaluate Coast Guard
CZMA consistency determinations, and
both States and the general public will
have that additional time to consider the
Coast Guard’s proposal for regulating
DCR during the public comment period
for this SNPRM, and therefore we do not
see the need for additional extensions of
time as requested by this commenter at
this time.
One commenter, representing many
States with coastal zone management
plans, said that we should rely on States
to provide us with information about
developing port-based DCR control
measures. As we subsequently discuss,
we think that our regulatory focus needs
to be on vessels, rather than on
shoreside facilities. However, in
proposing that vessels develop DCR
management plans, we assume that a
vessel’s owner or operator will want to
consult with shoreside facilities to
assess what each facility can do to help
the vessel comply with discharge
minimization requirements.
Two commenters asked us to remove
the quarterly reporting requirement as
unnecessary, while two commenters
recommended modifications to the
Coast Guard recordkeeping form. We
lack sufficient information to remove
the reporting requirement at this time,
and we specifically seek further public
comment on the costs and benefits of
indefinitely requiring the reporting to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
continue. Because the recommended
modifications came from only two of the
commenters and would require the
costly revision of a commonly used
standard form that provides the
information we need, we also decline to
modify the form at this time.
Another commenter, representing
several associations, said that our
reliance on the Act to regulate DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes
‘‘notwithstanding any other law’’ was
misplaced in the absence of a stronger
showing of congressional intent to
override international treaties like the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL 73/78), or a stronger showing
of the irreconcilability of MARPOL 73/
78 and Great Lakes DCR regulations.
MARPOL 73/78 is not irreconcilable
with our interim rule or our proposed
rule. Our interim rule already shares
MARPOL Annex V’s requirements for
recordkeeping and for avoiding nearshore discharges, and our proposed rule
would add an Annex V-like requirement
for maintaining and following a DCR
management plan. However, MARPOL
73/78 is inapplicable to the U.S. waters
of the Great Lakes. APPS and the Act
provide the statutory authority for 33
CFR 151.66. In the preamble to our
interim rule, 73 FR at 56493, we
extensively discussed the reasons why
the zero-discharge approach to
operational waste discharges (including
DCR discharges) generally taken by
APPS and Coast Guard regulations is
not necessary for protecting the
environment and could be disruptive for
Great Lakes commerce. We also stated
our interpretation that House Report
108–617, which accompanied passage of
the Act, clearly expresses Congress’s
expectation that the Coast Guard will
exercise its authority ‘‘notwithstanding
any other law’’ to ‘‘appropriately
balance[e] the needs of maritime
commerce and environmental
protection.’’ We believe the approach
we took in the interim rule, and that we
now propose strengthening in this rule,
meets that expectation by adapting the
pollution-preventing spirit of APPS to
the special characteristics of the Great
Lakes cited in our interim rule
preamble’s discussion.
The commenter representing several
associations also called on the Coast
Guard to review DCR control measures
every three years. While we
acknowledge that industry practices and
technology may evolve over time, the
Coast Guard declines to set a
requirement for a three-year review.
However, the Coast Guard will monitor
that evolution and expects industry
participants to do the same. In
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44531
evaluating a vessel’s compliance with
the proposed DCR management plan
requirement, the proposed rule would
allow Coast Guard inspectors to take
into account the extent to which the
procedures described in the DCR
management plan reflect current
industry standard practices for vessels
with comparable characteristics,
cargoes, and operations. Furthermore,
the Coast Guard is subject to statutes,
executive orders, and agency policies
that require the periodic reevaluation of
existing regulations, including 33 CFR
151.66, to make sure that regulations
continue to be appropriate despite
changes in conditions.
Finally, the commenter representing
several associations said that the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the final rule should reevaluate DCR
controls that affect special protected
areas, and that we should add studies of
discharge prohibitions under section
312 of the Clean Water Act, mandate
complete discharge bans for new
commercial operations and phased-in
eliminations for existing operations,
require mandatory discharge controls,
and undertake additional studies of DCR
toxicity. The interim rule already
prohibits DCR discharges in special
protected areas, and we have
reevaluated that prohibition in the
environmental analysis for this SNPRM.
www.regulations.gov. Section 312 of the
Clean Water Act seeks to address the
dumping of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage from vessels into U.S.
navigable waters; DCR is not considered
sewage waste and therefore this aspect
of the comment is beyond the scope of
our rulemaking. Our ongoing
environmental analysis affirms our
earlier assessment that ‘‘any toxic
components of DCR deposits in the
Great Lakes do not exist in
concentrations known to be toxic to
organisms.’’ 73 FR at 56494 col. 2;
www.regulations.gov. We do not agree
with the commenter’s suggestion that
mandatory discharge controls be
imposed on all operations, but we do
propose requiring each vessel to have a
DCR management plan describing
specifically how it will minimize
discharges. This approach would
require a vessel’s owner or operator to
determine and to implement those
measures that best achieve discharge
minimization, given the vessel’s
characteristics, cargoes, and operations.
We also disagree with the commenter’s
suggestion that DCR discharge
prohibitions be imposed on new
operations and phased in for existing
operations. We believe our proposal for
discharge minimization, in accordance
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44532
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
with a vessel’s DCR management plan,
best achieves the balance of commercial
and environmental considerations that
Congress had in mind when it passed
the Act.
One commenter said that the EIS for
the final rule should study specific best
management practices and technology.
We agree, and our tiered DEIS reflects
our evaluation of specific best
management practices and technology.
One commenter, a Canadian
association, said that we should
harmonize our regulatory treatment of
DCR with Canada’s. We believe that our
interim rule and our proposed rule are
in harmony with Canadian DCR
regulations for the Great Lakes, which
may be found in Division 5,
Subdivisions 1–4 of the Statutory
Orders and Regulations of Canada
(SOR)/2007–86, ‘‘Regulations for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships and
for Dangerous Chemicals.’’ In
promulgating these 2007 regulations,
Transport Canada stated that its intent
was to make Canadian regulations
compatible with the then-current U.S.
DCR enforcement policy. Like that
policy, and like the interim rule and our
proposed rule, the Canadian regulations
prohibit the discharge of DCR in nearshore or special protected areas and
require DCR discharge recordkeeping. In
addition, Canadian regulations require
that vessels carry and operate in
accordance with a garbage management
plan that covers its DCR procedures,
and we are proposing a similar
requirement with this rule.
The Canadian association also
suggested some voluntary industry
programs that could provide
information about DCR control
measures. We agree that owners and
operators might find that such programs
offer good advice on minimizing DCR
discharges.
One commenter, representing Indian
tribal interests, asked for consultation
with the Coast Guard and asked that the
EIS for the final rule add fish spawning
grounds as a separate area of focus.
Although we determined in the interim
rule that Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, is not
applicable to this rulemaking 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, 73 FR at
56496 col. 3, we have nevertheless
engaged in consultation with this
commenter. Documentation of that
consultation appears in the docket as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
item USCG–2004–19621–0182. Fish
spawning grounds have already been
incorporated in our environmental
analysis and DCR discharges in these
areas are prohibited.
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The context in which we developed
this proposal. We stated in the interim
rule that, before taking action in this
rulemaking, we would ‘‘determine if, in
the long term, the optimal balancing of
commercial and environmental interests
requires the mandatory use of DCR
control measures, the adjustment of the
geographical boundaries within which
those discharges are currently allowed,
or other regulatory changes.’’ 73 FR at
56495.
To help us achieve that long term
balance, we analyzed the DCR discharge
records reported to us in accordance
with the interim rule. This helped us
describe and quantify DCR discharges,
and to determine what control measures
were common and effective in
controlling DCR discharges. This
information is available in the
appendices to the tiered DEIS. We also
observed Great Lakes dry cargo
operations firsthand. During the 2009
and 2010 shipping seasons, we visited
vessels and facilities in the region, and
observed cargo loading and unloading,
and DCR discharge operations. This
enabled us to gather DCR data using a
known consistent set of metrics and a
process that was completely
independent of any used by vessel
owners or operators to complete and
submit their DCR discharge reports.
From this analysis and observation,
we drew the following conclusions:
There is significant variation in the
amount of DCR that vessels discharge; a
finding that is supported by results
reported by the regulated industry.
However, most vessels appear to be
minimizing the volume of DCR they
discharge. They treat their cargo as a
commodity to be conserved and not
wasted. They deal with shoreside
facilities that take the same practical
view. These vessels and facilities use
best practices to prevent cargo spillage
in the first place, and to clean it up
when it occurs. Most best practices are
simple, intuitive, and cost little: For
example, lining conveyor belts with
fabric skirts, communicating with the
shoreside facility to shut down loading
chutes while moving from one hold to
the next, and using brooms and shovels
to clean up DCR and return it to the
hold before the hold is sealed.
Deck spillage is a relatively minor
source of DCR, and easily addressed
through simple measures. By far the
greater source of DCR is from cargo hold
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spillage into vessel tunnels. Tunnel
spillage predominantly occurs during
cargo unloading.
Within tunnels, large pieces of DCR
that remain after unloading should be
easy to recover while the vessel is
underway, and to place on the conveyor
belt with the rest of the cargo during the
vessel’s next unloading. Dust and small
particles, however, inevitably make
their way into the vessel’s sump water.
The sump must be pumped
periodically, to preserve the vessel’s
trim and stability. Sump pumping can
take several hours. If performed
shoreside, this operation may delay the
vessel, increasing its operating costs. It
would be economically more rational to
perform sump pumping only while the
vessel is underway, though this would
likely result in sump discharges being
the main contributor to DCR discharges
in the Great Lakes.
In this SNPRM, we propose a rule that
would make three general changes to
the current interim rule. (We also
propose the non-substantive addition or
amendment of two definitions,
‘‘commercial vessel’’ and ‘‘mile,’’ for
stylistic purposes.) Our tiered DEIS
supports all of these changes. The
proposed rule would, like the interim
rule, continue to apply to the owners
and operators of U.S., Canadian, and
other foreign vessels carrying bulk dry
cargo on the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes, and also to the owners and
operators of U.S. vessels carrying bulk
dry cargo when they are on the
Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. It
would continue the interim rule’s
exclusion of non-self-propelled barges,
unless they are part of an integrated tug
and barge unit. The three proposed
changes are as follows:
First, we would require the volume of
DCR discharges to be minimized. Except
for a new, objectively verifiable, ‘‘broom
clean’’ standard applying to decks,
discharge minimization would be
achieved through methods of the vessel
owner or operator’s choice. ‘‘Broom
clean’’ would be defined in 33 CFR
151.66(b)(2) as a condition in which
deck residues ‘‘consist only of dust,
powder, or isolated and random pieces
none of which exceeds 1 inch in
diameter.’’ ‘‘Minimization’’ would also
be defined, as the ‘‘reduction, to the
greatest extent practicable, of any bulk
dry cargo residue discharge from the
vessel.’’ Reinforcing the concept of
minimization, we would also redefine
bulk DCR to emphasize that DCR can
exist ‘‘regardless of particle size.’’
Second, we would require discharge
minimization methods to be
documented in a vessel-specific DCR
management plan, which we would
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
define as a written plan, subject to Coast
Guard inspection, meeting at least the
minimum criteria we would describe in
33 CFR 151.66(b)(5)
Third, limestone and clean stone DCR
discharges would no longer be
permitted within 3 miles of shore,
except within a limited area of the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Minimization and the DCR
management plan. The proposed rule
would require U.S. and foreign carriers
conducting bulk dry cargo operations on
the Great Lakes to minimize the amount
of cargo residue discharged into the
Great Lakes. Except for the new broom
clean standard, our focus would be on
discharge minimization, not on
minimizing DCR. Nor would we require
vessels to eliminate DCR discharges,
because we continue to believe, as we
did when we issued the interim rule,
that a ‘‘zero discharge’’ requirement
would be more costly than necessary to
protect the environment against adverse
impacts, and because the adverse
impacts that can be associated with DCR
discharges are only minor and indirect.
Nevertheless, the elimination of DCR
discharges remains the ideal, and we
expect vessels to come as close to that
ideal as practicable, given current
industry standard practices for vessels
of ‘‘comparable characteristics, cargoes,
and operations’’—a term we would
define in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as
meaning ‘‘similar vessel design, size,
age, crew complement, cargoes,
operational routes, deck and hold
configuration, and fixed cargo transfer
equipment configuration.’’
Discharge minimization would
include keeping the vessel’s deck in
broom clean condition. All vessels
should be able to achieve the broom
clean standard on deck, by sweeping
spilled cargo back into holds before they
are sealed, if not by some other method.
However, as noted, deck DCR only
accounts for a relatively small
proportion of overall DCR discharges.
For the more significant tunnel sump
discharges, it is not possible for us to
define a similar standard that could be
applied to all vessels. We believe that
the degree of minimization that will be
practicable for those discharges will
depend on the variables of a vessel’s
characteristics, cargoes, and operations,
and on the technology or procedures
used to compensate for those variables.
Rather than mandating the use of
specific procedures or technologies that
may be ineffective or impracticable for
some vessels, each vessel’s owner or
operator would select the method or
methods best suited for minimizing that
vessel’s DCR discharges. We believe that
the great majority of vessels affected by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
the proposed rule are already effectively
minimizing those discharges. However,
by making minimization a regulatory
requirement, we would level the playing
field to ensure that all affected vessels
engage in responsible discharge
minimization practices.
The proposed requirement for each
vessel to carry its own vessel-specific
DCR management plan on board, and to
have that plan available for inspection,
is central to the enforceability of a
discharge minimization requirement.
Coast Guard inspectors would enforce
discharge minimization by making sure
that the vessel has a DCR management
plan onboard, that the plan is complete
and addresses all required items, and
that the master or person in charge (PIC)
ensures that the vessel and its crew
operate according to the plan. The Coast
Guard could infer the vessel’s failure to
minimize discharges from evidence
such as:
• A missing plan;
• A plan that fails to address obvious
DCR situations on the vessel that raise
the probability of an eventual DCR
discharge, such as obvious DCR buildup
in the vessel’s tunnels;
• Discharge minimization equipment
that is called for in the plan but not
maintained or operating properly; or
• A crewmember’s inability to
perform a discharge-minimization task
for which the plan makes the
crewmember responsible.
To ensure that the vessel’s owner and
operator exercise due diligence in
writing the management plan, we would
require the plan to describe:
• The equipment and procedures the
vessel uses to minimize cargo spillage
during loading and unloading;
• The equipment and procedures the
vessel uses to recover spilled cargo and
place it in holds or on unloading
conveyances;
• How the owner or operator ensures
crew familiarity with management plan
procedures;
• Who has onboard responsibility for
the vessel’s discharge minimization
procedures;
• What arrangements, if any, the
vessel has with specific ports or cargo
terminals for unloading and disposing
of the vessel’s DCR ashore; and
• How unavoidable DCR discharges
will be conducted.
Our regulatory focus has been, and
will remain, the vessels that carry bulk
dry cargo—even though shoreside cargo
loading and unloading facilities
undoubtedly play a role in creating, or
limiting the creation of, the shipboard
DCR that is eventually discharged into
the Great Lakes. Focusing on vessels
makes sense because the Coast Guard’s
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44533
inspection infrastructure is more geared
toward vessels than to shoreside
facilities. We would expect each vessel’s
DCR management plan to describe how
the vessel works with shoreside
facilities to facilitate the vessel’s
compliance with the requirements of 33
CFR 151.66.
Another important aspect of the
proposed management plan requirement
is that the plan would need to be
revised whenever there was a
substantive change to the procedures or
the equipment used to manage dry cargo
residues on the vessel covered by the
plan. Although regular or periodic
revisions of the management plan are
not required under this proposed rule,
vessel owners would be required to
maintain the plan in a manner that
assures it accurately reflects the current
procedures, practices, and technology
employed in managing dry cargo
residues on the vessel.
We expect that industry standard
practices for the management of dry
cargo residue will evolve as existing dry
cargo conveyance technologies are
supplanted by those that are more
efficient, effective, and reliable.
‘‘Industry standard practices’’ would be
specifically defined in 33 CFR
151.66(b)(2) and would include
practices for installation, maintenance,
operation, training, and supervision
relating to bulk dry cargo transfer and
DCR control measures. A primary
premise of this proposed rule is that a
vessel owner or operator will employ
dry cargo residue management practices
that are on par with the current industry
standard for vessels of comparable
characteristics, cargoes, and operations.
‘‘Comparable characteristics, cargoes,
and operations’’ would be defined in 33
CFR 151.66 (b)(2) as meaning ‘‘similar
vessel design, size, age, crew
complement, cargoes, operational
routes, deck and hold configurations,
and fixed cargo transfer equipment
configurations’’. A vessel’s compliance
with this requirement of the proposed
rule would be determined in part by
how well the vessel’s DCR management
practices, as outlined in its management
plan, compare with the current industry
standard practices employed by the
majority of vessels with comparable
characteristics, cargoes, and operations.
If, for example, a vessel’s plan continues
to rely on technology or procedures that
have been supplanted by more recent,
affordable, and easily implemented
industry standard practices, a Coast
Guard inspector could consider this as
evidence of failure to maintain the plan
or failure to minimize DCR discharges.
Limestone and clean stone. While we
propose to retain the interim rule’s
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44534
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
approach toward the discharge of DCR
in general, we propose a change with
respect to limestone and clean stone
DCR discharges. For most substances,
DCR discharges have been and would
remain subject to several geographic
limitations, including a flat prohibition
on discharges within a certain distance
from shore and in special protected
areas. For limestone and clean stone,
however, the interim rule continued the
prior policy, which allowed DCR from
limestone and clean stone to be
discharged close to shore, except where
the nearest shore is in a special
protected area or where the discharge
would have an ‘‘apparent impact’’ on
wetlands, fish spawning areas, or
potable water intakes. We think this
standard is too subjective and that it
could be difficult for vessel crews to
determine whether or not a stone DCR
discharge would have an apparent
impact on the local environment.
Therefore, we propose making
limestone and clean stone DCR
discharges subject to the same 3 mile
restriction we impose on other DCR
discharges. Our 2009 and 2010 field
research and the EIS indicated that
limestone and clean stone vessels
already avoid DCR discharges within 3
miles of shore because of near-shore
operational hazards. Thus, those vessels
should not incur any additional cost
from the proposed extension of the
exclusion zone. (We would preserve the
existing exception for a limited portion
of Lake Erie’s Western Basin because
some vessels carrying limestone or clean
stone never leave that area, and if such
a vessel wanted to discharge DCR it
could be unusually and adversely
affected by a complete prohibition on
DCR discharges in the area.) Our
proposed change would ensure that
near-shore wetlands, fish spawning
areas, and potable water intakes within
the entire Great Lakes ecosystem are
protected from DCR discharges, while
simultaneously simplifying
understanding and compliance with the
rule for the regulated industry. It should
also mitigate an environmental impact
identified in the Final EIS for the
interim rule; that is, possible changes in
the physical structure of the lake bottom
sediment, which may cause a less than
10% increase in zebra and quagga
mussel attachment rates.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This
SNPRM has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget. A draft Regulatory
Assessment follows:
The Coast Guard proposes a rule that
would require vessels to minimize their
DCR discharges, to document their DCR
minimization methods, and to observe
new restrictions on limestone and clean
stone DCR discharges.
Table 1 compares components of the
interim rule (baseline used for this
rulemaking) and this SNPRM. It
summarizes any changes in the
component that we propose in the
SNPRM.
TABLE 1—NO-ACTION (IR) AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY
IR Provision
IR Provision synopsis
SNPRM Provision
SNPRM Provision synopsis
Change from IR to SNPRM
Recordkeeping.
33 CFR
151.66(c)(1)(iv).
Vessels must record all DCR loading, unloading and sweeping on
form CG–33.
NA ........................
........................................................
Reporting/
Certification.
33 CFR
151.66(c)(1)(iv).
NA ........................
........................................................
33 CFR 151.66(b)
33 CFR
151.66(b)(2).
Limestone and clean stone DCR
discharges, under the proposed
rule, would not be allowed within
3 miles of shore.
There would be a no-cost change;
our research indicates that vessels already avoid DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore
because of near-shore operational hazards.
Voluntary
minimization.
33 CFR 151.66(b)
The data collected are used to determine vessel practices in handling DCR, and the amount of
DCR that is being managed by
the vessels.
Limestone and clean stone are exempt from the 3-mile near-shore
sweeping boundary. Under the
IR, these commodities can be
discharged anywhere along the
shoreline, provided there is no
apparent impact on environmentally sensitive areas.
Vessels are encouraged to minimize the amount of DCR going
into the water and the use of
control measures to reduce the
amount of DCR falling on the
decks and tunnels of vessels.
Recordkeeping requirement would
remain in place. The industry
would not incur any change in
cost.
Vessels will continue to certify and
submit reports on a quarterly
basis. The industry will not incur
any change in cost.
Limestone
& clean
stone.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Provision
description
NA ........................
The portion of 33 CFR 151.66(b)
in the IR dealing with voluntary
minimization would be removed
in the SNPRM.
There is no cost associated with
the removal of this IR requirement. (See the management
plan below for details on mandatory minimization.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
44535
TABLE 1—NO-ACTION (IR) AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY—Continued
Provision
description
IR Provision
IR Provision synopsis
Broom
clean
standard.
NA ........................
........................................................
Management
plan.
NA ........................
........................................................
Costs
The proposed rule has costs
associated with having vessel owners
and operators develop and maintain a
management plan that describes the
specific measures the vessel employs to
ensure the minimization of bulk DCR
discharges in the waters of the Great
Lakes. The proposed rule would not
impose any additional capital
SNPRM Provision
SNPRM Provision synopsis
Change from IR to SNPRM
33 CFR
151.66(b)(3).
This requirement stipulates that
vessels must show that decks
have been swept to a standard
that is in keeping with the mandatory minimization requirement
of this proposed rule.
33 CFR
151.66(b)(4).
The plan must describe the specific measures the vessel employs to ensure the minimization
of bulk dry cargo residue discharge.
Vessels would realize a new cost
for this requirement. We anticipate that vessels would see an
annual cost increase ranging
from $14,203 to $53,263 (nondiscounted). Foreign vessels
would incur an average annual
cost of $28,847 (non-discounted). The benefit of this requirement is a reduction in the
amount of discharge going into
the waters of the Great Lakes.
The new requirement would have
an initial year cost of $24,777
(non-discounted) to prepare a
management plan. After the initial year, existing U.S. vessels
would not incur additional cost
(within the 10-year period of
analysis) from this new requirement. Foreign vessels would
incur a first year cost of $17,340
and an annual cost of $1,530
(all non-discounted) from this
new requirement. This requirement would ensure that vessels
are minimizing the amount of
DCR going into the waters of
the Great Lakes, and provide
USCG with the means of policing DCR discharge.
expenditures on the U.S. bulk dry cargo
fleet operating exclusively on the Great
Lakes, since we believe that vessels
would use equipment already available
onboard their vessels to comply with
this proposed rule (for further
information on specific measures
currently being used, see DEIS).
We estimated the annualized costs of
the SNPRM for the US fleet to range
from $17,500 to $56,298 (with a per
vessel average cost of $671), and the
annualized costs of the SNPRM for the
foreign fleet to range from $13,922 to
$48,697 (with a per vessel average cost
of $368), all costs are estimated using a
7 percent discount rate. The following
table summarizes the affected
population of vessels, costs and benefits
of the proposed rule.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE SNPRM
Affected Population
US ............................
Foreign .....................
Total ..................
55 Vessels (14 owners).
85 Vessels.
140 Vessels.
Costs*
US ............................
Foreign .....................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Total ..................
Annualized = $17,500—$56,298.
10 year = $122,916—$395,413.
Annualized = $13,922—$48,697.
10 year = $97,786—$342,029.
Annualized = $31,423—$104,995.
10 year = $220,701—$737,444.
Benefits
Minimizing the amount of DCR discharged into the waters of the Great Lakes would improve the aquatic environment.
Promotion of environmental stewardship among owners and operators.
* Costs are presented as ranges and estimated using a 7 percent discount rate.
The proposed rule would require all
vessels loading or unloading bulk dry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
cargo at ports within the U.S. waters of
the Great Lakes, and each U.S. bulk dry
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
cargo vessel anywhere on the Great
Lakes, to have a management plan
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44536
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
onboard and available for Coast Guard
inspection that describes the specific
measures the vessel employs to
minimize DCR discharges. Foreign
vessels greater than 400 GT can meet the
management plan requirement under
this proposed rule because they are
required to meet the similar waste
management plan requirement in Annex
V of MARPOL 73/78. However, since
Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 does not
cover all of the requirements in 33 CFR
151.66(b)(4), foreign vessels would be
required to address any additional
management plan requirements under
this proposed rule.
We estimate that the proposed rule
would affect 14 entities that currently
manage the 55 U.S. dry bulk carrier
vessels, and 85 foreign dry bulk carrier
vessels (70 Canadian and 15 nonCanadian) operating within U.S.
jurisdictional waters of the Great Lakes
in any given year. We anticipate that the
controlling entities of U.S. vessels
would write the management plans. We
assume that a management plan for a
foreign vessel operating in the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes would be
written by the vessel master.
We estimate the affected population
of foreign dry bulk carriers to be 85
vessels based on the data obtained from
reporting requirements established by
the 2009 interim rule. We originally
estimated the foreign vessel population
to be 219 vessels for 2008 NPRM and
the 2009 interim rule. Our revised
estimate of the foreign vessel population
is based on recent data on foreign vessel
dry cargo operations that was not
available for the NPRM or the interim
rule publications.
To maintain consistency with the cost
methodology used in the interim rule,
we continue to use Coast Guard
reimbursable standard rates found in
COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION
7310.1M (‘‘COMDTINST’’) to analyze
the changes in wages for this
rulemaking.1 We have verified that the
wages found in the COMDTINST are
comparable to the loaded wages found
in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Therefore, that comparison between the
interim rule and the SNPRM is
straightforward.
Table 3 below shows estimated costs
for developing the management plan
required by proposed 33 CFR
151.66(b)(4) and for having onboard a
hard copy of the plan available for
inspection by the Coast Guard.
TABLE 3—COST OF COMPANY DEVELOPMENT OF A MANAGEMENT PLAN
[Non-discounted]
33 CFR 151.66 (b)(4)
Developer
rating
Labor rate
(loaded)
Time in
hours
Company management plan ...
Cost of copies .........................
Foreign
Canadian Vessel .....................
Non-Canadian Foreign ............
GS–12 .........
GS–3 ...........
$69
28
25
.05
O–6 .............
O–6 .............
136
136
b 1.5
Total .................................
.....................
....................
Cost per
plan
Number of
plans
Total initial
cost
Recurring cost
US
a 11.40
$1,725
14
55
$24,150
627
........................
........................
b 1.5
204
204
70
15
14,280
3,060
........................
c 1,530
....................
....................
....................
42,117
1,530
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
(a): Assumes that companies would spend $10 on supplies for each copy of the management plan. The $10 is added to the labor and time estimated to be $1.40 ($28 * 0.05 hrs), therefore the total cost of copies per plan is $11.40.
(b): We assume that foreign vessels greater than 400 GT would develop a modified management plan, since foreign vessels greater than 400
GT are required to have a waste management plan in accordance with Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Therefore, the time required by foreign vessels greater than 400 GT to develop a management plan would be less than the time estimated for the U.S. fleet. Time required for foreign vessels developing a management plan was provided by the USCG Environmental Standards Division.
(c): The recurring cost of the management plan is only for half of the non-Canadian foreign vessels entering the Great Lakes in any given
year. We anticipate that half the number of these vessels would return the following year, while the other half would be new visitors to the Great
Lakes.
In addition to the management plan,
the proposed rule would require that the
deck be maintained in a broom clean
condition whenever a vessel is in transit
(33 CFR 151.66(b)(4)). We assume for
the purpose of this regulatory analysis
that an Able Body Seaman (AB) would
be tasked with maintaining the broom
clean standard as required under this
proposed rule during loading and
unloading operations, to the best of the
AB’s abilities under current vessel
conditions. The requirement is intended
to ensure that vessels are active in
reducing the amount of DCR going into
the waters of the Great Lakes. We do not
expect that vessels would need to
purchase additional brooms, shovels,
etc., since these items are standard
equipment on those vessels.
In order to determine the cost of
maintaining decks in broom clean
condition, we established that the
surface area requiring broom cleaning
would be those areas around the cargo
hatches. During a site visit to the Great
Lakes to observe vessel loading and
unloading operations, we recorded the
number of hatches for each vessel
visited. We extrapolated the observed
data to obtain an estimated number of
total hatches for the Great Lakes bulk
dry cargo fleet. We estimated the total
number of hatches for the 55 U.S.
vessels to be 1,169, while the total
number of hatches for the 70 Canadian
and 15 non-Canadian foreign vessels
was estimated at 1,672. We estimate that
15 to 56 percent of the hatches would
be affected by the broom clean standard
after every loading and unloading event,
and that it would take an AB three
minutes per hatch (at a wage rate of $27
per hour) to meet the broom clean
standard. Table 4 shows the annual
estimated cost to the U.S. fleet for
maintaining the broom clean standard.
The cost range for this requirement is
$14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted).
Costs are based on all vessels making an
average of 60 trips per year.2
1 COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M,
‘‘COAST GUARD REIMBURSABLE STANDARD
RATES’’, FEB 28 2011, https://www.uscg.mil/
directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1M.PDF (begins
on page 3).
2 Annual vessel trip information comes from the
DEIS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44537
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—U.S. FLEET COST FOR MEETING THE BROOM CLEAN STANDARD
Labor rate
33 CFR 151.66
(b)(3)
Crew member
Broom Clean (Low)
Broom Clean (High)
Time req’d
(%/Hr)
Total
number of
fleet
hatches
$27
27
0.05
0.05
1,169
1,169
Deckhand (AB) .......
Deckhand (AB) .......
% of
Hatches
swept
% Vessels
broom
clean
Avg
number of
trips/yr.
Number of
crew
Total hrs/
yr.
Total cost
100
100
60
60
1
1
526
1,963
$14,203
53,001
15
56
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The cost to Canadian and nonCanadian foreign vessels is shown in
Tables 5(a) and (b). The combined cost
of the broom clean standard for foreign
vessels is estimated to range from $69 to
$45, 247 (non-discounted). Costs are
based on Canadian vessels making an
average of 45 trips per year and non-
Canadian foreign vessels averaging only
one trip per year.
TABLE 5(A)—CANADIAN FLEET COST FOR MEETING THE BROOM CLEAN STANDARD
Labor rate
33 CFR 151.66
(b)(3)
Crew member
Broom Clean (Low)
Broom Clean (High)
Time req’d
(%/Hr)
Total
number of
fleet
hatches
$27
27
0.05
0.05
1,330
1,330
Deckhand (AB) .......
Deckhand (AB) .......
% of
Hatches
swept
% Vessels
broom
clean
Avg
number of
trips/yr.
Number of
crew
Total hrs/
yr.
Total cost
100
100
45
45
1
1
449
1676
$12,120
45,247
15
56
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
TABLE 5(B) NON-CANADIAN FOREIGN FLEET COST FOR MEETING THE BROOM CLEAN STANDARD
Labor rate
33 CFR 151.66
(b)(3)
Crew member
Broom Clean (Low)
Broom Clean (High)
Time req’d
(%/Hr)
Total
number of
fleet
hatches
$27
27
0.05
0.05
342
342
Deckhand (AB) .......
Deckhand (AB) .......
% of
Hatches
swept
% Vessels
broom
clean
Avg
number of
trips/yr.
Number of
crew
Total hrs/
yr.
Total cost
100
100
1
1
1
1
3
10
$69
259
15
56
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The cost of complying with the
management plan and broom clean
requirements for the U.S. fleet is
estimated to have a first-year cost range
of $38,982 to $77,778 (non-discounted)
and recurring annual costs ranging from
$14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted).
Table 6 shows the U.S. fleet cost
estimate for the 10-year period of
analysis.
TABLE 6—U.S. VESSELS HIGH AND LOW COST ESTIMATES
High Cost Estimate
Low Cost Estimate
Year
Undiscounted
3%
7%
Undiscounted
3%
7%
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
8 ...............................................................
9 ...............................................................
10 .............................................................
$77,778
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
53,001
$75,513
49,959
48,503
47,091
45,719
44,388
43,095
41,839
40,621
39,438
$72,690
46,293
43,265
40,434
37,789
35,317
33,006
30,847
28,829
26,943
$38,982
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
14,203
$37,846
13,388
12,998
12,619
12,252
11,895
11,549
11,212
10,886
10,569
$36,432
12,406
11,594
10,836
10,127
9,464
8,845
8,266
7,726
7,220
Total Cost .........................................
554,787
476,165
395,413
166,812
145,214
122,916
Annualized Cost ........................
........................
55,821
56,298
........................
17,024
17,500
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
In addition, we estimate that foreign
vessels would incur a first-year cost that
ranges from $15,249 to $59,527 (nondiscounted). All foreign vessels would
incur an annual cost due to the broom
clean standard; however, half of the 15
non-Canadian foreign vessels entering
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:50 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would
be anticipated to incur an additional
cost for developing a management plan
since the same non-Canadian foreign
vessel is not expected to make the same
trip every year. We estimate recurring
cost of all foreign vessels to range from
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$13,719 to $47,035 (non-discounted).
Table 7 shows the U.S. fleet cost
estimate for the 10-year period of
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44538
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—FOREIGN VESSELS HIGH AND LOW COST ESTIMATES
High Cost Estimate
Low Cost Estimate
Year
Undiscounted
3%
7%
Undiscounted
3%
7%
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
8 ...............................................................
9 ...............................................................
10 .............................................................
$59,527
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
47,035
$57,793
44,335
43,044
41,790
40,573
39,391
38,244
37,130
36,049
34,999
$55,632
41,082
38,395
35,883
33,535
31,342
29,291
27,375
25,584
23,910
$15,249
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
13,719
$14,805
12,391
12,555
12,189
11,834
11,489
11,155
10,830
10,514
10,208
$14,251
11,983
11,199
10,466
9,781
9,141
8,543
7,985
7,462
6,974
Total Cost .........................................
482,843
413,347
342,029
138,719
118,510
97,786
Annualized Cost ........................
........................
48,457
48,697
........................
13,893
13,922
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The proposed rule would also
prohibit all near-shore limestone and
clean stone DCR discharges, except in
the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Our
research found that vessels carrying
limestone and clean stone already avoid
DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore
because of near-shore operational
hazards. Therefore, the proposed
prohibition of these discharges would
not incur any additional cost to the
fleet.
We estimate the total annualized cost
to industry (US and foreign) of the
SNPRM to be $31,423 to $104,995 and
the total discounted 10-year costs to
industry to be $220,701 to $737,444
(values discounted at 7 percent). We do
not expect there would be additional
government costs required to implement
the changes from this SNPRM.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Benefits
We examined the benefits of the
proposed rule and concluded that the
benefits are qualitative. The requirement
of the management plan causes all
vessel owners and operators to become
more active in preserving the Great
Lakes’ aquatic environment. The
proposed rule sets a performance
standard that allows the industry to
determine its most efficient methods to
minimize DCR discharges.
We anticipate that the proposed rule
would change the current industry
behavior of discharging DCR into the
waters of the Great Lakes. The proposed
requirement for vessels to have and
follow DCR management plans should
increase overall compliance levels with
today’s industry best practices for
preventing or minimizing DCR
discharges. In enforcing the DCR
management plan requirement, the
Coast Guard would be able to consider
how well a vessel’s plan reflects then-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
current industry standard practices.
This would ensure that if, over time,
there is an improvement in most
vessels’ ability to manage DCR, all
vessels will be measured against the
improved standard. Although our
environmental analysis has shown only
minor and indirect adverse
environmental impacts from DCR
discharges, we assume that any
reduction in those impacts would
provide at least a qualitative benefit. In
addition, the vessel owners and
operators themselves could realize
efficiency gains from maintaining and
gradually improving their DCR
management practices. The proposed
rule would not impose a rigid
prescriptive standard, but would give
the industry the flexibility to develop
vessel-specific performance standards
that achieve the regulatory objectives in
the most cost-effective way.
Alternatives
Alternative 1: no action. This
alternative would simply keep the
current DCR interim rule in place. We
have re-evaluated the interim rule and
concluded that our proposed rule would
do more to minimize the volume of DCR
discharge going into the waters of the
Great Lakes and would reduce the
interim rule’s regulatory costs.
Therefore we reject this alternative.
Alternative 2: modified regulations
with DCR management plan
requirement. This is the preferred
alternative described in this SNPRM
and evaluated here.
Alternative 3: baseline control
measures. This alternative would
enforce the existing DCR management
baseline. Each vessel would be required
to maintain its current practices or
equipment for managing DCR. We
closely evaluated this alternative but
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reject it because over time a vessel’s
baseline operational equipment will
wear out and need replacement, and it
would be difficult for inspectors to
gauge how well the replacement
equipment replicates the operational
state attained by the original equipment.
Moreover, this alternative provides
inferior environmental protection, by
locking vessels into today’s baseline. By
contrast, the preferred alternative
assumes that DCR management
practices and technology will improve
over time, and we want the regulatory
compliance of vessels in the future to be
measured against the best practices and
technology then available, and not
against today’s baseline, which we
assume will represent a lower level of
DCR management capability.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed 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.
The Coast Guard analysis did not find
any non-profit or governmental small
entities. However, we did find 9 small
entities affected by this rule classified
under one of the following North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) 6-digit codes for water
transportation: 238910—Site
Preparation Constructor; 483113—
Coastal and Great Lakes Freight
Transportation; 484110—General
Freight Trucking Local; 487210—Scenic
& Sightseeing Transportation Water;
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
483212—Inland Water Passenger
Transportation; and 483211—Inland
Water Freight. According to the Small
Business Administration’s size
standards, a U.S. company classified
under these NAICS codes with annual
revenues of less than $7 million is
considered a small business. We
estimate the cost of this rule to be less
than 1 percent of revenue for 100
percent of the small entities for both
initial and recurring costs. The
estimated annualized costs per small
entity complying with the proposed rule
would range from a high estimate of
$7,327 to a low estimate of $2,267 with
both discounted at 7 percent
respectively.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Comments
submitted in response to this finding
will be evaluated under the criteria in
the ‘‘Regulatory Information’’ section of
this preamble.
We are interested in the potential
impacts from this proposed rule on
small businesses and we request public
comment on these potential impacts. If
you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the docket
where indicated under the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ section of this SNPRM, or
see www.regulations.gov, docket
number USCG–2004–19621, for
additional instruction.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult
John C. Morris of the Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards (CG–
OES–3) at the telephone number or
email address indicated under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
The proposed rule would call for a
revision to an existing collection of
information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1310.3(c),
‘‘collection of information’’ comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring,
posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of
those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual
burden can be found under, ‘‘The
estimate covers the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing sources
of data, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.’’
Title: Waste Management Plans,
Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of
Instruction for Certain Persons in
Charge (PIC).
Summary of the Collection of
Information
The Information Collection Request
(ICR) is a collection of recordkeeping
requirements that documents
management of waste onboard vessels. It
also requires that persons on noninspected vessels must carry a letter
verifying the credential of the PIC, and
that they have had instruction on the
management of waste. Currently, the
ICR covers Waste Management Plans
and Refuse Discharge Logs for The
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
letters of instruction for certain PIC and
the DCR recordkeeping.
This proposed rule deals with section
D of the current ICR, which addresses
all dry bulk carrier vessels (foreign and
domestic) operating on the Great Lakes.
Under the interim rule, this population
is required to report DCR quantities and
the location of discharges into U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, in accordance
with 33 CFR 151.66(c). We used the
information collected from these reports
to analyze and determine how best to
regulate vessels in handling/managing
DCR. The proposed rule would require
U.S. and foreign vessels to develop and
maintain a management plan that
describes the specific measures the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44539
vessel employs to ensure the
minimization of bulk DCR discharges.
Need for Information: Since there is
no uniformity as to the types of
equipment used throughout the fleet,
the management plan would provide a
description of how the individual vessel
ensures the minimization of DCR
discharges.
Proposed Use of Information: The
information in the management plan
would provide the Coast Guard with the
means to monitor how individual
operators are effectively managing and
minimizing their DCR discharges. In
addition, the management plan would
be used by Coast Guard inspectors to
enforce the minimization requirement.
Description of the Respondents: We
estimate that all U.S. bulk dry cargo
vessels operating anywhere in the Great
Lakes, and foreign commercial bulk dry
cargo vessels operating on the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, would be
affected by the management plan
requirement.
Number of Respondents: The
management plan would have a total
number of 140 3 (55 U.S. vessels + 70
Canadian vessels + 15 non–Canadian
foreign vessels) respondents, which
account for the total number of bulk dry
cargo vessels operating on the waters of
the Great Lakes in any given year.
Frequency of the Response: All
vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the
Great Lakes are required to develop a
management plan. The frequency in the
development of the management plan
would be subject to vessels modifying
their vessels and/or equipment. We do
not anticipate vessels modifying or
adding major equipment during the 10year period of this analysis. We
therefore assume that the development
of the management plan would occur
once for U.S. and Canadian vessels.
However, a percentage (50%) of nonCanadian foreign vessels would be
required to develop a management plan
each year, since we estimate that this
percentage would be entering the Great
Lakes for the first time. Therefore, we
estimate that in the first year there
would be 140 (55 U.S. vessels + 70
Canadian vessels + 15 non-Canadian
foreign vessels) total management plans
developed by all bulk dry cargo vessels
operating in U.S. waters, and 8
(rounded) reoccurring responses by nonCanadian foreign vessels.
Burden of Response: We estimate that
there would be 55 management plans
developed for the entire U.S. dry cargo
vessel fleet operating on the Great
3 The number of foreign vessels affected has been
updated (from the interim rule) due to information
being provided by Form CG–33.
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44540
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Lakes, and that it would only affect the
burden of response in the first year that
the proposed rule is in effect. The total
estimated burden hours for the U.S. fleet
is 352.75 (350 hours company section +
2.75 hours copies), at a cost to the fleet
of $24,150 (non-discounted). The total
foreign vessel fleet would have a burden
of response in the first year of 128 hours
(1.5 hours for management plan × 85
vessels), at a cost of $17,340 (nondiscounted).
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The
proposed rule would not have an annual
cost burden after the first year of this
rule being implemented for U.S. and
Canadian vessels (see ‘‘BURDEN OF
RESPONSE,’’ above). After the first year,
non-Canadian foreign vessels would
incur an annual burden. We anticipate
non–Canadian vessels would incur an
annual burden of 11 hours for
management plan development at a cost
of $1,530 (non-discounted).
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, we have
submitted a copy of this proposed rule
to OMB for its review of the collection
of information.
We ask for public comment on the
proposed collection of information to
help us determine how useful the
information is; whether it can help us
perform our functions better; whether it
is readily available elsewhere; how
accurate our estimate of the burden of
collection is; how valid our methods for
determining the burden are; how we can
improve the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the information, and how we
can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the
collection of information, submit them
both to OMB and to the Docket
Management Facility where indicated
under ADDESSES, by the date under
DATES.
You need not respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number from
OMB. Before the Coast Guard could
enforce the collection of information
requirements in this proposed rule,
OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this
information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it does
not have implications for federalism. As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
we discussed at length in part V of this
preamble, we received comments from
several States in response to our interim
rule and are aware that some agencies
in some States bordering the Great Lakes
disagree with the Coast Guard’s
approach to the discharge of DCR in
those waters. We encourage all such
States, and any of their agencies with a
stake in the outcome of this rulemaking,
to continue sharing their input with us.
We believe neither the interim rule, nor
the rule proposed by this document,
necessarily preempts or conflicts with
State laws that may prohibit DCR
discharges or impose conditions on
those discharges that differ from those
imposed by the Coast Guard. We do not
take the position that such State laws
facially frustrate an overriding Federal
purpose. Until such time as a cognizant
court rules to the contrary, we caution
carriers that they must comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws
regulating DCR discharges. We
encourage States to make us aware of
laws they think are applicable. As we
are so informed, we will share that
information with the public by placing
it in the docket for this rulemaking.
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
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.
However, a group representing tribal
interests requested consultation, and the
Coast Guard agreed to brief that group
on the rulemaking. The briefing is
described in the docket (see docket item
USCG–2004–19621–0182).
K. 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.
L. 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
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 proposed rule
does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use
of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). A draft
‘‘Environmental Impact Statement’’
(EIS) is available in the docket where
indicated under the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ section of this preamble.
We encourage the public to submit
comments on the draft EIS.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151
Administrative practice and
procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 151 as follows:
PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL,
NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES,
GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR
COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST
WATER
1. The authority citation for part 151
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903,
1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101; Pub. L. 104–227 (110
Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108–293 (118 Stat. 1063),
§ 623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351;
DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, sec. 2(77).
2. Amend § 151.66 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 151.66 Operating requirements:
Discharge of garbage in the Great Lakes
and other navigable waters.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) On the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes, commercial vessels may
discharge bulk dry cargo residues in
accordance with and subject to the
conditions imposed by this paragraph
(2) As used in this paragraph—
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
means the site on or near Lake Superior
administered by the National Park
Service, less Madeline Island, and
including the Wisconsin shoreline of
Bayfield Peninsula from the point of
land at 46°57′19.7″ N, 090°52′51.0″ W
southwest along the shoreline to a point
of land at 46°52′56.4″ N, 091°3′3.1″ W.
Broom clean means a condition in
which the vessel’s deck shows that care
has been taken to prevent or eliminate
any visible concentration of bulk dry
cargo residues, so that any remaining
bulk dry cargo residues consist only of
dust, powder, or isolated and random
pieces, none of which exceeds 1 inch in
diameter.
Bulk dry cargo residues means nonhazardous and non-toxic residues,
regardless of particle size, of dry cargo
carried in bulk, including limestone and
other clean stone, iron ore, coal, salt,
and cement. It does not include residues
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
of any substance known to be toxic or
hazardous, such as nickel, copper, zinc,
lead, or materials classified as
hazardous in provisions of law or treaty.
Caribou Island and Southwest Bank
Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following
coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
47°30.0′ N, 085°50.0′ W
47°24.2′ N, 085°38.5′ W
47°04.0′ N, 085°49.0′ W
47°05.7′ N, 085°59.0′ W
47°18.1′ N, 086°05.0′ W
Commercial vessel means a
commercial vessel loading, unloading,
or discharging bulk dry cargo in the
U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, or a U.S.
commercial vessel transporting bulk dry
cargo and operating anywhere on the
Great Lakes; but the term does not
include a non-self-propelled barge
unless it is part of an integrated tug and
barge unit.
Comparable characteristics, cargoes,
and operations means similar vessel
design, size, age, crew complement,
cargoes, operational routes, deck and
hold configuration, and fixed cargo
transfer equipment configuration.
Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge means the U.S. waters of the
Detroit River bound by the area
extending from the Michigan shore at
the southern outlet of the Rouge River
to 41°54.0′ N 083°06.0′ W along the
U.S.-Canada boundary southward and
clockwise connecting points:
42°02.0′ N, 083°08.0′ W
41°54.0′ N, 083°06.0′ W
41°50.0′ N, 083°10.0′ W
41°44.52′ N, 083°22.0 ′ W
41°44.19′ N, 083°27.0′ W
Dry cargo residue (or DCR)
management plan means the plan
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this
section.
Grand Portage National Monument
means the site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park
Service, from the southwest corner of
the monument point of land at
47°57.521′ N, 089°41.245′ W to the
northeast corner of the monument point
of land, 47°57.888′ N, 089°40.725′ W.
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
means the site on or near Lake
Michigan, administered by the National
Park Service, from a point of land near
Gary, Indiana at 41°42′59.4″ N,
086°54′59.9″ W eastward along the
shoreline to 41°37′08.8″ N, 087°17′18.8″
W near Michigan City, Indiana.
Industry standard practices means
practices that ensure the proper
installation, maintenance, and operation
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44541
of shipboard cargo transfer and DCR
removal equipment, proper crew
training in DCR minimization
procedures and cargo transfer
operations, and proper supervision of
cargo transfer operations to minimize
DCR accumulation on or in a
commercial vessel.
Integrated tug and barge unit means
any tug-barge combination which,
through the use of special design
features or a specially designed
connection system, has increased seakeeping capabilities relative to a tug and
barge in the conventional pushing
mode.
Isle Royale National Park means the
site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park
Service, where the boundary includes
any submerged lands within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United
States within 41⁄2 miles of the shoreline
of Isle Royale and the surrounding
islands, including Passage Island and
Gull Island.
Mile means a statute mile.
Milwaukee Mid-Lake Special
Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following
coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
43°27.0′ N, 087°14.0′ W
43°21.2′ N, 087°02.3′ W
43°03.3′ N, 087°04.8′ W
42°57.5′ N, 087°21.0′ W
43°16.0′ N, 087°39.8′ W
Minimization means the reduction, to
the greatest extent practicable, of any
bulk dry cargo residue discharge from
the vessel.
Northern Refuge means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the
coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
45°45.0′ N, 086°00.0′ W
western shore of High Island, southern
shore of Beaver Island:
45°30.0′ N, 085°30.0′ W
45°30.0′ N, 085°15.0′ W
45°25.0′ N, 085°15.0′ W
45°25.0′ N, 085°20.0′ W
45°20.0′ N, 085°20.0′ W
45°20.0′ N, 085°40.0′ W
45°15.0′ N, 085°40.0′ W
45°15.0′ N, 085°50.0′ W
45°10.0′ N, 085°50.0′ W
45°10.0′ N, 086°00.0′ W
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
means the site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park
Service, from a point of land at
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
44542
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
46°26′21.3″ N, 086°36′43.2″ W eastward
along the Michigan shoreline to
46°40′22.2″ N, 085°59′58.1″ W.
Six Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake Special
Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following
coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
44°55.0′ N, 082°33.0′ W
44°47.0′ N, 082°18.0′ W
44°39.0′ N, 082°13.0′ W
44°27.0′ N, 082°13.0′ W
44°27.0′ N, 082°20.0′ W
44°17.0′ N, 082°25.0′ W
44°17.0′ N, 082°30.0′ W
44°28.0′ N, 082°40.0′ W
44°51.0′ N, 082°44.0′ W
44°53.0′ N, 082°44.0′ W
44°54.0′ N, 082°40.0′ W
Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore means the site on or near
Lake Michigan, administered by the
National Park Service, that includes
North Manitou Island, South Manitou
Island and the Michigan shoreline from
a point of land at 44°42′45.1″ N,
086°12′18.1″ W north and eastward
along the shoreline to 44°57′12.0″ N,
085°48′12.8″ W.
Stannard Rock Protection Area means
the area within a 6-mile radius from
Stannard Rock Light, at 47°10′57″ N,
087°13′34″ W.
Superior Shoal Protection Area means
the area within a 6-mile radius from the
center of Superior Shoal, at 48°03.2′ N,
087°06.3′ W.
Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary means the site on or near
Lake Huron designated by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration as the boundary that
forms an approximately rectangular area
by extending along the ordinary high
water mark between the northern and
southern boundaries of Alpena County,
cutting across the mouths of rivers and
streams, and lakeward from those points
along latitude lines to longitude 83
degrees west. The coordinates of the
boundary are:
45°12′25.5″ N, 083°23′18.6″ W
45°12′25.5″ N, 083°00′00″ W
44°51′30.5″ N, 083°00′00″ W
44°51′30.5″ N, 083°19′17.3″ W
Waukegan Special Protection Area
means the area enclosed by rhumb lines
connecting the following coordinates,
beginning on the northernmost point
and proceeding clockwise:
42°24.3′ N, 087°29.3′ W
42°13.0′ N, 087°25.1′ W
42°12.2′ N, 087°29.1′ W
42°18.1′ N, 087°33.1′ W
42°24.1′ N, 087°32.0′ W
Western Basin means that portion of
Lake Erie west of a line due south from
Point Pelee.
(3) Discharges of bulk dry cargo
residue under paragraph (b) of this
section are allowed, subject to the
conditions listed in Table 151.66(b)(3)
of this section.
TABLE 151.66(B)(3)—BULK DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES ALLOWED ON THE GREAT LAKES
Location
Cargo
Tributaries, their connecting
rivers, and the St. Lawrence River.
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
All other cargoes ................
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Iron ore ...............................
All other cargoes ................
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Prohibited.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
Lake Ontario ........................
Lake Erie ..............................
Discharge allowed except as noted
Iron ore ...............................
Coal, salt ............................
All other cargoes ................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Lake St. Clair .......................
Lake Huron, except Six
Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake
Special Protection Area.
Limestone and other clean
stone.
All other cargoes ................
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Iron ore ...............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Prohibited within 6 miles from shore.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin, except that a vessel operating exclusively within Western Basin may discharge limestone or clean stone cargo
residues over the dredged navigation channels between Toledo Harbor Light and
Detroit River Light.
Prohibited within 6 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin, except that a vessel may discharge
residue over the dredged navigation channels between Toledo Harbor Light and
Detroit River Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit and immediately thereafter
loads new cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin, except that a vessel may discharge
residue over the dredged navigation channels between Toledo Harbor Light and
Detroit River Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit and immediately thereafter
loads new cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
Prohibited.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore; prohibited in the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary.
Prohibited within 6 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the Thunder
Bay National Marine Sanctuary; prohibited for vessels upbound along the Michigan thumb as follows:
(i) Between 5.8 miles northeast of entrance buoys 11 and 12 to the track line turn
abeam of Harbor Beach, prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
(ii) For vessels bound for Saginaw Bay only, between the track line turn abeam of
Harbor Beach and 4 nautical miles northeast of Point Aux Barques Light, prohibited within 4 miles from shore and not less than 10 fathoms of depth.
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
44543
TABLE 151.66(B)(3)—BULK DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES ALLOWED ON THE GREAT LAKES—Continued
Location
Cargo
Discharge allowed except as noted
Coal, salt ............................
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; prohibited for vessels upbound from
Alpena into ports along the Michigan shore south of Forty Mile Point within 4
miles from shore and not less than 10 fathoms of depth.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore; prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special Protection Areas; prohibited within the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 3 miles of the shore of the Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores; prohibited within Green Bay.
Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; north of 45°N, prohibited within 12 miles from
shore and in Green Bay; south of 45°N, prohibited within 6 miles from shore, and
prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores; except that discharges are allowed at:
(a) 4.75 miles off Big Sable Point Betsie, along established Lake Carriers Association (LCA) track lines; and
(b) Along 056.25° LCA track line between due east of Poverty Island to a point due
south of Port Inland Light.
Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas,
in Green Bay, and within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National Lakeshores; except that discharges are allowed—
(i) Along 013.5° LCA track line between 45°N and Boulder Reef, and along 022.5°
LCA track running 23.25 miles between Boulder Reef and the charted position of
Red Buoy #2;
(ii) Along 037° LCA track line between 45°20′N and 45°42′N;
(iii) Along 056.25° LCA track line between points due east of Poverty Island to a
point due south of Port Inland Light; and
(iv) At 3 miles from shore for coal carried between Manistee and Ludington along
customary routes.
Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas,
in Green Bay, and within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National Lakeshores, and in Green Bay.
Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas,
in Green Bay, and within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National Lakeshores.
Prohibited within 3 miles from shore; and prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior
Shoal Protection Areas, and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands
and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument.
Prohibited within 6 miles from shore (within 3 miles off northwestern shore between
Duluth and Grand Marais); and prohibited within Isle Royale National Park and
the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas, and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore (within 3 miles off northwestern shore between Duluth and Grand Marais); and prohibited within Isle Royale National Park
and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas, and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore (within 3 miles offshore west of a line due
north from Bark Point); and prohibited within Isle Royale National Park and the
Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument.
Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; and prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior
Shoal Protection Areas, and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands
and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument.
All other cargoes ................
Lake Michigan ......................
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Iron ore ...............................
Coal ....................................
Salt .....................................
All other cargoes ................
Lake Superior .......................
Limestone and other clean
stone.
Iron ore ...............................
Coal, salt ............................
Cement ...............................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
All other cargoes ................
(4) The master, owner, operator, or
person in charge of any commercial
vessel must ensure that the vessel’s deck
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
is kept broom clean whenever the vessel
is in transit.
(5) The master, owner, operator, or
person in charge of any commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
vessel must ensure that a dry cargo
residue management plan is onboard the
vessel, kept available for Coast Guard
inspection, and that all operations are
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44544
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
conducted in accordance with the plan.
A waste management plan meeting the
requirements of 33 CFR 151.57 satisfies
this requirement, so long as it provides
all the information required by this
paragraph (b)(5). If the plan is
maintained electronically, at least one
paper copy of the plan must be onboard
for use during inspections. The plan
must describe the specific measures the
vessel employs to ensure the
minimization of bulk dry cargo residue
discharges, and, at a minimum, must list
or describe—
(i) Equipment onboard the vessel that
is designed to minimize bulk dry cargo
spillage during loading and unloading;
(ii) Equipment onboard the vessel that
is available to recover spilled cargo from
the decks and transfer tunnels and
return it to the holds or to unloading
conveyances;
(iii) Operational procedures employed
by the vessel’s crew during the loading
or unloading of bulk dry cargoes to
minimize cargo spillage onto the decks
and into the transfer tunnels and to
achieve and maintain the broom clean
deck condition required by paragraph
(b)(4) of this section;
(iv) Operational procedures employed
by the vessel’s crew during or after
loading or unloading operations to
return spilled bulk dry cargo residue to
the vessel’s holds or to shore via an
unloading conveyance;
(v) How the vessel’s owner or operator
ensures that the vessel’s crew is familiar
with any operational procedures
described by the plan;
(vi) The position title of the person
onboard who is in charge of ensuring
compliance with procedures described
in the plan;
(vii) Any arrangements between the
vessel and specific ports or terminals for
the unloading and disposal of the
vessel’s bulk dry cargo residues ashore;
and
(viii) The procedures used and the
vessel’s operating conditions to be
maintained during any unavoidable
discharge of bulk dry cargo residue into
the Great Lakes.
(6) In determining whether a
commercial vessel or person is in
compliance with this paragraph (b),
Coast Guard personnel may consider—
(i) The extent to which the procedures
described in the vessel’s DCR
management plan reflect current
industry standard practices for vessels
of comparable characteristics, cargoes,
and operations;
(ii) The crew’s demonstrated ability to
perform tasks for which the DCR
management plan holds them
responsible;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Jul 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
(iii) Whether equipment described in
the DCR management plan is
maintained in proper operating
condition; and
(iv) The extent to which the crew
adheres to the vessel’s DCR management
plan during actual dry cargo loading
and unloading operations and DCR
discharge operations.
*
*
*
*
*
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
On July 25, 2012, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
‘‘Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center
Span Float-in, Elizabeth River; Norfolk,
Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, Virginia’’
in the Federal Register (77 FR 43557).
The rulemaking concerned establishing
a safety zone on the navigable waters of
the Elizabeth River in Norfolk,
Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, VA, in
order to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the Gilmerton
Bridge Center Span Float-in and bridge
construction of span placement.
Coast Guard
Withdrawal
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012–18399 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
The proposed rule is being withdrawn
due to unforeseen circumstances in the
construction timeline of the Center
Span, which has caused a 5 week delay
in the project.
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0427]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center
Span Float-In, Elizabeth River; Norfolk,
Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
withdrawing its proposed rule
concerning the Gilmerton Bridge Center
Span Float-in and bridge construction of
span placement. The original proposal
had a start date of July 31, 2012, and
must be rescheduled to start on
September 5, 2012, due to unforeseen
circumstances with span lift
construction.
SUMMARY:
The proposed rule is withdrawn
on July 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
withdrawn rulemaking is 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–2012–0427 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this notice,
call or email Hector Cintron, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector
Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone
757–668–5581, email
Hector.L.Cintron@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing material in the
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: We issue this notice of
withdrawal under the authority of 5 U.S.C.
552(a), 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)(3), and 33 CFR
1.05–1.
Dated: July 17, 2012.
John K. Little,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2012–18559 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0446; FRL–9703–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Determination of Clean Data for the
1987 PM10 Standard for the Ogden
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
determine that the Ogden City
nonattainment area in Utah is currently
attaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to a
nominal ten micrometers (PM10) based
on certified, quality-assured ambient air
monitoring data for the years 2009
through 2011. The State of Utah
submitted a letter dated March 30, 2000,
requesting EPA to make a clean data
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JYP1.SGM
30JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44528-44544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[Docket No. USCG-2004-19621]
RIN 1625-AA89
Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes replacing its existing interim rule
with a new rule to regulate the operation of U.S. and foreign vessels
carrying bulk dry cargo such as limestone, iron ore, and coal on the
U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and the operation of U.S. bulk dry
cargo vessels anywhere on the Great Lakes. Specifically, the Coast
Guard proposes new requirements for the discharge of bulk dry cargo
residue (DCR) on the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard
also announces the availability of the tiered Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared in support of this proposal. The
proposed rule would continue to allow non-hazardous and non-toxic
discharges of bulk DCR in limited areas of the Great Lakes. However,
vessel owners and operators would need to minimize DCR discharges using
methods they would be required to document in DCR management plans. The
proposed rule would prohibit limestone and clean stone DCR discharges
in some waters where they are now permitted. The proposed rule promotes
the Coast Guard's strategic goals of maritime mobility and safety and
protection of natural resources.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before October 29,
2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of
information must reach OMB on or before October 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2004-19621 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 four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
Collection of Information Comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section VII.D. of this document,
you must also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that your
comments to OIRA are received on time, the preferred methods are by
email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov (include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternate, though slower, method
is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email John C. Morris, Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards (CG-OES-3), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1433, email John.C.Morris@uscg.mil. 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. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments on Interim Rule
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
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. 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-2004-19621), 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
[[Page 44529]]
address, an email 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2004-19621'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' 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, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments 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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2004-19621'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' 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 plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
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
AB Able Bodied Seaman
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DCR Dry Cargo Residue
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR Federal Register
ICR Information Collection Request
IR Interim Rule
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget
ROD Record of Decision
PIC Person in charge
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec. Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
VGP Vessel General Permit
III. Basis and Purpose
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes a
rule to replace the interim rule (73 FR 56492, Sep. 29, 2008) now in
effect. It also announces the availability of the tiered Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which we previously announced we
would prepare in support of this proposed rule (scoping notice, 73 FR
79496; Dec. 29, 2008). The legal basis for this rulemaking is section
623(b) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004
(``the Act,'' Pub. L. 108-293). Section 623(b) of the Act gives the
Coast Guard the authority, ``notwithstanding any other law * * * to
promulgate regulations governing the discharge of dry bulk cargo
residue on the Great Lakes.''
The purpose of this rulemaking, as a whole, is to exercise the
authority conferred on the Coast Guard by the Act in a way that
appropriately balances the needs of maritime commerce and environmental
protection, by determining how, if at all, the discharge of dry cargo
residue (DCR) can continue in the Great Lakes within a regulatory
framework that imposes environmentally appropriate conditions on DCR
discharges. The purpose of this SNPRM phase of the rulemaking is to
propose a rule that would allow some DCR discharges to continue, under
a regulatory framework that imposes additional conditions on the
vessels from which those discharges take place.
IV. Background
Prior to opening this rulemaking, we published a notice of inquiry
requesting information about the then-current status of dry cargo
operations in the Great Lakes (69 FR 77147, Dec. 27, 2004; correction,
70 FR 1400, Jan. 5, 2005). The regulatory history for this rulemaking
began with an announcement of our intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the rulemaking and a request for
public comments on the scope of the EIS (``scoping notice,'' 71 FR
12209, March 9, 2006). On June 8, 2006, we published a notice for a
public meeting on the scope of the EIS, and again requested public
comments (71 FR 33312). The scoping meeting was held in Cleveland, OH,
on July 6, 2006. Our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and notice of
the availability of the accompanying draft environmental impact
statement appeared on May 23, 2008 (73 FR 30014). Public meetings on
the NPRM and DEIS were announced on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273) and held
in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on July 15 and 17, 2008,
respectively. Availability of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) was announced on August 22, 2008, by the Environmental
Protection Agency (73 FR 49667) and by the Coast Guard (73 FR 49694),
and the Record of Decision (ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS was
signed September 23, 2008. An interim rule was published September 29,
2008 (73 FR 56492). On December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79496), we published a
second scoping notice announcing our intent to prepare a new ``tiered''
(updated) EIS in support of a final rule, requested public comments,
and announced a public scoping meeting, which was held in Chicago, IL,
on January 28, 2009.
There are several factors that must be taken into account when
addressing DCR discharges in the waters of the U.S. side of the Great
Lakes. The Lakes support a significant volume of bulk dry cargo
shipping that remains within the Great Lakes system. The Lakes are, in
places, very deep and wide and either adjoin Canadian waters or are
land-locked. Therefore, vessels that remain within the Great Lake
system--unlike their East, West, or Gulf Coast counterparts--are
continually subject to the navigable waters laws of both the United
States and Canada.
The legislative conference report prepared in support of section
623(b) of the Act expressed Congress's expectation that in regulating
Great Lakes DCR discharges, given these special characteristics, the
U.S. Coast
[[Page 44530]]
Guard would adopt an approach ``that appropriately balances the needs
of maritime commerce and environmental protection.'' House Report 108-
617.
Our interim rule amended 33 CFR 151.66, a Coast Guard regulation
that implements the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) 33
U.S.C. 1901 et seq. That regulation generally prohibits the discharge
of DCR--an ``operational waste'' and, hence, ``garbage'' as both terms
are defined in 33 CFR 151.05--in all U.S. navigable waters. The interim
rule amended that prohibition with respect to the U.S. waters of the
Great Lakes. It allows non-hazardous and non-toxic DCR discharges in
limited areas of the Great Lakes, provided that carriers observe
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and it encourages carriers to
adopt voluntary control measures for minimizing discharges. The interim
rule applies to the owners and operators of U.S., Canadian, and other
foreign vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes, and also to the owners and operators of U.S. vessels carrying
bulk dry cargo when they are on the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes.
Non-self-propelled barges are excluded unless they are part of an
integrated tug-and-barge unit.
Our Record of Decision in support of the interim rule concluded
that the interim rule's only adverse environmental impacts would be
minor and indirect, and that an outright ban of DCR discharges could
cause an adverse economic impact for carriers and related industries in
the Great Lakes region. Therefore, we found that allowing DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes, under the conditions imposed by the
interim rule, struck ``the best balance between economic and
environmental concerns that can be achieved, given currently available
information.'' ROD, p. 4. The conditions the interim rule imposed on
DCR discharges were intended to limit even minor and indirect impacts
of DCR discharges, and to give us the regulatory tools we needed to
monitor discharges in the future.
We stated in the interim rule that, before taking action in this
rulemaking, we would ``determine if, in the long term, the optimal
balancing of commercial and environmental interests requires the
mandatory use of DCR control measures, the adjustment of the
geographical boundaries within which those discharges are currently
allowed, or other regulatory changes.'' (73 FR at 56495.) We have now
made a tentative determination of that issue and, in this SNPRM, we
propose a rule based on that tentative determination. We request your
comments on that determination and on the proposed rule.
V. Discussion of Comments on Interim Rule
In response to our September 2008 interim rule and December 2008
scoping notice, we received comments from 19 sources, including 5 State
agencies (representing 4 States, with 1 State providing comments from 2
separate agencies, and 1 agency submitting multiple comments), 4
industry groups, 2 non-industry groups, 1 Indian Tribal group, and 7
individuals.
Three commenters expressed support for the interim rule or said DCR
discharges should be permitted because of their low environmental
impact and the high cost of eliminating discharges. Eight commenters
expressed opposition to the interim rule or favored prohibiting all DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes; one of the eight said our rule should
move toward eliminating those discharges. These comments were
unsupported by argument or evidence and therefore we can only
acknowledge them.
Three State agency commenters said the interim rule is inconsistent
with their State laws and with their coastal zone management plans. The
interim rule states that it does not expressly preempt State laws and
that it expressly cautions carriers that they must comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws regulating DCR discharges. It also
states that the Coast Guard will work with States and carriers to make
sure carriers are informed of any State laws that could impose more
restrictions on DCR discharges than the Coast Guard allows. 73 FR at
56497 col. 2.
Two State agency commenters said that DCR discharges are harmful
because they provide favorable substrate conditions for invasive or
exotic species. We acknowledge this as a legitimate concern, but point
out that our tiered DEIS continues to support our 2008 ROD's finding
that, with the mitigating measures the interim rule provides, any such
adverse environmental impact is only minor and indirect. Furthermore,
except for the Western Basin of Lake Erie, our proposed rule prohibits
the discharge of any type of DCR within 3 miles of any shoreline in the
Great Lakes. (The existing exception for the Western Basin recognizes
that some vessels carrying limestone or clean stone never leave that
area, so a complete prohibition on DCR discharges on those vessels
could pose an extreme hardship on them.) This change to the interim
rule would eliminate the introduction of any additional DCR substrate
to shallower near-shore waters, the preferred habitat of several
invasive species found in freshwater.
Two State agency commenters disagreed with our characterization of
DCR as non-toxic and non-hazardous. Our tiered DEIS continues to
support the interim rule's characterization of any DCR discharge it
allows as non-toxic and non-hazardous.
Two State agency commenters pointed out that Lake Superior is the
subject of a ``Demonstration Lake'' agreement between several States
and the Province of Ontario, Canada, pursuant to which the parties
commit themselves to the elimination of pollutants in Lake Superior.
The International Joint Commission's 1990 designation of Lake Superior
as a ``demonstration area'' led to a Binational Program to Restore and
Protect the Lake Superior Basin, under which a zero-discharge standard
applies, but only to particularly toxic heavy metals and organochlorine
compounds. The Binational Program does not apply a zero discharge
standard to other materials, such as DCR, so long as discharges of
those other materials do not threaten identified key near-shore and
wetland habitats. Our environmental analysis identified such habitats,
based on all the data supplied to us by commenters or otherwise
available to us. Both the interim rule and the proposed rule prohibit
discharges in those habitats and other special protection areas.
Two State agency commenters said the interim rule is at odds with
the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels. EPA requires VGP permittees to engage in
specific behaviors or best management practices in order to minimize
those discharges; the approach this SNPRM proposes for our rule.
However, there is no conflict between the VGP and the interim rule,
because the VGP specifically excludes from its coverage ``discharges of
bulk dry cargo residues as defined at 33 CFR 151.66(b),'' citing the
interim rule-amended version of 33 CFR 151.66. See VGP (Feb. 5, 2009),
sec. 1.2.3.4; docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0717 (available at
https://www.regulations.gov). One State agency commenter asked us to
require specific technological and procedural measures for controlling
DCR, pointing out for example that decks can be swept while cargo
loading is in progress, and that shoreside facilities can stop their
conveyor belts while a vessel repositions itself during loading
operations. Another commenter offered information about specific
control measures, recommended requiring the
[[Page 44531]]
use of best management practices to minimize DCR discharges, and
recommended that we regulate shoreside facilities because vessels have
no control over those facilities. Our proposed rule's ``broom clean''
requirement does not specify how to comply with that requirement, but
one way would be to sweep the deck while loading takes place. We assume
that the other control measures cited by these commenters would be
among the voluntary options vessel owners and operators would consider
in preparing the DCR management plans that we propose to require. With
respect to shoreside facilities, we understand that vessels do not
control those facilities, but they can voluntarily arrange with a
facility to identify measures that the facility is willing to take to
help the vessel comply with 33 CFR 151.66's requirements. As we
subsequently discuss, we think that our regulatory focus needs to be on
vessels rather than on shoreside facilities.
One State agency commenter said that we should voluntarily extend
the interim rule's comment period and the period for consulting with
States within the framework of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
The Coast Guard routinely grants State requests for additional time to
evaluate Coast Guard CZMA consistency determinations, and both States
and the general public will have that additional time to consider the
Coast Guard's proposal for regulating DCR during the public comment
period for this SNPRM, and therefore we do not see the need for
additional extensions of time as requested by this commenter at this
time.
One commenter, representing many States with coastal zone
management plans, said that we should rely on States to provide us with
information about developing port-based DCR control measures. As we
subsequently discuss, we think that our regulatory focus needs to be on
vessels, rather than on shoreside facilities. However, in proposing
that vessels develop DCR management plans, we assume that a vessel's
owner or operator will want to consult with shoreside facilities to
assess what each facility can do to help the vessel comply with
discharge minimization requirements.
Two commenters asked us to remove the quarterly reporting
requirement as unnecessary, while two commenters recommended
modifications to the Coast Guard recordkeeping form. We lack sufficient
information to remove the reporting requirement at this time, and we
specifically seek further public comment on the costs and benefits of
indefinitely requiring the reporting to continue. Because the
recommended modifications came from only two of the commenters and
would require the costly revision of a commonly used standard form that
provides the information we need, we also decline to modify the form at
this time.
Another commenter, representing several associations, said that our
reliance on the Act to regulate DCR discharges in the Great Lakes
``notwithstanding any other law'' was misplaced in the absence of a
stronger showing of congressional intent to override international
treaties like the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), or a stronger showing of the
irreconcilability of MARPOL 73/78 and Great Lakes DCR regulations.
MARPOL 73/78 is not irreconcilable with our interim rule or our
proposed rule. Our interim rule already shares MARPOL Annex V's
requirements for recordkeeping and for avoiding near-shore discharges,
and our proposed rule would add an Annex V-like requirement for
maintaining and following a DCR management plan. However, MARPOL 73/78
is inapplicable to the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. APPS and the Act
provide the statutory authority for 33 CFR 151.66. In the preamble to
our interim rule, 73 FR at 56493, we extensively discussed the reasons
why the zero-discharge approach to operational waste discharges
(including DCR discharges) generally taken by APPS and Coast Guard
regulations is not necessary for protecting the environment and could
be disruptive for Great Lakes commerce. We also stated our
interpretation that House Report 108-617, which accompanied passage of
the Act, clearly expresses Congress's expectation that the Coast Guard
will exercise its authority ``notwithstanding any other law'' to
``appropriately balance[e] the needs of maritime commerce and
environmental protection.'' We believe the approach we took in the
interim rule, and that we now propose strengthening in this rule, meets
that expectation by adapting the pollution-preventing spirit of APPS to
the special characteristics of the Great Lakes cited in our interim
rule preamble's discussion.
The commenter representing several associations also called on the
Coast Guard to review DCR control measures every three years. While we
acknowledge that industry practices and technology may evolve over
time, the Coast Guard declines to set a requirement for a three-year
review. However, the Coast Guard will monitor that evolution and
expects industry participants to do the same. In evaluating a vessel's
compliance with the proposed DCR management plan requirement, the
proposed rule would allow Coast Guard inspectors to take into account
the extent to which the procedures described in the DCR management plan
reflect current industry standard practices for vessels with comparable
characteristics, cargoes, and operations. Furthermore, the Coast Guard
is subject to statutes, executive orders, and agency policies that
require the periodic reevaluation of existing regulations, including 33
CFR 151.66, to make sure that regulations continue to be appropriate
despite changes in conditions.
Finally, the commenter representing several associations said that
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the final rule should
reevaluate DCR controls that affect special protected areas, and that
we should add studies of discharge prohibitions under section 312 of
the Clean Water Act, mandate complete discharge bans for new commercial
operations and phased-in eliminations for existing operations, require
mandatory discharge controls, and undertake additional studies of DCR
toxicity. The interim rule already prohibits DCR discharges in special
protected areas, and we have reevaluated that prohibition in the
environmental analysis for this SNPRM. www.regulations.gov. Section 312
of the Clean Water Act seeks to address the dumping of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage from vessels into U.S. navigable waters;
DCR is not considered sewage waste and therefore this aspect of the
comment is beyond the scope of our rulemaking. Our ongoing
environmental analysis affirms our earlier assessment that ``any toxic
components of DCR deposits in the Great Lakes do not exist in
concentrations known to be toxic to organisms.'' 73 FR at 56494 col. 2;
www.regulations.gov. We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion
that mandatory discharge controls be imposed on all operations, but we
do propose requiring each vessel to have a DCR management plan
describing specifically how it will minimize discharges. This approach
would require a vessel's owner or operator to determine and to
implement those measures that best achieve discharge minimization,
given the vessel's characteristics, cargoes, and operations. We also
disagree with the commenter's suggestion that DCR discharge
prohibitions be imposed on new operations and phased in for existing
operations. We believe our proposal for discharge minimization, in
accordance
[[Page 44532]]
with a vessel's DCR management plan, best achieves the balance of
commercial and environmental considerations that Congress had in mind
when it passed the Act.
One commenter said that the EIS for the final rule should study
specific best management practices and technology. We agree, and our
tiered DEIS reflects our evaluation of specific best management
practices and technology.
One commenter, a Canadian association, said that we should
harmonize our regulatory treatment of DCR with Canada's. We believe
that our interim rule and our proposed rule are in harmony with
Canadian DCR regulations for the Great Lakes, which may be found in
Division 5, Subdivisions 1-4 of the Statutory Orders and Regulations of
Canada (SOR)/2007-86, ``Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals.'' In promulgating these 2007
regulations, Transport Canada stated that its intent was to make
Canadian regulations compatible with the then-current U.S. DCR
enforcement policy. Like that policy, and like the interim rule and our
proposed rule, the Canadian regulations prohibit the discharge of DCR
in near-shore or special protected areas and require DCR discharge
recordkeeping. In addition, Canadian regulations require that vessels
carry and operate in accordance with a garbage management plan that
covers its DCR procedures, and we are proposing a similar requirement
with this rule.
The Canadian association also suggested some voluntary industry
programs that could provide information about DCR control measures. We
agree that owners and operators might find that such programs offer
good advice on minimizing DCR discharges.
One commenter, representing Indian tribal interests, asked for
consultation with the Coast Guard and asked that the EIS for the final
rule add fish spawning grounds as a separate area of focus. Although we
determined in the interim rule that Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, is not applicable to
this rulemaking 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, 73
FR at 56496 col. 3, we have nevertheless engaged in consultation with
this commenter. Documentation of that consultation appears in the
docket as item USCG-2004-19621-0182. Fish spawning grounds have already
been incorporated in our environmental analysis and DCR discharges in
these areas are prohibited.
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The context in which we developed this proposal. We stated in the
interim rule that, before taking action in this rulemaking, we would
``determine if, in the long term, the optimal balancing of commercial
and environmental interests requires the mandatory use of DCR control
measures, the adjustment of the geographical boundaries within which
those discharges are currently allowed, or other regulatory changes.''
73 FR at 56495.
To help us achieve that long term balance, we analyzed the DCR
discharge records reported to us in accordance with the interim rule.
This helped us describe and quantify DCR discharges, and to determine
what control measures were common and effective in controlling DCR
discharges. This information is available in the appendices to the
tiered DEIS. We also observed Great Lakes dry cargo operations
firsthand. During the 2009 and 2010 shipping seasons, we visited
vessels and facilities in the region, and observed cargo loading and
unloading, and DCR discharge operations. This enabled us to gather DCR
data using a known consistent set of metrics and a process that was
completely independent of any used by vessel owners or operators to
complete and submit their DCR discharge reports.
From this analysis and observation, we drew the following
conclusions:
There is significant variation in the amount of DCR that vessels
discharge; a finding that is supported by results reported by the
regulated industry. However, most vessels appear to be minimizing the
volume of DCR they discharge. They treat their cargo as a commodity to
be conserved and not wasted. They deal with shoreside facilities that
take the same practical view. These vessels and facilities use best
practices to prevent cargo spillage in the first place, and to clean it
up when it occurs. Most best practices are simple, intuitive, and cost
little: For example, lining conveyor belts with fabric skirts,
communicating with the shoreside facility to shut down loading chutes
while moving from one hold to the next, and using brooms and shovels to
clean up DCR and return it to the hold before the hold is sealed.
Deck spillage is a relatively minor source of DCR, and easily
addressed through simple measures. By far the greater source of DCR is
from cargo hold spillage into vessel tunnels. Tunnel spillage
predominantly occurs during cargo unloading.
Within tunnels, large pieces of DCR that remain after unloading
should be easy to recover while the vessel is underway, and to place on
the conveyor belt with the rest of the cargo during the vessel's next
unloading. Dust and small particles, however, inevitably make their way
into the vessel's sump water. The sump must be pumped periodically, to
preserve the vessel's trim and stability. Sump pumping can take several
hours. If performed shoreside, this operation may delay the vessel,
increasing its operating costs. It would be economically more rational
to perform sump pumping only while the vessel is underway, though this
would likely result in sump discharges being the main contributor to
DCR discharges in the Great Lakes.
In this SNPRM, we propose a rule that would make three general
changes to the current interim rule. (We also propose the non-
substantive addition or amendment of two definitions, ``commercial
vessel'' and ``mile,'' for stylistic purposes.) Our tiered DEIS
supports all of these changes. The proposed rule would, like the
interim rule, continue to apply to the owners and operators of U.S.,
Canadian, and other foreign vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, and also to the owners and operators of U.S.
vessels carrying bulk dry cargo when they are on the Canadian waters of
the Great Lakes. It would continue the interim rule's exclusion of non-
self-propelled barges, unless they are part of an integrated tug and
barge unit. The three proposed changes are as follows:
First, we would require the volume of DCR discharges to be
minimized. Except for a new, objectively verifiable, ``broom clean''
standard applying to decks, discharge minimization would be achieved
through methods of the vessel owner or operator's choice. ``Broom
clean'' would be defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as a condition in which
deck residues ``consist only of dust, powder, or isolated and random
pieces none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter.'' ``Minimization''
would also be defined, as the ``reduction, to the greatest extent
practicable, of any bulk dry cargo residue discharge from the vessel.''
Reinforcing the concept of minimization, we would also redefine bulk
DCR to emphasize that DCR can exist ``regardless of particle size.''
Second, we would require discharge minimization methods to be
documented in a vessel-specific DCR management plan, which we would
[[Page 44533]]
define as a written plan, subject to Coast Guard inspection, meeting at
least the minimum criteria we would describe in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(5)
Third, limestone and clean stone DCR discharges would no longer be
permitted within 3 miles of shore, except within a limited area of the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Minimization and the DCR management plan. The proposed rule would
require U.S. and foreign carriers conducting bulk dry cargo operations
on the Great Lakes to minimize the amount of cargo residue discharged
into the Great Lakes. Except for the new broom clean standard, our
focus would be on discharge minimization, not on minimizing DCR. Nor
would we require vessels to eliminate DCR discharges, because we
continue to believe, as we did when we issued the interim rule, that a
``zero discharge'' requirement would be more costly than necessary to
protect the environment against adverse impacts, and because the
adverse impacts that can be associated with DCR discharges are only
minor and indirect. Nevertheless, the elimination of DCR discharges
remains the ideal, and we expect vessels to come as close to that ideal
as practicable, given current industry standard practices for vessels
of ``comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations''--a term we
would define in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as meaning ``similar vessel design,
size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes, deck and hold
configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment configuration.''
Discharge minimization would include keeping the vessel's deck in
broom clean condition. All vessels should be able to achieve the broom
clean standard on deck, by sweeping spilled cargo back into holds
before they are sealed, if not by some other method. However, as noted,
deck DCR only accounts for a relatively small proportion of overall DCR
discharges. For the more significant tunnel sump discharges, it is not
possible for us to define a similar standard that could be applied to
all vessels. We believe that the degree of minimization that will be
practicable for those discharges will depend on the variables of a
vessel's characteristics, cargoes, and operations, and on the
technology or procedures used to compensate for those variables.
Rather than mandating the use of specific procedures or
technologies that may be ineffective or impracticable for some vessels,
each vessel's owner or operator would select the method or methods best
suited for minimizing that vessel's DCR discharges. We believe that the
great majority of vessels affected by the proposed rule are already
effectively minimizing those discharges. However, by making
minimization a regulatory requirement, we would level the playing field
to ensure that all affected vessels engage in responsible discharge
minimization practices.
The proposed requirement for each vessel to carry its own vessel-
specific DCR management plan on board, and to have that plan available
for inspection, is central to the enforceability of a discharge
minimization requirement.
Coast Guard inspectors would enforce discharge minimization by
making sure that the vessel has a DCR management plan onboard, that the
plan is complete and addresses all required items, and that the master
or person in charge (PIC) ensures that the vessel and its crew operate
according to the plan. The Coast Guard could infer the vessel's failure
to minimize discharges from evidence such as:
A missing plan;
A plan that fails to address obvious DCR situations on the
vessel that raise the probability of an eventual DCR discharge, such as
obvious DCR buildup in the vessel's tunnels;
Discharge minimization equipment that is called for in the
plan but not maintained or operating properly; or
A crewmember's inability to perform a discharge-
minimization task for which the plan makes the crewmember responsible.
To ensure that the vessel's owner and operator exercise due
diligence in writing the management plan, we would require the plan to
describe:
The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to minimize
cargo spillage during loading and unloading;
The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to recover
spilled cargo and place it in holds or on unloading conveyances;
How the owner or operator ensures crew familiarity with
management plan procedures;
Who has onboard responsibility for the vessel's discharge
minimization procedures;
What arrangements, if any, the vessel has with specific
ports or cargo terminals for unloading and disposing of the vessel's
DCR ashore; and
How unavoidable DCR discharges will be conducted.
Our regulatory focus has been, and will remain, the vessels that
carry bulk dry cargo--even though shoreside cargo loading and unloading
facilities undoubtedly play a role in creating, or limiting the
creation of, the shipboard DCR that is eventually discharged into the
Great Lakes. Focusing on vessels makes sense because the Coast Guard's
inspection infrastructure is more geared toward vessels than to
shoreside facilities. We would expect each vessel's DCR management plan
to describe how the vessel works with shoreside facilities to
facilitate the vessel's compliance with the requirements of 33 CFR
151.66.
Another important aspect of the proposed management plan
requirement is that the plan would need to be revised whenever there
was a substantive change to the procedures or the equipment used to
manage dry cargo residues on the vessel covered by the plan. Although
regular or periodic revisions of the management plan are not required
under this proposed rule, vessel owners would be required to maintain
the plan in a manner that assures it accurately reflects the current
procedures, practices, and technology employed in managing dry cargo
residues on the vessel.
We expect that industry standard practices for the management of
dry cargo residue will evolve as existing dry cargo conveyance
technologies are supplanted by those that are more efficient,
effective, and reliable. ``Industry standard practices'' would be
specifically defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) and would include practices
for installation, maintenance, operation, training, and supervision
relating to bulk dry cargo transfer and DCR control measures. A primary
premise of this proposed rule is that a vessel owner or operator will
employ dry cargo residue management practices that are on par with the
current industry standard for vessels of comparable characteristics,
cargoes, and operations. ``Comparable characteristics, cargoes, and
operations'' would be defined in 33 CFR 151.66 (b)(2) as meaning
``similar vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes,
operational routes, deck and hold configurations, and fixed cargo
transfer equipment configurations''. A vessel's compliance with this
requirement of the proposed rule would be determined in part by how
well the vessel's DCR management practices, as outlined in its
management plan, compare with the current industry standard practices
employed by the majority of vessels with comparable characteristics,
cargoes, and operations. If, for example, a vessel's plan continues to
rely on technology or procedures that have been supplanted by more
recent, affordable, and easily implemented industry standard practices,
a Coast Guard inspector could consider this as evidence of failure to
maintain the plan or failure to minimize DCR discharges.
Limestone and clean stone. While we propose to retain the interim
rule's
[[Page 44534]]
approach toward the discharge of DCR in general, we propose a change
with respect to limestone and clean stone DCR discharges. For most
substances, DCR discharges have been and would remain subject to
several geographic limitations, including a flat prohibition on
discharges within a certain distance from shore and in special
protected areas. For limestone and clean stone, however, the interim
rule continued the prior policy, which allowed DCR from limestone and
clean stone to be discharged close to shore, except where the nearest
shore is in a special protected area or where the discharge would have
an ``apparent impact'' on wetlands, fish spawning areas, or potable
water intakes. We think this standard is too subjective and that it
could be difficult for vessel crews to determine whether or not a stone
DCR discharge would have an apparent impact on the local environment.
Therefore, we propose making limestone and clean stone DCR discharges
subject to the same 3 mile restriction we impose on other DCR
discharges. Our 2009 and 2010 field research and the EIS indicated that
limestone and clean stone vessels already avoid DCR discharges within 3
miles of shore because of near-shore operational hazards. Thus, those
vessels should not incur any additional cost from the proposed
extension of the exclusion zone. (We would preserve the existing
exception for a limited portion of Lake Erie's Western Basin because
some vessels carrying limestone or clean stone never leave that area,
and if such a vessel wanted to discharge DCR it could be unusually and
adversely affected by a complete prohibition on DCR discharges in the
area.) Our proposed change would ensure that near-shore wetlands, fish
spawning areas, and potable water intakes within the entire Great Lakes
ecosystem are protected from DCR discharges, while simultaneously
simplifying understanding and compliance with the rule for the
regulated industry. It should also mitigate an environmental impact
identified in the Final EIS for the interim rule; that is, possible
changes in the physical structure of the lake bottom sediment, which
may cause a less than 10% increase in zebra and quagga mussel
attachment rates.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This SNPRM has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. A draft Regulatory Assessment follows:
The Coast Guard proposes a rule that would require vessels to
minimize their DCR discharges, to document their DCR minimization
methods, and to observe new restrictions on limestone and clean stone
DCR discharges.
Table 1 compares components of the interim rule (baseline used for
this rulemaking) and this SNPRM. It summarizes any changes in the
component that we propose in the SNPRM.
Table 1--No-Action (IR) and Preferred Alternative Comparison Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNPRM Provision Change from IR to
Provision description IR Provision IR Provision synopsis SNPRM Provision synopsis SNPRM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping...................... 33 CFR Vessels must record NA................... ..................... Recordkeeping
151.66(c)(1)(iv). all DCR loading, requirement would
unloading and remain in place. The
sweeping on form CG- industry would not
33. incur any change in
cost.
Reporting/Certification............ 33 CFR The data collected are NA................... ..................... Vessels will continue
151.66(c)(1)(iv). used to determine to certify and
vessel practices in submit reports on a
handling DCR, and the quarterly basis. The
amount of DCR that is industry will not
being managed by the incur any change in
vessels. cost.
Limestone & clean stone............ 33 CFR 151.66(b)...... Limestone and clean 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2).. Limestone and clean There would be a no-
stone are exempt from stone DCR cost change; our
the 3-mile near-shore discharges, under research indicates
sweeping boundary. the proposed rule, that vessels already
Under the IR, these would not be allowed avoid DCR discharges
commodities can be within 3 miles of within 3 miles of
discharged anywhere shore. shore because of
along the shoreline, near-shore
provided there is no operational hazards.
apparent impact on
environmentally
sensitive areas.
Voluntary minimization............. 33 CFR 151.66(b)...... Vessels are encouraged NA................... The portion of 33 CFR There is no cost
to minimize the 151.66(b) in the IR associated with the
amount of DCR going dealing with removal of this IR
into the water and voluntary requirement. (See
the use of control minimization would the management plan
measures to reduce be removed in the below for details on
the amount of DCR SNPRM. mandatory
falling on the decks minimization.)
and tunnels of
vessels.
[[Page 44535]]
Broom clean standard............... NA.................... ...................... 33 CFR 151.66(b)(3).. This requirement Vessels would realize
stipulates that a new cost for this
vessels must show requirement. We
that decks have been anticipate that
swept to a standard vessels would see an
that is in keeping annual cost increase
with the mandatory ranging from $14,203
minimization to $53,263 (non-
requirement of this discounted). Foreign
proposed rule. vessels would incur
an average annual
cost of $28,847 (non-
discounted). The
benefit of this
requirement is a
reduction in the
amount of discharge
going into the
waters of the Great
Lakes.
Management plan.................... NA.................... ...................... 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4).. The plan must The new requirement
describe the would have an
specific measures initial year cost of
the vessel employs $24,777 (non-
to ensure the discounted) to
minimization of bulk prepare a management
dry cargo residue plan. After the
discharge. initial year,
existing U.S.
vessels would not
incur additional
cost (within the 10-
year period of
analysis) from this
new requirement.
Foreign vessels
would incur a first
year cost of $17,340
and an annual cost
of $1,530 (all non-
discounted) from
this new
requirement. This
requirement would
ensure that vessels
are minimizing the
amount of DCR going
into the waters of
the Great Lakes, and
provide USCG with
the means of
policing DCR
discharge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
The proposed rule has costs associated with having vessel owners
and operators develop and maintain a management plan that describes the
specific measures the vessel employs to ensure the minimization of bulk
DCR discharges in the waters of the Great Lakes. The proposed rule
would not impose any additional capital expenditures on the U.S. bulk
dry cargo fleet operating exclusively on the Great Lakes, since we
believe that vessels would use equipment already available onboard
their vessels to comply with this proposed rule (for further
information on specific measures currently being used, see DEIS).
We estimated the annualized costs of the SNPRM for the US fleet to
range from $17,500 to $56,298 (with a per vessel average cost of $671),
and the annualized costs of the SNPRM for the foreign fleet to range
from $13,922 to $48,697 (with a per vessel average cost of $368), all
costs are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. The following
table summarizes the affected population of vessels, costs and benefits
of the proposed rule.
Table 2--Summary of Affected Population, Costs and Benefits of the SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US................................. 55 Vessels (14 owners).
Foreign............................ 85 Vessels.
------------------------------------
Total.......................... 140 Vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US................................. Annualized = $17,500--$56,298.
10 year = $122,916--$395,413.
Foreign............................ Annualized = $13,922--$48,697.
10 year = $97,786--$342,029.
------------------------------------
Total.......................... Annualized = $31,423--$104,995.
10 year = $220,701--$737,444.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimizing the amount of DCR discharged into the waters of the Great
Lakes would improve the aquatic environment.
Promotion of environmental stewardship among owners and operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs are presented as ranges and estimated using a 7 percent discount
rate.
The proposed rule would require all vessels loading or unloading
bulk dry cargo at ports within the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and
each U.S. bulk dry cargo vessel anywhere on the Great Lakes, to have a
management plan
[[Page 44536]]
onboard and available for Coast Guard inspection that describes the
specific measures the vessel employs to minimize DCR discharges.
Foreign vessels greater than 400 GT can meet the management plan
requirement under this proposed rule because they are required to meet
the similar waste management plan requirement in Annex V of MARPOL 73/
78. However, since Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 does not cover all of the
requirements in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4), foreign vessels would be required
to address any additional management plan requirements under this
proposed rule.
We estimate that the proposed rule would affect 14 entities that
currently manage the 55 U.S. dry bulk carrier vessels, and 85 foreign
dry bulk carrier vessels (70 Canadian and 15 non-Canadian) operating
within U.S. jurisdictional waters of the Great Lakes in any given year.
We anticipate that the controlling entities of U.S. vessels would write
the management plans. We assume that a management plan for a foreign
vessel operating in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would be written
by the vessel master.
We estimate the affected population of foreign dry bulk carriers to
be 85 vessels based on the data obtained from reporting requirements
established by the 2009 interim rule. We originally estimated the
foreign vessel population to be 219 vessels for 2008 NPRM and the 2009
interim rule. Our revised estimate of the foreign vessel population is
based on recent data on foreign vessel dry cargo operations that was
not available for the NPRM or the interim rule publications.
To maintain consistency with the cost methodology used in the
interim rule, we continue to use Coast Guard reimbursable standard
rates found in COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M (``COMDTINST'') to
analyze the changes in wages for this rulemaking.\1\ We have verified
that the wages found in the COMDTINST are comparable to the loaded
wages found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Therefore, that
comparison between the interim rule and the SNPRM is straightforward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M, ``COAST GUARD REIMBURSABLE
STANDARD RATES'', FEB 28 2011, https://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1M.PDF (begins on page 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below shows estimated costs for developing the management
plan required by proposed 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4) and for having onboard a
hard copy of the plan available for inspection by the Coast Guard.
Table 3--Cost of Company Development of a Management Plan
[Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor rate Time in Cost per Number of Total initial
33 CFR 151.66 (b)(4) Developer rating (loaded) hours plan plans cost Recurring cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US
Company management plan............ GS-12...................... $69 25 $1,725 14 $24,150 ..............
Cost of copies..................... GS-3....................... 28 .05 \a\ 11.40 55 627 ..............
Foreign
Canadian Vessel.................... O-6........................ 136 \b\ 1.5 204 70 14,280 ..............
Non-Canadian Foreign............... O-6........................ 136 \b\ 1.5 204 15 3,060 \c\ 1,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... ........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 42,117 1,530
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
(a): Assumes that companies would spend $10 on supplies for each copy of the management plan. The $10 is added to the labor and time estimated to be
$1.40 ($28 * 0.05 hrs), therefore the total cost of copies per plan is $11.40.
(b): We assume that foreign vessels greater than 400 GT would develop a modified management plan, since foreign vessels greater than 400 GT are required
to have a waste management plan in accordance with Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Therefore, the time required by foreign vessels greater than 400 GT to
develop a management plan would be less than the time estimated for the U.S. fleet. Time required for foreign vessels developing a management plan was
provided by the USCG Environmental Standards Division.
(c): The recurring cost of the management plan is only for half of the non-Canadian foreign vessels entering the Great Lakes in any given year. We
anticipate that half the number of these vessels would return the following year, while the other half would be new visitors to the Great Lakes.
In addition to the management plan, the proposed rule would require
that the deck be maintained in a broom clean condition whenever a
vessel is in transit (33 CFR 151.66(b)(4)). We assume for the purpose
of this regulatory analysis that an Able Body Seaman (AB) would be
tasked with maintaining the broom clean standard as required under this
proposed rule during loading and unloading operations, to the best of
the AB's abilities under current vessel conditions. The requirement is
intended to ensure that vessels are active in reducing the amount of
DCR going into the waters of the Great Lakes. We do not expect that
vessels would need to purchase additional brooms, shovels, etc., since
these items are standard equipment on those vessels.
In order to determine the cost of maintaining decks in broom clean
condition, we established that the surface area requiring broom
cleaning would be those areas around the cargo hatches. During a site
visit to the Great Lakes to observe vessel loading and unloading
operations, we recorded the number of hatches for each vessel visited.
We extrapolated the observed data to obtain an estimated number of
total hatches for the Great Lakes bulk dry cargo fleet. We estimated
the total number of hatches for the 55 U.S. vessels to be 1,169, while
the total number of hatches for the 70 Canadian and 15 non-Canadian
foreign vessels was estimated at 1,672. We estimate that 15 to 56
percent of the hatches would be affected by the broom clean standard
after every loading and unloading event, and that it would take an AB
three minutes per hatch (at a wage rate of $27 per hour) to meet the
broom clean standard. Table 4 shows the annual estimated cost to the
U.S. fleet for maintaining the broom clean standard. The cost range for
this requirement is $14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted). Costs are
based on all vessels making an average of 60 trips per year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Annual vessel trip information comes from the DEIS.
[[Page 44537]]
Table 4--U.S. Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Time req'd number of % of % Vessels Avg number Number of Total hrs/
33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3) Crew member Labor rate (%/Hr) fleet Hatches broom of trips/ crew yr. Total cost
hatches swept clean yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)............................... Deckhand (AB)..................... $27 0.05 1,169 15 100 60 1 526 $14,203
Broom Clean (High).............................. Deckhand (AB)..................... 27 0.05 1,169 56 100 60 1 1,963 53,001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The cost to Canadian and non-Canadian foreign vessels is shown in
Tables 5(a) and (b). The combined cost of the broom clean standard for
foreign vessels is estimated to range from $69 to $45, 247 (non-
discounted). Costs are based on Canadian vessels making an average of
45 trips per year and non-Canadian foreign vessels averaging only one
trip per year.
Table 5(a)--Canadian Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Time req'd number of % of % Vessels Avg number Number of Total hrs/
33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3) Crew member Labor rate (%/Hr) fleet Hatches broom of trips/ crew yr. Total cost
hatches swept clean yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)............................... Deckhand (AB)..................... $27 0.05 1,330 15 100 45 1 449 $12,120
Broom Clean (High).............................. Deckhand (AB)..................... 27 0.05 1,330 56 100 45 1 1676 45,247
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
Table 5(b) Non-Canadian Foreign Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Time req'd number of % of % Vessels Avg number Number of Total hrs/
33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3) Crew member Labor rate (%/Hr) fleet Hatches broom of trips/ crew yr. Total cost
hatches swept clean yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)............................... Deckhand (AB)..................... $27 0.05 342 15 100 1 1 3 $69
Broom Clean (High).............................. Deckhand (AB)..................... 27 0.05 342 56 100 1 1 10 259
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The cost of complying with the management plan and broom clean
requirements for the U.S. fleet is estimated to have a first-year cost
range of $38,982 to $77,778 (non-discounted) and recurring annual costs
ranging from $14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted). Table 6 shows the
U.S. fleet cost estimate for the 10-year period of analysis.
Table 6--U.S. Vessels High and Low Cost Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Cost Estimate Low Cost Estimate
Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $77,778 $75,513 $72,690 $38,982 $37,846 $36,432
2....................................................... 53,001 49,959 46,293 14,203 13,388 12,406
3....................................................... 53,001 48,503 43,265 14,203 12,998 11,594
4....................................................... 53,001 47,091 40,434 14,203 12,619 10,836
5....................................................... 53,001 45,719 37,789 14,203 12,252 10,127
6....................................................... 53,001 44,388 35,317 14,203 11,895 9,464
7....................................................... 53,001 43,095 33,006 14,203 11,549 8,845
8....................................................... 53,001 41,839 30,847 14,203 11,212 8,266
9....................................................... 53,001 40,621 28,829 14,203 10,886 7,726
10...................................................... 53,001 39,438 26,943 14,203 10,569 7,220
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................................... 554,787 476,165 395,413 166,812 145,214 122,916
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost................................. .............. 55,821 56,298 .............. 17,024 17,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
In addition, we estimate that foreign vessels would incur a first-
year cost that ranges from $15,249 to $59,527 (non-discounted). All
foreign vessels would incur an annual cost due to the broom clean
standard; however, half of the 15 non-Canadian foreign vessels entering
the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would be anticipated to incur an
additional cost for developing a management plan since the same non-
Canadian foreign vessel is not expected to make the same trip every
year. We estimate recurring cost of all foreign vessels to range from
$13,719 to $47,035 (non-discounted). Table 7 shows the U.S. fleet cost
estimate for the 10-year period of analysis.
[[Page 44538]]
Table 7--Foreign Vessels High and Low Cost Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Cost Estimate Low Cost Estimate
Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7% Undiscounted 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $59,527 $57,793 $55,632 $15,249 $14,805 $14,251
2....................................................... 47,035 44,335 41,082 13,719 12,391 11,983
3....................................................... 47,035 43,044 38,395 13,719 12,555 11,199
4....................................................... 47,035 41,790 35,883 13,719 12,189 10,466
5....................................................... 47,035 40,573 33,535 13,719 11,834 9,781
6....................................................... 47,035 39,391 31,342 13,719 11,489 9,141
7....................................................... 47,035 38,244 29,291 13,719 11,155 8,543
8....................................................... 47,035 37,130 27,375 13,719 10,830 7,985
9....................................................... 47,035 36,049 25,584 13,719 10,514 7,462
10...................................................... 47,035 34,999 23,910 13,719 10,208 6,974
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................................... 482,843 413,347 342,029 138,719 118,510 97,786
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost................................. .............. 48,457 48,697 .............. 13,893 13,922
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
The proposed rule would also prohibit all near-shore limestone and
clean stone DCR discharges, except in the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Our research found that vessels carrying limestone and clean stone
already avoid DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore because of near-
shore operational hazards. Therefore, the proposed prohibition of these
discharges would not incur any additional cost to the fleet.
We estimate the total annualized cost to industry (US and foreign)
of the SNPRM to be $31,423 to $104,995 and the total discounted 10-year
costs to industry to be $220,701 to $737,444 (values discounted at 7
percent). We do not expect there would be additional government costs
required to implement the changes from this SNPRM.
Benefits
We examined the benefits of the proposed rule and concluded that
the benefits are qualitative. The requirement of the management plan
causes all vessel owners and operators to become more active in
preserving the Great Lakes' aquatic environment. The proposed rule sets
a performance standard that allows the industry to determine its most
efficient methods to minimize DCR discharges.
We anticipate that the proposed rule would change the current
industry behavior of discharging DCR into the waters of the Great
Lakes. The proposed requirement for vessels to have and follow DCR
management plans should increase overall compliance levels with today's
industry best practices for preventing or minimizing DCR discharges. In
enforcing the DCR management plan requirement, the Coast Guard would be
able to consider how well a vessel's plan reflects then-current
industry standard practices. This would ensure that if, over time,
there is an improvement in most vessels' ability to manage DCR, all
vessels will be measured against the improved standard. Although our
environmental analysis has shown only minor and indirect adverse
environmental impacts from DCR discharges, we assume that any reduction
in those impacts would provide at least a qualitative benefit. In
addition, the vessel owners and operators themselves could realize
efficiency gains from maintaining and gradually improving their DCR
management practices. The proposed rule would not impose a rigid
prescriptive standard, but would give the industry the flexibility to
develop vessel-specific performance standards that achieve the
regulatory objectives in the most cost-effective way.
Alternatives
Alternative 1: no action. This alternative would simply keep the
current DCR interim rule in place. We have re-evaluated the interim
rule and concluded that our proposed rule would do more to minimize the
volume of DCR discharge going into the waters of the Great Lakes and
would reduce the interim rule's regulatory costs. Therefore we reject
this alternative.
Alternative 2: modified regulations with DCR management plan
requirement. This is the preferred alternative described in this SNPRM
and evaluated here.
Alternative 3: baseline control measures. This alternative would
enforce the existing DCR management baseline. Each vessel would be
required to maintain its current practices or equipment for managing
DCR. We closely evaluated this alternative but reject it because over
time a vessel's baseline operational equipment will wear out and need
replacement, and it would be difficult for inspectors to gauge how well
the replacement equipment replicates the operational state attained by
the original equipment. Moreover, this alternative provides inferior
environmental protection, by locking vessels into today's baseline. By
contrast, the preferred alternative assumes that DCR management
practices and technology will improve over time, and we want the
regulatory compliance of vessels in the future to be measured against
the best practices and technology then available, and not against
today's baseline, which we assume will represent a lower level of DCR
management capability.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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.
The Coast Guard analysis did not find any non-profit or
governmental small entities. However, we did find 9 small entities
affected by this rule classified under one of the following North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 6-digit codes for water
transportation: 238910--Site Preparation Constructor; 483113--Coastal
and Great Lakes Freight Transportation; 484110--General Freight
Trucking Local; 487210--Scenic & Sightseeing Transportation Water;
[[Page 44539]]
483212--Inland Water Passenger Transportation; and 483211--Inland Water
Freight. According to the Small Business Administration's size
standards, a U.S. company classified under these NAICS codes with
annual revenues of less than $7 million is considered a small business.
We estimate the cost of this rule to be less than 1 percent of revenue
for 100 percent of the small entities for both initial and recurring
costs. The estimated annualized costs per small entity complying with
the proposed rule would range from a high estimate of $7,327 to a low
estimate of $2,267 with both discounted at 7 percent respectively.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Comments submitted in response to
this finding will be evaluated under the criteria in the ``Regulatory
Information'' section of this preamble.
We are interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule
on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential
impacts. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
to the docket where indicated under the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' section of this SNPRM, or see
www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2004-19621, for additional
instruction.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult John C. Morris of
the Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES-3) at the
telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. 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
The proposed rule would call for a revision to an existing
collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1310.3(c), ``collection of
information'' comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, and other, similar actions. The title and description of
those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total
annual burden can be found under, ``The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.''
Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters
of Instruction for Certain Persons in Charge (PIC).
Summary of the Collection of Information
The Information Collection Request (ICR) is a collection of
recordkeeping requirements that documents management of waste onboard
vessels. It also requires that persons on non-inspected vessels must
carry a letter verifying the credential of the PIC, and that they have
had instruction on the management of waste. Currently, the ICR covers
Waste Management Plans and Refuse Discharge Logs for The International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships letters of
instruction for certain PIC and the DCR recordkeeping.
This proposed rule deals with section D of the current ICR, which
addresses all dry bulk carrier vessels (foreign and domestic) operating
on the Great Lakes. Under the interim rule, this population is required
to report DCR quantities and the location of discharges into U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, in accordance with 33 CFR 151.66(c). We used
the information collected from these reports to analyze and determine
how best to regulate vessels in handling/managing DCR. The proposed
rule would require U.S. and foreign vessels to develop and maintain a
management plan that describes the specific measures the vessel employs
to ensure the minimization of bulk DCR discharges.
Need for Information: Since there is no uniformity as to the types
of equipment used throughout the fleet, the management plan would
provide a description of how the individual vessel ensures the
minimization of DCR discharges.
Proposed Use of Information: The information in the management plan
would provide the Coast Guard with the means to monitor how individual
operators are effectively managing and minimizing their DCR discharges.
In addition, the management plan would be used by Coast Guard
inspectors to enforce the minimization requirement.
Description of the Respondents: We estimate that all U.S. bulk dry
cargo vessels operating anywhere in the Great Lakes, and foreign
commercial bulk dry cargo vessels operating on the U.S. waters of the
Great Lakes, would be affected by the management plan requirement.
Number of Respondents: The management plan would have a total
number of 140 \3\ (55 U.S. vessels + 70 Canadian vessels + 15 non-
Canadian foreign vessels) respondents, which account for the total
number of bulk dry cargo vessels operating on the waters of the Great
Lakes in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The number of foreign vessels affected has been updated
(from the interim rule) due to information being provided by Form
CG-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of the Response: All vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on
the Great Lakes are required to develop a management plan. The
frequency in the development of the management plan would be subject to
vessels modifying their vessels and/or equipment. We do not anticipate
vessels modifying or adding major equipment during the 10-year period
of this analysis. We therefore assume that the development of the
management plan would occur once for U.S. and Canadian vessels.
However, a percentage (50%) of non-Canadian foreign vessels would be
required to develop a management plan each year, since we estimate that
this percentage would be entering the Great Lakes for the first time.
Therefore, we estimate that in the first year there would be 140 (55
U.S. vessels + 70 Canadian vessels + 15 non-Canadian foreign vessels)
total management plans developed by all bulk dry cargo vessels
operating in U.S. waters, and 8 (rounded) reoccurring responses by non-
Canadian foreign vessels.
Burden of Response: We estimate that there would be 55 management
plans developed for the entire U.S. dry cargo vessel fleet operating on
the Great
[[Page 44540]]
Lakes, and that it would only affect the burden of response in the
first year that the proposed rule is in effect. The total estimated
burden hours for the U.S. fleet is 352.75 (350 hours company section +
2.75 hours copies), at a cost to the fleet of $24,150 (non-discounted).
The total foreign vessel fleet would have a burden of response in the
first year of 128 hours (1.5 hours for management plan x 85 vessels),
at a cost of $17,340 (non-discounted).
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would not have
an annual cost burden after the first year of this rule being
implemented for U.S. and Canadian vessels (see ``BURDEN OF RESPONSE,''
above). After the first year, non-Canadian foreign vessels would incur
an annual burden. We anticipate non-Canadian vessels would incur an
annual burden of 11 hours for management plan development at a cost of
$1,530 (non-discounted).
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have
submitted a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the
collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining the burden are; how we can
improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information, and
how we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDESSES, by the date under DATES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. As
we discussed at length in part V of this preamble, we received comments
from several States in response to our interim rule and are aware that
some agencies in some States bordering the Great Lakes disagree with
the Coast Guard's approach to the discharge of DCR in those waters. We
encourage all such States, and any of their agencies with a stake in
the outcome of this rulemaking, to continue sharing their input with
us. We believe neither the interim rule, nor the rule proposed by this
document, necessarily preempts or conflicts with State laws that may
prohibit DCR discharges or impose conditions on those discharges that
differ from those imposed by the Coast Guard. We do not take the
position that such State laws facially frustrate an overriding Federal
purpose. Until such time as a cognizant court rules to the contrary, we
caution carriers that they must comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws regulating DCR discharges. We encourage States to make us
aware of laws they think are applicable. As we are so informed, we will
share that information with the public by placing it in the docket for
this rulemaking.
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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.
However, a group representing tribal interests requested consultation,
and the Coast Guard agreed to brief that group on the rulemaking. The
briefing is described in the docket (see docket item USCG-2004-19621-
0182).
K. 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.
L. 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 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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
[[Page 44541]]
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). A draft
``Environmental Impact Statement'' (EIS) is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. We encourage the public to submit
comments on the draft EIS.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151
Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 151 as follows:
PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER
1. The authority citation for part 151 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101;
Pub. L. 104-227 (110 Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108-293 (118 Stat. 1063),
Sec. 623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1, sec. 2(77).
2. Amend Sec. 151.66 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 151.66 Operating requirements: Discharge of garbage in the Great
Lakes and other navigable waters.
* * * * *
(b)(1) On the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, commercial vessels
may discharge bulk dry cargo residues in accordance with and subject to
the conditions imposed by this paragraph
(2) As used in this paragraph--
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior administered by the National Park Service, less Madeline
Island, and including the Wisconsin shoreline of Bayfield Peninsula
from the point of land at 46[deg]57'19.7'' N, 090[deg]52'51.0'' W
southwest along the shoreline to a point of land at 46[deg]52'56.4'' N,
091[deg]3'3.1'' W.
Broom clean means a condition in which the vessel's deck shows that
care has been taken to prevent or eliminate any visible concentration
of bulk dry cargo residues, so that any remaining bulk dry cargo
residues consist only of dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces,
none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter.
Bulk dry cargo residues means non-hazardous and non-toxic residues,
regardless of particle size, of dry cargo carried in bulk, including
limestone and other clean stone, iron ore, coal, salt, and cement. It
does not include residues of any substance known to be toxic or
hazardous, such as nickel, copper, zinc, lead, or materials classified
as hazardous in provisions of law or treaty.
Caribou Island and Southwest Bank Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
47[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W
47[deg]24.2' N, 085[deg]38.5' W
47[deg]04.0' N, 085[deg]49.0' W
47[deg]05.7' N, 085[deg]59.0' W
47[deg]18.1' N, 086[deg]05.0' W
Commercial vessel means a commercial vessel loading, unloading, or
discharging bulk dry cargo in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, or a
U.S. commercial vessel transporting bulk dry cargo and operating
anywhere on the Great Lakes; but the term does not include a non-self-
propelled barge unless it is part of an integrated tug and barge unit.
Comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations means similar
vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes,
deck and hold configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment
configuration.
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge means the U.S. waters
of the Detroit River bound by the area extending from the Michigan
shore at the southern outlet of the Rouge River to 41[deg]54.0' N
083[deg]06.0' W along the U.S.-Canada boundary southward and clockwise
connecting points:
42[deg]02.0' N, 083[deg]08.0' W
41[deg]54.0' N, 083[deg]06.0' W
41[deg]50.0' N, 083[deg]10.0' W
41[deg]44.52' N, 083[deg]22.0 ' W
41[deg]44.19' N, 083[deg]27.0' W
Dry cargo residue (or DCR) management plan means the plan required
by paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
Grand Portage National Monument means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from the southwest
corner of the monument point of land at 47[deg]57.521' N,
089[deg]41.245' W to the northeast corner of the monument point of
land, 47[deg]57.888' N, 089[deg]40.725' W.
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land near Gary, Indiana at 41[deg]42'59.4'' N, 086[deg]54'59.9'' W
eastward along the shoreline to 41[deg]37'08.8'' N, 087[deg]17'18.8'' W
near Michigan City, Indiana.
Industry standard practices means practices that ensure the proper
installation, maintenance, and operation of shipboard cargo transfer
and DCR removal equipment, proper crew training in DCR minimization
procedures and cargo transfer operations, and proper supervision of
cargo transfer operations to minimize DCR accumulation on or in a
commercial vessel.
Integrated tug and barge unit means any tug-barge combination
which, through the use of special design features or a specially
designed connection system, has increased sea-keeping capabilities
relative to a tug and barge in the conventional pushing mode.
Isle Royale National Park means the site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park Service, where the boundary includes
any submerged lands within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States within 4\1/2\ miles of the shoreline of Isle Royale and the
surrounding islands, including Passage Island and Gull Island.
Mile means a statute mile.
Milwaukee Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
43[deg]27.0' N, 087[deg]14.0' W
43[deg]21.2' N, 087[deg]02.3' W
43[deg]03.3' N, 087[deg]04.8' W
42[deg]57.5' N, 087[deg]21.0' W
43[deg]16.0' N, 087[deg]39.8' W
Minimization means the reduction, to the greatest extent
practicable, of any bulk dry cargo residue discharge from the vessel.
Northern Refuge means the area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting
the coordinates, beginning on the northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
45[deg]45.0' N, 086[deg]00.0' W
western shore of High Island, southern shore of Beaver Island:
45[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]30.0' W
45[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]15.0' W
45[deg]25.0' N, 085[deg]15.0' W
45[deg]25.0' N, 085[deg]20.0' W
45[deg]20.0' N, 085[deg]20.0' W
45[deg]20.0' N, 085[deg]40.0' W
45[deg]15.0' N, 085[deg]40.0' W
45[deg]15.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W
45[deg]10.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W
45[deg]10.0' N, 086[deg]00.0' W
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land at
[[Page 44542]]
46[deg]26'21.3'' N, 086[deg]36'43.2'' W eastward along the Michigan
shoreline to 46[deg]40'22.2'' N, 085[deg]59'58.1'' W.
Six Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
44[deg]55.0' N, 082[deg]33.0' W
44[deg]47.0' N, 082[deg]18.0' W
44[deg]39.0' N, 082[deg]13.0' W
44[deg]27.0' N, 082[deg]13.0' W
44[deg]27.0' N, 082[deg]20.0' W
44[deg]17.0' N, 082[deg]25.0' W
44[deg]17.0' N, 082[deg]30.0' W
44[deg]28.0' N, 082[deg]40.0' W
44[deg]51.0' N, 082[deg]44.0' W
44[deg]53.0' N, 082[deg]44.0' W
44[deg]54.0' N, 082[deg]40.0' W
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near
Lake Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, that includes
North Manitou Island, South Manitou Island and the Michigan shoreline
from a point of land at 44[deg]42'45.1'' N, 086[deg]12'18.1'' W north
and eastward along the shoreline to 44[deg]57'12.0'' N,
085[deg]48'12.8'' W.
Stannard Rock Protection Area means the area within a 6-mile radius
from Stannard Rock Light, at 47[deg]10'57'' N, 087[deg]13'34'' W.
Superior Shoal Protection Area means the area within a 6-mile
radius from the center of Superior Shoal, at 48[deg]03.2' N,
087[deg]06.3' W.
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary means the site on or near
Lake Huron designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration as the boundary that forms an approximately rectangular
area by extending along the ordinary high water mark between the
northern and southern boundaries of Alpena County, cutting across the
mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along
latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west. The coordinates of the
boundary are:
45[deg]12'25.5'' N, 083[deg]23'18.6'' W
45[deg]12'25.5'' N, 083[deg]00'00'' W
44[deg]51'30.5'' N, 083[deg]00'00'' W
44[deg]51'30.5'' N, 083[deg]19'17.3'' W
Waukegan Special Protection Area means the area enclosed by rhumb
lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
42[deg]24.3' N, 087[deg]29.3' W
42[deg]13.0' N, 087[deg]25.1' W
42[deg]12.2' N, 087[deg]29.1' W
42[deg]18.1' N, 087[deg]33.1' W
42[deg]24.1' N, 087[deg]32.0' W
Western Basin means that portion of Lake Erie west of a line due
south from Point Pelee.
(3) Discharges of bulk dry cargo residue under paragraph (b) of
this section are allowed, subject to the conditions listed in Table
151.66(b)(3) of this section.
Table 151.66(b)(3)--Bulk Dry Cargo Residue Discharges Allowed on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Cargo Discharge allowed except as noted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tributaries, their connecting rivers, Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
and the St. Lawrence River. stone.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited.
Lake Ontario............................ Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
stone.
Iron ore................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore.
Lake Erie............................... Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
stone. prohibited in the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in Western Basin, except that
a vessel operating exclusively within
Western Basin may discharge limestone or
clean stone cargo residues over the
dredged navigation channels between
Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
Light.
Iron ore................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore;
prohibited in the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in Western Basin, except that
a vessel may discharge residue over the
dredged navigation channels between
Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit
and immediately thereafter loads new
cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
Coal, salt................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore;
prohibited in the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in Western Basin, except that
a vessel may discharge residue over the
dredged navigation channels between
Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit
and immediately thereafter loads new
cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore;
prohibited in the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in Western Basin.
Lake St. Clair.......................... Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
stone.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited.
Lake Huron, except Six Fathom Scarp Mid- Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
Lake Special Protection Area. stone. prohibited in the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary.
Iron ore................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore and
in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary;
prohibited for vessels upbound along the
Michigan thumb as follows:
(i) Between 5.8 miles northeast of
entrance buoys 11 and 12 to the track
line turn abeam of Harbor Beach,
prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
(ii) For vessels bound for Saginaw Bay
only, between the track line turn abeam
of Harbor Beach and 4 nautical miles
northeast of Point Aux Barques Light,
prohibited within 4 miles from shore and
not less than 10 fathoms of depth.
[[Page 44543]]
Coal, salt................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary;
prohibited for vessels upbound from
Alpena into ports along the Michigan
shore south of Forty Mile Point within 4
miles from shore and not less than 10
fathoms of depth.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Lake Michigan........................... Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
stone. prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake
and Waukegan Special Protection Areas;
prohibited within the Northern Refuge;
prohibited within 3 miles of the shore
of the Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear
National Lakeshores; prohibited within
Green Bay.
Iron ore................... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; north
of 45[deg]N, prohibited within 12 miles
from shore and in Green Bay; south of
45[deg]N, prohibited within 6 miles from
shore, and prohibited within the
Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special
Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and
within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana
Dunes and Sleeping Bear National
Lakeshores; except that discharges are
allowed at:
(a) 4.75 miles off Big Sable Point
Betsie, along established Lake Carriers
Association (LCA) track lines; and
(b) Along 056.25[deg] LCA track line
between due east of Poverty Island to a
point due south of Port Inland Light.
Coal....................... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores;
except that discharges are allowed--
(i) Along 013.5[deg] LCA track line
between 45[deg]N and Boulder Reef, and
along 022.5[deg] LCA track running 23.25
miles between Boulder Reef and the
charted position of Red Buoy 2;
(ii) Along 037[deg] LCA track line
between 45[deg]20'N and 45[deg]42'N;
(iii) Along 056.25[deg] LCA track line
between points due east of Poverty
Island to a point due south of Port
Inland Light; and
(iv) At 3 miles from shore for coal
carried between Manistee and Ludington
along customary routes.
Salt....................... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores, and
in Green Bay.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores.
Lake Superior........................... Limestone and other clean Prohibited within 3 miles from shore; and
stone. prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and
Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and
within 3 miles of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Iron ore................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore
(within 3 miles off northwestern shore
between Duluth and Grand Marais); and
prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and
Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and
within 3 miles of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Coal, salt................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
(within 3 miles off northwestern shore
between Duluth and Grand Marais); and
prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and
Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and
within 3 miles of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Cement..................... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
(within 3 miles offshore west of a line
due north from Bark Point); and
prohibited within Isle Royale National
Park and the Caribou Island and
Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and
within 3 miles of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
All other cargoes.......... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore;
and prohibited within Isle Royale
National Park and the Caribou Island and
Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and
within 3 miles of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The master, owner, operator, or person in charge of any
commercial vessel must ensure that the vessel's deck is kept broom
clean whenever the vessel is in transit.
(5) The master, owner, operator, or person in charge of any
commercial vessel must ensure that a dry cargo residue management plan
is onboard the vessel, kept available for Coast Guard inspection, and
that all operations are
[[Page 44544]]
conducted in accordance with the plan. A waste management plan meeting
the requirements of 33 CFR 151.57 satisfies this requirement, so long
as it provides all the information required by this paragraph (b)(5).
If the plan is maintained electronically, at least one paper copy of
the plan must be onboard for use during inspections. The plan must
describe the specific measures the vessel employs to ensure the
minimization of bulk dry cargo residue discharges, and, at a minimum,
must list or describe--
(i) Equipment onboard the vessel that is designed to minimize bulk
dry cargo spillage during loading and unloading;
(ii) Equipment onboard the vessel that is available to recover
spilled cargo from the decks and transfer tunnels and return it to the
holds or to unloading conveyances;
(iii) Operational procedures employed by the vessel's crew during
the loading or unloading of bulk dry cargoes to minimize cargo spillage
onto the decks and into the transfer tunnels and to achieve and
maintain the broom clean deck condition required by paragraph (b)(4) of
this section;
(iv) Operational procedures employed by the vessel's crew during or
after loading or unloading operations to return spilled bulk dry cargo
residue to the vessel's holds or to shore via an unloading conveyance;
(v) How the vessel's owner or operator ensures that the vessel's
crew is familiar with any operational procedures described by the plan;
(vi) The position title of the person onboard who is in charge of
ensuring compliance with procedures described in the plan;
(vii) Any arrangements between the vessel and specific ports or
terminals for the unloading and disposal of the vessel's bulk dry cargo
residues ashore; and
(viii) The procedures used and the vessel's operating conditions to
be maintained during any unavoidable discharge of bulk dry cargo
residue into the Great Lakes.
(6) In determining whether a commercial vessel or person is in
compliance with this paragraph (b), Coast Guard personnel may
consider--
(i) The extent to which the procedures described in the vessel's
DCR management plan reflect current industry standard practices for
vessels of comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations;
(ii) The crew's demonstrated ability to perform tasks for which the
DCR management plan holds them responsible;
(iii) Whether equipment described in the DCR management plan is
maintained in proper operating condition; and
(iv) The extent to which the crew adheres to the vessel's DCR
management plan during actual dry cargo loading and unloading
operations and DCR discharge operations.
* * * * *
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-18399 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
