Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances, 2799-2800 [2019-01591]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOCREQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Fokker Services B.V.’s EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. (k) Related Information (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018–0159, dated July 25, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2018–1071. (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206– 231–3226. (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email technicalservices@ fokker.com; internet https:// www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 10, 2019. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2019–01527 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 154 [Docket Number USCG–1999–5705] RIN 1625–AA–12 and 2115–AE87 Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances Coast Guard, DHS. Proposed rule; withdrawal. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ‘‘Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances’’ that we published on March 31, 2000. The Coast Guard is withdrawing this rulemaking based on findings that the proposed rules are no longer appropriate to the current state of spill response in the chemical industry. DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published March 31, 2000, at 65 FR 17416, is withdrawn as of February 8, 2019. ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available by searching docket number USCG–1999– 5705 using the Federal portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notice of withdrawal, call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, Commercial Vessel Safety Specialist, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy (CG– MER–1), Coast Guard; telephone 202– 372–1227. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Table of Abbreviations FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee II. Background The Clean Water Act,1 as amended by section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),2 requires owners or operators of tank vessels, offshore facilities, and onshore facilities to prepare response plans to mitigate spills of both oils and hazardous substances. These plans must address measures to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge, 1 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5). Law 101–380, 104 Stat. 484. 2 Public VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Feb 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2799 of oil or a hazardous substance into or on navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The primary purpose of requiring response plans is to minimize the impact of a discharge of oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States. On May 3, 1996, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting public input on regulations concerning response plans for certain tank vessels and marine transportationrelated facilities (61 FR 20083), and subsequently held two public meetings on the subject that were announced in the Federal Register (61 FR 34775). On March 31, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register entitled ‘‘Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances’’ (65 FR 17416). In the NPRM, we proposed regulations requiring response plans for certain Marine Transportation-Related facilities. The Coast Guard received feedback from concerned citizens, commercial entities, and trade associations regarding the proposed rulemaking. These comments were made available in the docket. Since then, further analysis by the Coast Guard and the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) has shown that implementation of the rules as laid out in the 2000 NPRM would not significantly increase response effectiveness at this time. CTAC also identified many areas in which the NPRM may overlap with existing local and state regulatory schemes as well as current industry practice. Most coastal states already have regulations in place governing spill response at facilities that handle hazardous substances. Area Planning Committees have also been voluntarily incorporating hazardous substances into their contingency plans, as facilities that handle hazardous chemicals are often located near sites that process oil. Furthermore, organizations like the Chemical Transportation Emergency Center and Spill Center have demonstrated that synergies from oil response may also be utilized in hazardous substance response. Marine transportation related facilities handling oil products must also comply with the Coast Guard’s Facility Response Plan requirements.3 Although these requirements address planning for oil spill response, these best practices may also be applied to hazardous substance response to an extent. Due to the services and requirements industry frequently engages in to satisfy 3 33 E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM CFR part 154, subpart F. 08FEP1 2800 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules insurance requirements and company sustainability polices, together with the existence of new terminal inspection protocols like that developed by the Chemical Distribution Institute, CTAC was unable to identify any significant gaps in hazardous substance spill response planning at marine transportation-related facilities that would be reduced by the 2000 proposed rulemaking. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY III. Withdrawal AGENCY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking so as to better analyze the current spill response capabilities of the chemical industry before conducting any further rulemaking on hazardous substance response plans for marine transportation-related facilities. The Coast Guard remains committed to fulfilling its OPA 90 mandate, however we believe the proposed rules are no longer appropriate as proposed. The Coast Guard has determined that withdrawing the proposed rule is appropriate based on findings that the proposed rules are no longer applicable to the current state of spill response in the chemical industry. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is withdrawing the ‘‘Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances’’ proposed rulemaking announced in an NPRM published March 31, 2000 (65 FR 17416). ACTION: IV. Executive Order 13771 Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS The withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), which directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ‘‘for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.’’ See the OMB Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). Dated: February 4, 2019. Anthony J. Vogt, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Response Policy. [FR Doc. 2019–01591 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 155 [Docket Number USCG–1998–4354] RIN 1625–AA13 and 2115–AE88 Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances Coast Guard, DHS. Proposed rule; withdrawal. The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ‘‘Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances’’ that we published on March 22, 1999. The Coast Guard is withdrawing this rulemaking based on findings that the proposed rules are no longer appropriate to the current state of spill response in the chemical industry. DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published March 22, 1999, at 64 FR 13734, is withdrawn as of February 8, 2019. ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available by searching docket number USCG–1998– 4354 using the Federal portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notice of withdrawal, call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, Commercial Vessel Safety Specialist, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy (CG– MER–1), Coast Guard; telephone 202– 372–1227. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Table of Abbreviations FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee II. Background The Clean Water Act,1 as amended by section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),2 requires owners or operators of tank vessels, offshore facilities, and onshore facilities to prepare response plans to mitigate spills of both oils and hazardous substances. These plans must address measures to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance into or on navigable waters, adjoining 1 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5). Law 101–380, 104 Stat. 484. 2 Public VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Feb 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The primary purpose of requiring response plans is to minimize the impact of a discharge of oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States. On May 3, 1996, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting public input on regulations concerning response plans for certain tank vessels and marine transportationrelated facilities (61 FR 20083), and subsequently held two public meetings on the subject that were announced in the Federal Register (61 FR 34775). On March 22, 1999, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register entitled ‘‘Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances’’ (64 FR 13734). In the NPRM, we proposed regulations that would require response plans for certain tank vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard received feedback from concerned citizens, commercial entities, and trade associations regarding the proposed rulemaking. These comments were made available in the docket. Since then, further analysis by the Coast Guard and the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) has shown that implementation of the proposed rules as structured in the 1999 NPRM would not significantly increase response effectiveness at this time. CTAC also identified many areas in which the NPRM may overlap with existing local, state, and international regulatory schemes as well as current industry practice. The International Maritime Organization’s Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan already requires all foreign flagged vessels and U.S. vessels on international routes carrying noxious liquid substance cargos, to develop and implement spill response plans. U.S. flagged vessels and foreign flag vessels calling on ports or places in the U.S. and carrying oil in bulk as cargo or using oil as fuel for main propulsion, must comply with the Coast Guard’s Vessel Response Plan requirements.3 Although these requirements address planning for oil spill response, many of these practices may also be applied to hazardous substance responses. Vessels also must comply with numerous state response planning requirements when operating in state waters. The Coast Guard is concerned the proposed rules may create redundancy with some existing rules and be unnecessary due to industry’s increased awareness and readiness since OPA 90 was passed. Between the above-mentioned 3 33 E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM CFR part 155, subpart D. 08FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2799-2800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 154

[Docket Number USCG-1999-5705]
RIN 1625-AA-12 and 2115-AE87


Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for 
Hazardous Substances

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled ``Marine Transportation-Related Facility Response 
Plans for Hazardous Substances'' that we published on March 31, 2000. 
The Coast Guard is withdrawing this rulemaking based on findings that 
the proposed rules are no longer appropriate to the current state of 
spill response in the chemical industry.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published March 31, 2000, at 
65 FR 17416, is withdrawn as of February 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available by 
searching docket number USCG-1999-5705 using the Federal portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice of withdrawal, call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, Commercial 
Vessel Safety Specialist, Office of Marine Environmental Response 
Policy (CG-MER-1), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee

II. Background

    The Clean Water Act,\1\ as amended by section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),\2\ requires owners or operators of tank 
vessels, offshore facilities, and onshore facilities to prepare 
response plans to mitigate spills of both oils and hazardous 
substances. These plans must address measures to respond, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge or a substantial 
threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance into or on 
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone 
of the United States. The primary purpose of requiring response plans 
is to minimize the impact of a discharge of oil or hazardous substances 
into the navigable waters of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5).
    \2\ Public Law 101-380, 104 Stat. 484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 1996, we published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking soliciting public input on regulations concerning response 
plans for certain tank vessels and marine transportation-related 
facilities (61 FR 20083), and subsequently held two public meetings on 
the subject that were announced in the Federal Register (61 FR 34775). 
On March 31, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
in the Federal Register entitled ``Marine Transportation-Related 
Facility Response Plans for Hazardous Substances'' (65 FR 17416). In 
the NPRM, we proposed regulations requiring response plans for certain 
Marine Transportation-Related facilities. The Coast Guard received 
feedback from concerned citizens, commercial entities, and trade 
associations regarding the proposed rulemaking. These comments were 
made available in the docket. Since then, further analysis by the Coast 
Guard and the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) has 
shown that implementation of the rules as laid out in the 2000 NPRM 
would not significantly increase response effectiveness at this time.
    CTAC also identified many areas in which the NPRM may overlap with 
existing local and state regulatory schemes as well as current industry 
practice. Most coastal states already have regulations in place 
governing spill response at facilities that handle hazardous 
substances. Area Planning Committees have also been voluntarily 
incorporating hazardous substances into their contingency plans, as 
facilities that handle hazardous chemicals are often located near sites 
that process oil. Furthermore, organizations like the Chemical 
Transportation Emergency Center and Spill Center have demonstrated that 
synergies from oil response may also be utilized in hazardous substance 
response. Marine transportation related facilities handling oil 
products must also comply with the Coast Guard's Facility Response Plan 
requirements.\3\ Although these requirements address planning for oil 
spill response, these best practices may also be applied to hazardous 
substance response to an extent. Due to the services and requirements 
industry frequently engages in to satisfy

[[Page 2800]]

insurance requirements and company sustainability polices, together 
with the existence of new terminal inspection protocols like that 
developed by the Chemical Distribution Institute, CTAC was unable to 
identify any significant gaps in hazardous substance spill response 
planning at marine transportation-related facilities that would be 
reduced by the 2000 proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 33 CFR part 154, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking so as to 
better analyze the current spill response capabilities of the chemical 
industry before conducting any further rulemaking on hazardous 
substance response plans for marine transportation-related facilities. 
The Coast Guard remains committed to fulfilling its OPA 90 mandate, 
however we believe the proposed rules are no longer appropriate as 
proposed.
    The Coast Guard has determined that withdrawing the proposed rule 
is appropriate based on findings that the proposed rules are no longer 
applicable to the current state of spill response in the chemical 
industry. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is withdrawing the ``Marine 
Transportation-Related Facility Response Plans for Hazardous 
Substances'' proposed rulemaking announced in an NPRM published March 
31, 2000 (65 FR 17416).

IV. Executive Order 13771

    The withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a deregulatory action under 
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs), which directs agencies to reduce regulation and control 
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation 
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, 
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and 
controlled through a budgeting process.'' See the OMB Memorandum titled 
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).

     Dated: February 4, 2019.
Anthony J. Vogt,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Response 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01591 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P