Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18151 

docket for this rulemaking and 

considered. 

Electronic or Written Comments 

If you submit written comments, they 

should be specific, confined to issues 

pertinent to the proposed regulations, 

and explain the reason for any 

recommended change(s). We would 

appreciate all comments relating to this 

specific issue, but those most useful and 

likely to influence decisions on the final 

rule will be those that either involve 

personal experience or include citations 

to and analysis of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, its 

legislative history, its implementing 

regulations, case law, other State or 

Federal laws and regulations, data, 

technical literature, or other relevant 

publications. 

Public Hearing 

If you wish to speak at the public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

4 p.m., m.s.t. on April 11, 2012. If you 

are disabled and need reasonable 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will arrange the location and time of the 

hearing with those persons requesting 

the hearing. If no one requests an 

opportunity to speak, we will not hold 

the hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at a public 

hearing provide us with a written copy 

of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If there is only limited interest in 

participating in a public hearing, we 

may hold a public meeting rather than 

a public hearing. If you wish to meet 

with us to discuss the amendment, 

please request a meeting by contacting 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings 

are open to the public and, if possible, 

we will post notices of meetings at the 

locations listed under ADDRESSES. We 

will make a written summary of each 

meeting a part of the administrative 

record. 

VI. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: January 6, 2012. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Director, Western Region. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7325 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 155 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0430, Formerly 

CGD 90–068] 

RIN 1625–AA02, Formerly 2115–AD66 

Discharge Removal Equipment for 

Vessels Carrying Oil 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to finalize with 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is advising 

the public of its intent to finalize 

regulations previously published as an 

interim final rule on December 22, 1993. 

The interim final rule was published to 

reduce the risk of oil spills, improve 

vessel oil spill response capabilities, 

and minimize the impact of oil spills on 

the environment, but certain portions of 

the interim final rule were never 

published as a final rule. Because of the 

lapse in time since the interim final 

rule’s publication, the Coast Guard is 

seeking comments from the public 

before finalizing those portions of the 

interim final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0430 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Mr. David Du Pont, Office of 

Standards Evaluation and Development 

(CG–523), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1497, email 

David.A.DuPont@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Notice 

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 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

B. Why is this notice of intent necessary? 

IV. Summary of Regulations in the IFR 

V. Subsequent Changes to the IFR 

Regulations 

VI. Discussion of Comments 

A. Comments on Specific Sections in the 

IFR 

B. General Comments 

VII. Supporting Analyses 

A. Regulatory Assessment 

B. Environment 

VIII. Intent To Finalize; Request for 

Comments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18152 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 56 FR 43534 (Aug. 30, 1991). 2 57 FR 44912 (Sept. 29, 1992). 3 58 FR 67988 (Dec. 22, 1993). 

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 http:// 

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–2011–0430), 

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 (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing 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 

http://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 ‘‘Notice’’ and insert ‘‘USCG– 

2011–0430’’ 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 

the final 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 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 

0430’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

Internet, you may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting, but you may submit a request 

for one on or before April 26, 2012 using 

one of the four methods specified under 

the ADDRESSES section above. Please 

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. Such a notice 

will also include contact information for 

requests regarding facilities or services 

for individuals with disabilities or 

special assistance at the public meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COI Certificate of Inspection 

DRE Discharge removal equipment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

IFR Interim final rule 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f) 

NOI Notice of intent 

OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101–380, 104 Stat. 484, August 18, 

1990) 

OSRO Oil spill removal organization 

OSRV Oil spill response vessel 

RE Regulatory Evaluation (aka Regulatory 

Assessment) 

§ Section symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Basis and Purpose 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

Section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101–380; 

104 Stat. 484; August 18, 1990) 

amended section 311(j) of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1321(j)) by, among other things, adding 

a new paragraph (6) to require vessels 

operating on the navigable waters of the 

United States and carrying oil or a 

hazardous substance in bulk as cargo to 

carry appropriate discharge removal 

equipment (DRE) on board. 

On August 30, 1991, the Coast Guard 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to solicit 

information to assist the Coast Guard in 

development of proposed rules that 

implement the OPA 90 mandate for 

DRE.1 On September 29, 1992, the Coast 

Guard published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking that proposed to establish 

DRE regulations.2 On December 22, 

1993 the Coast Guard published an 

interim final rule (IFR) that established 

DRE requirements for on-deck spills, 

and also required vessels to install spill 

prevention coamings, to install 

emergency towing arrangements, and to 

have a prearranged capability to 

calculate damage stability in the event 

of a casualty.3

In addition to the above documents, 

the Coast Guard has published several 

DRE-related notices and technical 

amendments throughout the course of 

this rulemaking. The complete 

regulatory history of the DRE 

rulemaking is summarized below. 

Document type Federal Register cite Date published Comments 

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking ......... 56 FR 43534 ...................... 8/30/1991 Requested comments and information to help 

develop response plans for all vessels carrying oil as cargo and carriage and inspection of discharge-removal equipment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18153 

Document type Federal Register cite Date published Comments 

Notice of intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee.56 FR 58202 ...................... 11/18/1991 Consideration was given to establishing a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop 

part of the regulations to be issued under 

OPA 90. 

Notice of intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee; supplemental notice and 

clarification.

56 FR 60949 ...................... 11/29/1991 Clarified list of groups that would be affected 

by the rulemaking. 

Notice of meeting of negotiated rulemaking 

committee on oil spill response plans.

56 FR 66611 ...................... 12/24/1991 Announced first public meeting of committee 

to be January 8–10, 1992. 

Notice of meetings of negotiated rulemaking 

committee on oil spill response plans and finalization of committee membership.

57 FR 1890 ........................ 1/16/1992 A schedule of four committee meetings was 

released; a previously scheduled meeting 

was cancelled and two additions were 

made to the list of committee participants. 

Notice of additional meetings of the Oil Spill 

Response Plan Negotiated Committee.

57 FR 9402 ........................ 3/18/1992 Announced the addition of a committee meeting on March 26, 1992. 

Notice of proposed rulemaking ........................ 57 FR 44912 ...................... 9/29/1992 Proposed requirement for vessels carrying oil 

in bulk as cargo. 

Proposed rule; extension of comment period 57 FR 48489 ...................... 10/26/1992 Extended comment period ended November 

16, 1992. 

IFR ................................................................... 58 FR 67988 ...................... 12/22/1993 Established requirements for vessels carrying 

oil in bulk as cargo; also required vessels 

to have pre-arranged capability to calculate 

damage stability in case of a casualty. Rule 

also sought further comments and information on emerging technology to help prevent, contain, or remove oil discharges 

from vessels. Comment period ended February 22, 1994. IFR effective on January 

21, 1994. 

IFR correction .................................................. 59 FR 3749 ........................ 1/26/1994 Four corrections made to IFR (58 FR 67988). 

B. Why is this notice of intent 

necessary? 

The Coast Guard is advising the 

public of our intent to finalize 

regulations previously published as an 

IFR on December 22, 1993. The IFR was 

never published as a final rule. Because 

of the lapse in time since the IFR’s 

publication, the Coast Guard is seeking 

comments from the public before 

issuing a final rule. 

IV. Summary of Regulations in the IFR 

Below is a list of the sections in Title 

33 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) part 155 that were amended or 

added by the DRE IFR. 

Section No. Title Amendment 

§ 155.140 ............................. Incorporation by reference .............................................. Revised paragraph (a); in paragraph (b), added an 

entry for International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

Resolution A.535(13). 

§ 155.200 ............................. Definitions ........................................................................ Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.205 ............................. Discharge removal equipment for vessels 400 feet or 

greater in length.

Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.210 ............................. Discharge removal equipment for vessels less than 400 

feet in length.

Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.215 ............................. Discharge removal equipment for inland oil barges ....... Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.220 ............................. Discharge removal equipment for vessels carrying oil 

as secondary cargo.

Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.225 ............................. Internal cargo transfer capability ..................................... Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.230 ............................. Emergency towing capability for oil barges .................... Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.235 ............................. Emergency towing capability for oil tankers ................... Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.240 ............................. Damage stability information for oil tankers and offshore oil barges.Added new section to subpart B. 

§ 155.245 ............................. Damage stability information for inland oil barges ......... Added new section to subpart B.

§ 155.310 ............................. Containment of oil and hazardous material cargo discharges.Revised the section heading and the introductory text 

to paragraph (b); added paragraphs (c) and (d). 

V. Subsequent Changes to the IFR 

Regulations 

Since the publication of the IFR, a 

number of separate rulemaking projects 

and technical amendments have 

modified the sections amended or 

added by the IFR. These subsequent 

amendments were finalized after notice 

in the Federal Register and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Accordingly, these subsequent 

amendments are not the subject of this 

notice of intent (NOI). The subject of 

this NOI is limited to those portions of 

the IFR that have not yet been finalized. 

A summary of the subsequent 

amendments follows. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18154 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Section No. Source(s) of amendment Description of change 

§ 155.140 ........... CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33666, June 28, 1996; CGD 95–028, 62 

FR 51194, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG–1998–4443, 63 FR 

71763, Dec. 30, 1998; USCG–1999–5151, 64 FR 67176, 

Dec. 1, 1999; USCG–2008–0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 

2008; USCG–1998–3417, 73 FR 80648, Dec. 31, 2008, as 

amended by USCG–2001–8661, 74 FR 45026, Aug. 31, 

2009; USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 36285, June 25, 2010.

Periodically updated CG and other addresses, replaced 

emergency towing arrangement guidelines for tankers in 

1997, revised format of section in 2008. 

§ 155.200 ........... USCG–2001–9046, 67 FR 58524, Sept. 17, 2002; 73 FR 

79316, Dec. 29, 2008.

Added definition in 2002, then removed same definition in 

2008. 

§ 155.205 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 64 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.210 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 64 FR 3553, June 30, 1998 ..................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.215 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 64 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.220 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 64 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.225 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 64 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.230 ........... USCG–1998–4443, 65 FR 31811, May 19, 2000, as amended by USCG–2001–8661, 74 FR 45026, Aug. 31, 2009; 

USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 36285, June 25, 2010.

Replaced section in 2000, renamed to emergency control 

systems for tank barges. 

§ 155.235 ........... CGD 95–028, 62 FR 51194, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG–2001– 

8661, 74 FR 45026, Aug. 31, 2009.

Replaced section in 1997 and again in 2009. Revised into 

one paragraph stating emergency towing arrangements 

must be on both ends of oil tankers not less than 20,000 

deadweight tons (dwt). Referenced more recent IMO Maritime Safety Committee resolution. 

§ 155.240 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... In paragraph (a), removed compliance date that had passed; 

and, in paragraph (d), redesignated paragraphs (i), (ii), and 

(iii) as paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) respectively. 

§ 155.245 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... Removed compliance date that had passed. 

§ 155.310 ........... USCG–1998–3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998 ................... Removed compliance date that had passed. 

VI. Discussion of Comments 

The Coast Guard received 38 

comment letters in response to the IFR, 

with about 60 individual comments. No 

public meeting was requested and none 

was held. The comments are grouped 

below into comments related to specific 

33 CFR part 155 DRE sections and 

general comments to the IFR. 

A. Comments on Specific Sections in the 

IFR 

Sections 155.205, 155.210, 155.215, and 

155.220—Carriage of Discharge Removal 

Equipment for On-Deck, Oil-Cargo 

Spills 

The Coast Guard received a number of 

comments on the carriage of DRE for ondeck oil-cargo spills. 

Several commenters suggested 

changes to the quantities of oil specified 

in paragraph (a) of §§ 155.205, 155.210, 

155.215, and 155.220, stating that the 

equipment and supplies must be 

capable of containing and removing oil 

(e.g., 12 barrels of oil for vessels 400 feet 

or greater in length). Two comments 

stated that the quantities specified in 

the IFR were too small, one that the 

quantities were too large, and one that 

they were reasonable. 

We believe that the quantities 

specified strike an appropriate balance 

for the categories of vessels specified, 

and that the distribution of comments 

received supports that view. 

Two comments stated that paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of §§ 155.205, 155.210, 

155.215, and 155.220 should state the 

specific quantity of sorbent and hand 

tools required. These sections presently 

require that the equipment and supplies 

be ‘‘appropriate’’ for the containment 

and removal of the amount of oil 

specified. 

We decided not to require carriage of 

specific quantities of sorbents and hand 

tools because vessel owners or operators 

are best able to determine the quantity 

necessary given variability in cargo 

carriage, operational practices and 

environment, and other factors. 

One comment stated that the IFR did 

not define the term ‘‘contract.’’ 

We disagree. The term ‘‘contract or 

other approved means’’ is defined in 33 

CFR 155.1020. 

Three comments stated that inland oil 

barges engaged in transfer operations 

between the barge and another vessel 

should not rely on the other vessel to 

provide the required DRE. 

We agree. The optional provision to 

allow inland oil barges to rely on other 

means for the required DRE applies only 

to transfer facilities in which the barge 

owner or operator has made 

prearrangements through a contract or 

other approved means. Inland oil barges 

must maintain their own DRE when 

involved in bunkering operations. 

Several comments stated that the 

exclusive transportation of certain 

cargoes, such as animal fats and 

vegetable oils or Grade D and E products 

(see 46 CFR 30.10–15), have a reduced 

risk and should be regulated differently. 

We see the merit of this argument and 

will consider revisions to these sections. 

We seek comments on which specific 

cargoes fall into the reduced risk 

category and in particular how the risk 

is reduced. 

Sections 155.230 and 155.235— 

Emergency Towing Capability 

The Coast Guard received a number of 

comments on emergency towing 

capability. Most of the comments 

related to tankers, whereas three related 

to barges. 

Regarding barges, § 155.230 

(originally titled ‘‘Emergency towing 

capability for oil barges’’) was replaced 

by a separate rulemaking (Emergency 

Control Measures for Tank Barges, 65 

FR 31811, May 19, 2000) which became 

effective on December 11, 2000. Because 

§ 155.230 was completely replaced by 

that final rule after the public had an 

opportunity to comment, we seek no 

further comments on that section. 

Similarly for tankers, § 155.235 was 

replaced, on two separate occasions, by 

two separate rulemakings. The first 

rulemaking, titled ‘‘Harmonization With 

International Safety Standards’’ (62 FR 

51194, September 30, 1997), became 

effective on October 30, 1997. The 

second rulemaking, titled ‘‘Vessel and 

Facility Response Plans for Oil: 2003 

Removal Equipment Requirements and 

Alternative Technology Revisions’’ (74 

FR 45026, August 31, 2009), became 

effective on September 30, 2009. 

Because § 155.235 was completely 

replaced by two final rules after the 

public had an opportunity to comment, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18155 

4Prior to February 25, 2003, the Coast Guard was 

part of the Department of Transportation. Since that 

time, the Coast Guard has been part of the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

we seek no further comments on that 

section. 

Sections 155.240 and 155.245—Damage 

Stability Information 

The Coast Guard received a number of 

comments on damage stability 

information. 

One commenter stated that, for inland 

oil barges, the Coast Guard should allow 

damage stability information to be 

maintained in computerized form 

instead of paper form. 

Nothing in the current regulation 

prohibits this. Section 155.245 requires 

that the plans for an inland tank barge 

be readily available for use in salvage, 

stability, and residual strength 

calculations. However, the regulation 

does not specify the form of the plans 

(e.g., paper or electronic). As currently 

written, there is nothing in the 

regulation that requires—or precludes— 

the plans being in either form; operators 

may use whichever is most convenient. 

Two commenters stated that the 

damage stability information 

requirement for oil tankers should only 

apply to larger oil tankers. 

We disagree. The ability to perform 

stability and strength calculations as 

quickly as possible is appropriate for all 

46 CFR Subchapter D tank vessels (ships 

and barges) on ocean and coastwise 

routes—regardless of vessel size—to 

minimize the risk of subsequent spills 

during the salvage response. 

Section 155.240 requires owners or 

operators of 46 CFR Subchapter D tank 

vessels to ensure that they have prearranged, prompt access to 

computerized, shore-based damage 

stability and residual structural strength 

calculation programs. Pre-loading vessel 

information into computer programs 

allows for faster analytic support in 

casualty situations. This is because time 

is of the essence in these circumstances, 

especially for offshore locations where 

tidal levels or sea conditions can change 

significantly in short order. This 

rationale applies to oil tankers, 

regardless of vessel size. 

One commenter stated that the Coast 

Guard went beyond the 

recommendation of the regulatory 

negotiation committee (Committee) by 

requiring that computerized damage 

stability information for oil tankers be 

kept on shore. 

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 

U.S.C. 561 et seq.) permits an agency to 

establish a negotiated rulemaking 

committee to negotiate and develop a 

proposed rule. Nothing in the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Act requires an 

agency to adopt a negotiated rulemaking 

committee’s recommendation as a final 

rule. 

The DRE NPRM referred to the 

Committee recommendation that an 

owner or operator of a tanker, offshore 

tank barge, or coastal tank barge have 

prearranged, prompt access to 

computerized on-board or shore-based 

damage stability and residual structural 

strength calculation programs. 57 FR 

44916. 

Based on subsequent analysis, the 

Coast Guard determined that 

computerized damage stability 

information should be specifically 

available ashore. This is to ensure that 

information is available if the 

information aboard the vessel is 

destroyed or inaccessible. The Coast 

Guard included this requirement in the 

IFR and intends to finalize this 

requirement in the final rule. 

Additionally, a requirement for 

computerized shore-based damage 

stability information is also found in the 

Tank Vessel Response Plans for Oil 

regulations (see 33 CFR 

155.1035(c)(11)(ii) and 

155.1040(c)(10)(ii)). 

Section 155.310—Deck Edge Coamings 

for On-Deck Spills 

The Coast Guard received a number of 

comments on deck edge coamings for 

on-deck spills. 

One commenter stated that the term 

‘‘peripheral coamings’’ in § 155.310(c) 

may be misinterpreted and be applied to 

areas beyond the cargo deck area. 

We have reviewed the use of the term 

‘‘peripheral coamings’’ and believe that 

§ 155.310(c) clearly delineates the 

boundaries of the required coamings. 

Two commenters stated that coamings 

may present a safety hazard for vessels 

operating for prolonged periods in 

freezing weather. 

We agree in part. The Coast Guard 

recognizes the special difficulties and 

hazards posed by the buildup of ice 

through prolonged periods of operation 

in freezing weather. Depending upon 

the particulars of a vessel, the owner or 

operator may find the need to request an 

exemption from these requirements 

under 33 CFR 155.130. 

One commenter stated that the 

requirement to install coamings should 

apply only to vessels that carry oil and 

not to those that are certificated to carry 

both oil and hazardous materials, but 

actually carry only hazardous materials. 

We disagree. If a vessel is certificated 

to carry oil, the vessel must be outfitted 

to meet all of the requirements for the 

carriage of oil. 

One commenter stated that the 

coaming-containment capacity should 

be raised. Another two commenters 

stated that the containment capacity 

should be lowered for certain vessels. 

We believe that the coaming 

containment capacities specified strike 

an appropriate balance between the size 

of a vessel and the areas of operation, 

and that the distribution of comments 

received supports that view. 

One commenter stated that 

alternatives to peripheral coamings 

should be allowed on tank vessels 

carrying animal fats, vegetable oils, or 

non-persistent oils, but offered no 

specific alternative. 

Absent a specific alternative to 

evaluate, we disagree and believe that 

peripheral coamings are an appropriate 

element of the pollution prevention 

regime for preventing on-deck spills of 

any oil type from reaching the marine 

environment. 

B. General Comments 

On-Water Containment and Removal 

Equipment 

The IFR asked for additional 

information on major spill prevention 

and response equipment, such as 

booms, skimmers, and temporary 

storage devices designed to be carried 

on board vessels. It specifically 

requested information on the 

appropriateness of this equipment, on 

the technological and economic 

feasibility of requiring this equipment, 

and on the compatibility of this 

equipment with safe vessel operation. 

We received 18 responses to this 

request. Ten responses were in support 

of the carriage of major equipment on 

board vessels, and eight responses were 

against the concept. Of the ten 

responses in support, eight were from 

vessel-based equipment developers. Of 

the eight responses in opposition, all 

were vessel operators or organizations 

that represented vessel operators. 

Section 310 of the Coast Guard 

Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103– 

206) required the Secretary of 

Transportation 4 to review and evaluate 

these technologies, and to submit a 

report to Congress with 

recommendations on the feasibility and 

environmental benefits of requiring tank 

vessels to carry oil spill prevention and 

response equipment. The DRE IFR 

provided a means to obtain that 

information. 

On September 8, 1998, the Coast 

Guard issued a report to Congress, titled 

‘‘Feasibility and Environmental Benefits 

Associated with Requiring Oil Spill 

Response Equipment on Tank Vessels.’’ 

A copy of that report is available in the 

docket where indicated under the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18156 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this notice. 

In that report the Coast Guard 

concluded that while it may be 

technologically feasible to carry and 

deploy oil spill response equipment 

aboard a tank vessel without risking the 

safety of the crew, the practical 

limitations of the equipment in oil spill 

response make it economically, 

environmentally, and technologically 

unfeasible to require tank vessels to 

carry the equipment. The Coast Guard 

further concluded, in consideration of 

the practical limitations on the 

equipment’s effectiveness in spill 

response, that vessel-based equipment 

should not be required for tank vessels 

and, if carried, should not be credited 

against their required response 

capabilities given those limitations. 

We continue to believe that shorebased response equipment is the 

preferred method for responding to 

actual or potential on-water oil spills. 

We do not believe that tank vessels 

should be required to carry major 

prevention and response equipment. 

Spill-Tracking Devices 

We received three comments on 

devices for tracking the movement of 

spills. Two commenters stated that the 

carriage of some form of spill tracking 

device should be required. One 

commenter stated that, if a spill tracking 

device were required, a national or 

international standard should be 

adopted first so that a vessel need carry 

only one type of device throughout its 

operating area. 

Since the IFR was published, oil spill 

tracking requirements for tank vessels 

have changed. In the rulemaking titled 

‘‘Vessel and Facility Response Plans for 

Oil: 2003 Removal Equipment 

Requirements and Alternative 

Technology Revisions’’ (74 FR 45026, 

August 31, 2009), owners and operators 

of tank vessels operating in oceans and 

coastal waters must identify in their 

response plans, and ensure availability 

through contract or other approved 

means, response resources necessary to 

provide aerial oil tracking to support oil 

spill assessment and cleanup activities 

(see 33 CFR 155.1050(l)). 

We believe that this response plan 

requirement is sufficient in the area of 

oil spill tracking, and therefore seek no 

further comments on this topic. 

Preemption 

Two commenters stated that the Coast 

Guard lacks the authority under OPA 90 

to preempt more stringent state 

requirements related to DRE. 

We disagree. It is well settled that 

States may not regulate in categories 

reserved for regulation by the Coast 

Guard. It is also well settled, now, that 

all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 

3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, 

construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, 

personnel qualification, and manning of 

vessels), as well as the reporting of 

casualties and any other category in 

which Congress intended the Coast 

Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s 

obligations, are within the field 

foreclosed from regulation by the States. 

(See the decision of the Supreme Court 

in the consolidated cases of United 

States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 

529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 

2000)). Here, the Coast Guard is 

promulgating regulations to require 

discharge removal equipment for vessels 

operating on the navigable waters of the 

U.S. and that are carrying oil in bulk as 

cargo or cargo residue, which will 

improve safety. Because States may not 

promulgate rules within this category, 

preemption is not an issue. 

Oil Spill Response Vessels 

One commenter stated that we should 

clarify whether this rule applies to a 

dedicated oil spill response vessel 

(OSRV). 

We wish to clarify that this rule does 

not apply to a dedicated OSRV when 

conducting response operations in the 

response area. 

Inland Oil Barges on Limited Offshore 

Routes 

One comment stated that the rule 

should allow barges operating offshore 

under a special Certificate of Inspection 

(COI) endorsement for limited offshore/ 

coastwise routes during fair weather to 

be equipped under the inland oil barge 

requirements in § 155.215. 

We agree, and note that this 

suggestion is similar to the requirements 

for emergency control measures for tank 

barges added on May 19, 2000. The 

current regulations provide that if a tank 

barge has its COI limited to not exceed 

the restrictions in §§ 155.230(a)(1) 

(territorial sea) or 155.230(a)(2) (Great 

Lakes), then it may be equipped under 

the inland oil barge requirements in 

§ 155.215. 

VII. Supporting Analyses 

Additionally, in this NOI we seek 

comments in two other areas. First, we 

seek comments on the Regulatory 

Assessment. Second, we seek comments 

on the Environment section. 

A. Regulatory Assessment 

The IFR was accompanied by a 

Regulatory Evaluation (RE) (a copy is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

notice). Due to the amount of time that 

has passed since the IFR and RE were 

published, we seek current information 

related to the cost of compliance with 

certain sections of the DRE 

requirements. Please note that we are 

not seeking comments concerned with 

emergency towing equipment cost data 

or other portions of the IFR that have 

since been finalized through other 

rulemakings after the public has had an 

opportunity to comment. 

The table below shows the elements 

on which we are seeking comment, the 

units in which we measure them, the 

relevant chapter of the IFR’s RE, and the 

Coast Guard’s estimate of the cost. 

DRE COST DATA TABLE

Element Units IFR RE basis 

USCG 

estimate of 

cost per unit 

Coaming ................................................................................................... $/Linear feet ................................... Chapter 4 .......... $20–25 

55 gal Drum containing oil products/sorbents ......................................... 55 gallon drum ............................... Chapter 4 .......... 200 

Flex bin 1 yard box (4 55 gallon drum) ................................................... 55 gallon drum ............................... Chapter 4 ......... 460 

Bulk double bagged oil/sorbents $260/ton .............................................. ton ................................................... Chapter 4 .......... 260 

Containment Boom .................................................................................. Linear feet ...................................... Chapter 5 ......... 15–35 

Storage .................................................................................................... Cubic feet ....................................... Chapter 5 ......... 5 

20-foot Work Boat .................................................................................... $/boat .............................................. Chapter 5 ......... 40,000 

Work Boat Home Support Equipment ..................................................... $/boat .............................................. Chapter 5 .......... 35,000 

Training .................................................................................................... $/vessel/year .................................. Chapter 5 .......... 500 

Maintenance and Repair ......................................................................... ......................................................... Chapter 5 ......... ........................

Tanker’s Storage Shed ............................................................................ $/year .............................................. Chapter 5 .......... 300–1,600 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18157 

DRE COST DATA TABLE—Continued 

Element Units IFR RE basis 

USCG 

estimate of 

cost per unit 

Barge’s Storage Shed ............................................................................. $/year .............................................. Chapter 5 ......... 200–1,300 

Boat .......................................................................................................... $/year .............................................. Chapter 5 .......... 5,000 

Source Control Equipment ...................................................................... ......................................................... Chapter 6 ......... ........................

Submersible Pumping Kit ........................................................................ $/kit ................................................. Chapter 6 .......... 141,000 

Additionally, we seek comment on 

the following items: 

(1) Please describe your 

implementation of DRE and how you 

have invested in the following: 

(a) Operational deck spill capability; 

(b) Warehouse equipment capability; 

and 

(c) Source control equipment. 

(2) Have you needed to use the 

equipment referenced in question (1) in 

any operational situation? If so— 

(a) Please describe the situation; 

(b) What issues did you encounter in 

that implementation?; and 

(c) What recommendations do you 

have in improving that implementation? 

(3) Please describe the maintenance 

requirements associated with the 

equipment referenced in question (1). 

(4) What issues have you encountered 

in implementing the IFR? 

(5) How long did it take you to 

implement the IFR? 

(6) Are you a small business, 

according to the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes? 

(7) What issues did you encounter 

with regard to similar rules regarding 

the implementation of the other OPA 90 

requirements and the implementation of 

the DRE IFR? 

(a) Were there issues with 

complementary implementation? 

(b) Were there issues with crosspurpose implementation? 

(8) How do you work together with 

the oil spill removal organizations 

(OSROs), in planning for, or responding 

to, an incident? 

(9) What is the vessel type (i.e. tanker, 

offshore barge, etc.) and size (i.e. length 

of vessel) for the data above? 

To facilitate public input, we have 

placed in the docket a questionnaire 

labeled ‘‘Discharge Removal Equipment 

(DRE) Cost Data Template.’’ We request 

that individuals or organizations with 

knowledge of the cost of compliance use 

the template to provide input via the 

docket. However, you are not required 

to use this format when submitting 

comments. 

B. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

notice. This rule involves regulations 

concerning the equipping of vessels. In 

addition, it implements a Congressional 

mandate (section 4202(a) of OPA 90). 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

At the IFR stage, an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) were placed 

in the docket for this rulemaking. No 

comments were received on the EA or 

the FONSI. 

VIII. Intent To Finalize; Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard invites further 

comments regarding the finalization of 

the IFR provisions that have not yet 

been finalized. Specifically, we seek 

comments on three topics— 

• DRE requirements (except for 

§§ 155.140, 155.230 and 155.235 as 

these sections were superseded by 

subsequent rulemakings); 

• Regulatory Assessment; and 

• Environmental Impact. 

Written comments and responses will 

be added to the docket for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2011–0430). Upon 

close of the comment period, the Coast 

Guard will consider all comments 

received before finalizing the DRE 

rulemaking. 

Dated: February 22, 2012. 

J. G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial, Regulations and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7344 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040: 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AX75 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha 

(Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque phacelia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the July 27, 2011, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa 

skyrocket), Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque phacelia) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis, 

a draft environmental assessment, and 

an amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We also propose 

to revise critical habitat unit boundaries 

for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4, 

and for Phacelia submutica units 6, 7, 

and 9. Finally, we announce some 

potential additional areas being 

considered for exclusion from critical 

habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3. We 

are reopening the comment period for 

the proposal to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

the associated draft economic analysis 

(DEA), and draft environmental 

assessment (Draft EA), and the amended 

required determinations section. If you 

submitted comments previously, you do 

not need to resubmit them because we 

have already incorporated them into the 

public record and will fully consider 

them in preparation of the final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS