Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3861

A. Background

On April 12, 1989, President Bush

issued Executive Order (E.O.) 12674,

‘‘Principles of Ethical Conduct for

Government Officers and Employees.’’

Section 201(a) of E.O. 12674 made the

Office of Government Ethics (OGE)

responsible for promulgating ‘‘a single,

comprehensive, and clear set of

executive-branch standards of conduct

that shall be objective, reasonable, and

enforceable.’’

The OGE issued uniform standards of

ethical conduct for all employees of the

executive branch, codified at 5 CFR Part

2635, on August 7, 1992 (57 FR 35006).

These regulations became effective on

February 3, 1993.

Section 301(a) of E.O. 12674 allows

agency heads to supplement, where

necessary and appropriate, the OGE

standards of conduct. The Secretary of

Defense, in consultation and

conjunction with the OGE, issued

supplemental ethical rules applicable to

all Department of Defense (DOD)

Components in August 1993. These

supplemental rules, codified in 32 CFR

Parts 83 and 84, state that the DOD

‘‘shall have a single source of standards

of ethical conduct and ethics guidance,

including direction in the areas of

financial and employment disclosure

systems, post-employment rules,

enforcement, and training.’’ See, 32 CFR

83.4(a) and 84.1(a).

With promulgation of the OGE

regulations and the DOD ‘‘Joint Ethics

Regulation,’’ the DON’s standards of

conduct contained in 32 CFR part 721

have been completely superseded. The

Secretary of the Navy formally cancelled

the DON’s standards of conduct

instruction on April 11, 1997. For these

reasons, the Navy is now removing and

reserving 32 CFR part 721.

Similarly, the rule contained in 32

CFR part 722 no longer has any meaning

or effect. Part 722 contains requirements

and procedures for the filing of form DD

1787 by certain present, former or

retired DON personnel in reporting

employment with DOD prime

contractors. Authority for this rule was

formerly found in 10 U.S.C. 2397. The

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1997 (Pub. L. 104–106, Sec.

4304) repealed this statutory provision.

The reporting requirement that this Part

implements no longer exists.

B. Determination to Remove Without

Prior Public Comment

This removal action is being issued as

a final rule, without a public comment

period, as an exception to the DON’s

standard practice of soliciting comments

during the rulemaking process.

Providing a period of public comment

in this case would be unnecessary,

impracticable, and contrary to the

public interest. This determination is

based on several factors. First, removal

of these Parts is entirely administrative

and corrective in nature, not requiring

the exercise of agency discretion.

Second, this action has already been

substantially delayed, and further delay

is unwarranted. Finally, to allow these

Parts to remain in the Code of Federal

Regulations any longer may mislead and

confuse the public and past or present

DON employees regarding applicable

ethics rules and post-government

employment reporting requirements.

C. Matters of Regulatory Procedure

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

Removal of these Parts does not meet

the definition of ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Removal of these Parts will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6).

Paperwork Reduction Act

Removal of these rules will not

impose collection of information

requirements for purposes of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35, 5 CFR Part 1320).

List of Subjects

32 CFR Part 721

Conflict of interests, Government

employees, Military personnel,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

32 CFR Part 722

Conflict of interests, Government

contracts, Government employees,

Military personnel, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

PARTS 721 AND 722—[REMOVED AND

RESERVED]

Under the authority of Sec. 4304,

Public Law 104–106, 110 Stat. 186, and

E.O. 12674, and for the reasons set forth

in the preamble, remove and reserve

parts 721 and 722 of title 32 of the Code

of Federal Regulations.

Dated: January 13, 1998.

Michael I. Quinn,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–1922 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 154 and 155

[USCG–98–3350]

Review of Cap Increases; Response

Plans for Marine Transportationrelated (MTR) Facilities and Tank

Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: Current Coast Guard response

plan regulations for MTR facilities and

tank vessels contain requirements for

on-water oil removal capacity (referred

to as caps) that plan-holders

transporting or transferring groups I

through IV petroleum oil are required to

meet in planning for a worst case

discharge. The original caps were set in

1993 and were scheduled to increase by

25% on February 18, 1998, provided the

Coast Guard completed a review of the

cap increases and determined the cap

increases were practicable. The Coast

Guard’s review of the cap increases is

on-going. Therefore, the Coast Guard

will not implement the cap increases as

originally scheduled, and the 1993 caps

will remain in effect pending the results

of the review. The Coast Guard requests

comments on the practicability of the

cap increases.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management Facility,

[USCG–98–3350], U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401, located on the Plaza Level of

the Nassif Building at the same address

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

request for information. Comments, and

documents as indicated in this

preamble, will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL–401,

located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif

Building at the above address between

10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You

may also access the public docket on the

internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR John Caplis, Project Manager,

Office of Response (G–MOR), at 202–

267–6922; e-mail:
3862 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

jcaplis@comdt.uscg.mil. Note:

Comments to the docket may only be

accepted by mail to the address under

ADDRESSES. This telephone is equipped

to record messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

The regulatory history for these

regulations are recounted in the

preambles of the final rules entitled

‘‘Vessel Response Plans’’ (61 FR 1052,

January 12, 1996) and ‘‘Response Plans

for Marine Transportation-Related

Facilities’’ (61 FR 7890, February 29,

1996).

Background and Purpose

One important goal of the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) is to

increase the overall oil spill response

capability in the United States. To

achieve this goal, minimum on-water oil

removal capacities were developed

through two rulemakings and public

meetings, including Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee meetings. As a

result, 33 CFR 154.1045(m) and 33 CFR

155.1050(o) set out caps which an

owner or operator must ensure

available, through contract or other

approved means, in planning for a worst

case discharge. These caps were

established taking into account 1993

technology and availability of response

resources.

In 1993, the Coast Guard set the caps

at the present levels based on the

following reasons. First, in many

geographic areas of the U.S., on-water

recovery capability and containment

and protection resources simply did not

exist for responding to a large spill—

especially from a very large or ultra

large crude carrier. Second, the Coast

Guard believed Congress intended to

encourage the development and

enlargement of the response

community, but not to cause significant,

adverse economic impacts. To support

this, the Coast Guard set a nationwide

criteria as opposed to geographicspecific criteria as an incentive to

improve the overall response capability

in the United States. Third, the caps

acknowledged a reasonable and

practical limit to the amount of 1993

technology resources that could be

constructively used during the first

stages of a spill response. Lastly, the

Coast Guard intended that the caps

would ensure a baseline recovery

capability, and would not limit the

resources brought to bear during an

actual oil discharge. Owners or

operators were and still are expected to

activate the response resources

necessary for the particular

circumstances of any spill, regardless of

what has been contracted for the

advance.

The 1998 cap, a 25% increase from

the 1993 levels, was proposed as a

planning target for increasing response

capabilities. This increase was

discussed by the Vessel Response Plan

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee as an

incentive to expand response

capabilities within the United States to

an obtainable and desirable level by

1998. The Coast Guard concurred with

the recommendation from the

Committee to evaluate the proposed cap

increase before the increase would be

implemented to determine if it remains

practicable.

The Coast Guard believes that in

certain geographic areas existing

response capabilities already exceed the

1998 proposed cap. Several states have

enacted state requirements that meet or

exceed the 1998 caps. However, the

Coast Guard understands that in other

regions plan-holders may have great

difficulty in meeting the 1998 increase.

Additionally, the Coast Guard believes,

since 1993, significant advances have

occurred in the use and availability of

high rate response techniques and

technology within the United States.

The Coast Guard intends to take into

account these factors when reassessing

the 1998 cap.

Reason for Equipment Caps Review

In accordance with the regulations 33

CFR 154.1045(n) and 33 CFR

155.1050(p), the Coast Guard is required

to conduct a review of the 25% cap

increase. During the review, which is

ongoing, the Coast Guard will determine

if the increase is practicable; if not, the

Coast Guard will propose an alternative

cap which may be higher or lower. The

review is to include, but not be limited

to, the following topics:

a. Increases in skimming efficiencies

and improvements in design

technologies;

b. Advances in oil tracking

technology;

c. Improvements in high rate response

techniques;

d. Other applicable technologies;

e. Increases in the availability of

private response resources.

The regulations also state that the

scheduled cap increase would occur on

February 18, 1998, unless the review is

not completed by the Coast Guard. The

Coast Guard can not complete the

review by February 18, 1998, and will

not implement the cap increase as

scheduled. Any changes or additional

requirements will occur through the

public notice and comment process and

will not become effective until 90 days

after publication of a Federal Register

notice reporting the results of the

review.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to submit specific

comments with regard to the

requirements of 33 CFR 154.1045(m)

and 33 CFR 155.1050(o). The Coast

Guard is seeking comments to

determine if the proposed increase to

the cap remains practicable. Responses

to the following questions regarding the

proposed cap increase will be helpful in

determining the practicality of these

requirements:

(1) Is a 25% cap increase practicable?

Nationally? Regionally?

(2) Have there been advances or

improvements in the efficiency of

mechanical recovery designs that

should be considered in determining a

new cap?

(3) Have there been improvements in

oil tracking technologies that should be

considered in determining a new cap?

(4) Have there been improvements in

high rate response technologies such as

dispersants, in situ burning, etc., that

should be considered in determining a

new cap?

(5) Have there been large increases in

the availability of private resources

within specific regions of the country?

Persons submitting comments should

include their name and address, identify

this request for information (USCG 98–

XXX), and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit two copies of

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing, to the DOT Docket

Management Facility at the address

under ADDRESSES. If you want

acknowledgment of receipt of your

comments, enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

received during the comment period,

and may propose a new cap based on

the comments.

Dated: January 21, 1998.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–1887 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M