Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 54639

approvals, denials and foreign

regulations.

4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign

policy controls that would (if there are

any differences) bring them more into

line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions as to

actions that would make multilateral

controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the

effect of foreign policy controls on the

trade or acquisitions by intended targets

of the controls.

7. Data or other information as to the

effect of foreign policy controls on

overall trade, either for individual firms

or for individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions as to how to measure

the effect of foreign policy controls on

trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign

policy controls on targeted countries,

entities, or individuals.

BXA is also interested in comments

relating generally to the extension or

revision of existing foreign policy

controls. Parties submitting comments

are asked to be as specific as possible.

All comments received before the close

of the comment period will be

considered by BXA in reviewing the

controls and developing the report to

Congress.

BXA will consider requests for

confidential treatment. The information

for which confidential treatment is

requested should be submitted to BXA

separate from any non-confidential

information submitted. The top of each

page should be marked with the term

‘‘Confidential Information.’’ BXA will

either accept the submission in

confidence, or if the submission fails to

meet the standards for confidential

treatment, will return it. A nonconfidential summary must accompany

such submissions of confidential

information. The summary will be made

available for public inspection.

Information accepted by BXA as

confidential will be protected from

public disclosure to the extent

permitted by law. Communications

between agencies of the United States

Government or with foreign

governments will not be made available

for public inspection.

All other information relating to the

notice will be a matter of public record

and will be available for public

inspection and copying. In the interest

of accuracy and completeness, BXA

requires written comments. Oral

comments must be followed by written

memoranda, which will also be a matter

of public record and will be available

for public review and copying.

The public record concerning these

comments will be maintained in the

Freedom of Information Records

Inspection Facility, Room 4525, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Records in this

facility, including written public

comments and memoranda

summarizing the substance of oral

communications, may be inspected and

copied in accordance with regulations

published in Part 4 of Title 15 of the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Information about inspection and

copying of records at this facility may be

obtained from Margaret Cornejo, BXA

Freedom of Information Officer, at the

above address or by calling (202) 482–

2593.

Dated: October 5, 1998.

R. Roger Majak,

Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–27390 Filed 10–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD1–98–151]

RIN 2115–AE84

Regulated Navigation Area: Navigable

Waters Within the First Coast Guard

District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish a permanent Regulated

Navigation Area (RNA) within the

navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District to increase operational

safety for towing vessels and tank

barges. The proposed rule would require

four sets of measure for towing vessels

and tank barges operating in the waters

of the Northeastern United States,

including positive control for barges,

enhanced communications, voyage

planning, and areas of restricted

navigation. These measures should

reduce the risk of oil spills from the

many tank barges operating in the

waters of the region, and so too reduce

the risk of environmental damage to the

unique and extremely sensitive marine

environment.

DATES: Comments must arrive on or

before November 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or deliver

comments to Commander (m), First

Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,

Boston, MA 02210–3350. The First

District Commander maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments, and documents, as indicated

in this preamble, will become part of

this docket and will be available for

inspection and copying at the same

address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Rich Klein, c/o Commander

(m), First Coast Guard District, 408

Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02210–3350;

telephone 617–223–8243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their name

and address, identify this rulemaking

(CGD1–98–151) and the specific section

of this document to which each

comment applies, and give a reason for

each comment. Please submit all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying. Persons

wanting acknowledgement of receipt of

comments should enclose stamped, selfaddressed postcards or envelopes. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

received during the comment period. It

may change this proposed rule in view

of the comments.

No public meeting is planned.

Persons may request a public meeting

by writing to the Project Officer at the

address listed under ADDRESSES. If it is

determined that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid in this

rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold

a public meeting at a time and place

announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

This rulemaking is proposed to

improve the navigational safety for

towing vessels and tank barges

operating in the waters of the

Northeastern United States. Between

January 1992 and December 1996, there

have been 289 marine casualties

involving tank barges in the First Coast

Guard District. Not all of these

casualties were major or significant, but

several resulted in oil spills.

During 1996 and 1997, there were 12

marine casualties involving engine

failure with tugs while they were towing

tank barges in the waters of the First

Coast Guard District. At least four of

those tank barges were loaded with a

combined cargo totaling about 21

million gallons of petroleum products.
54640 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

In each of the 12 instances, the towing

vessel was able to mitigate the casualty

by switching propulsion to the second

engine that was sufficient to control the

barge. None of the casualties resulted in

any pollution.

A recent history of towing vessel

casualties is described below, some of

which were potential major pollution

incidents.

On January 5, 1994, a tug lost control

of its loaded tank barge, spilling 4,200

gallons of gasoline into the East River,

New York.

On April 7, 1994, a steering gear

failure aboard a tug caused a loaded

tank barge to ground in New Haven

harbor, while carrying a cargo of 2.1

million gallons of gasoline.

On February 9, 1995, a tug lost control

of a tank barge loaded with 714,000

gallons of fuel oil near East Rockaway

Inlet, New York.

On April 6, 1995, a tug lost control of

a tank barge loaded with 5,376,000

gallons of No. 2 oil in the East River,

New York.

On January 19, 1996, off the coast of

Rhode Island, the tug SCANDIA was

towing the loaded single-hull tank barge

NORTH CAPE. During the voyage the

tug caught fire causing the crew to

abandon the vessel during a severe

winter storm. The barge grounded on

Moonstone Beach spilling about 828,000

gallons of No. 2 oil into Rhode Island

Sound.

On February 12, 1996, a tug lost

control of a tank barge in the East River,

New York, spilling 4,415 gallons of No.

2 oil into Long Island Sound.

On August 25, 1998, a loaded tank

barge was set adrift off the Rhode Island

coast when the towing hawser was cut

by a passing vessel. A potential major

pollution incident was avoided when an

assist tug arrived to take the barge under

control.

Development of the Regional Risk

Assessment Team (RRAT) Report

On June 5 and 6, 1996, the

commander of the First Coast Guard

District hosted a two-day Workshop on

Safety of Towing Vessels and Tank

Barges at the Massachusetts Maritime

Academy. Nearly 150 people gathered to

discuss goals for the safety of the marine

environment, and economic and

operational considerations of the tank

barge industry in the Northeast. The

participants represented the Coast

Guard, the industry, the States of New

York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and

Maine, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and various

environmental interests.

The RRAT was chartered and

established by the American Waterways

Operators and Coast Guard National

Quality Steering Committee on July 10,

1996. The 25-member team, with similar

representative stakeholders from the

two-day workshop, conducted a risk

assessment of the tank barge

transportation network in the

Northeastern United States, The RRAT’s

report, completed February 6, 1997,

examined current operational and

navigational practices for towing vessels

and tank barges operating in the

Northeast. Although it did not evaluate

the measures for cost-effectiveness, it

developed ten measures to improve the

safe navigation of these vessels, eight of

which were recommended for

rulemaking. This rulemaking proposes

four of those eight measures that are

within the authority of the First District

Commander to address. The remaining

recommendations for rulemaking will

be addressed as the subject of national

rulemaking.

This rulemaking takes a regional

approach responsive to the particular

risks inherent in the transportation of

petroleum products on the waterways in

the Northeastern United States. The

network of sounds, estuaries, coastal

ponds, and shallow coastal shelves

hosts one of the most prolific habitats

for marine life in the nation. This

sensitive region contains 4 of the 20

Estuaries of National Significance,

designated by Section 320 of the Federal

Clean Water Act—Long Island Sound,

Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, and

Casco Bay—and 5 of the 22 National

Estuarine Research Reserves established

to monitor the health of the nation’s

most valued estuaries. Moreover, the

shelves encompassing the Great South

Channel, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape

Cod Bay provide the seasonal habitat for

the Northern Right Whale, one of the

world’s most endangered species of

whale with a population of only about

300. One of the whale’s primary food

sources, plankton, is particularly

susceptible to damage from oil spills.

In addition, the fishing grounds of the

Northeastern United States are among

the most productive in the world. It is

estimated that over 25,000 vessels are

employed in the Northwest Atlantic

Ocean fisheries trade. The threat to the

productive fishing grounds from a tank

barge spill further supports the need for

the measures proposed here.

In the aftermath of the NORTH CAPE

oil spill, several states in the Northeast

have drafted or enacted legislation to

regulate the tank barge industry. The

Rhode Island legislature enacted an Oil

Spill Pollution Prevention and Control

Act, which it amended with a Tank

Vessel Safety Act (codified as Chapter

32 of its Public Laws). Further, Maine

officials are considering a legislative

initiative to regulate the petroleum

transportation industry. The States’

differing legislative initiatives may

result in inconsistent regulation of the

industry.

The several operating conditions

proposed in this rule are intended to

reduce the risks to the marine

environment posed by tank barges

transporting oil in the region without

imposing undue economic burden on

the industry.

Discussion of RRAT Recommendations

Each of the RRAT recommendations

are summarized below.

1. Manning

For vessel manning, the RRAT

recommended that barges being pushed,

or being towed alongside the towing

vessel, be considered as the equivalent

to being a manned barge if the towing

vessel has a certified individual in

excess of the required manning on the

towing vessel. This recommendation

impacts lifesaving equipment and

shipboard habitability issues that are

required for manned barges. As such, it

is the subject of national rulemaking.

2. Anchoring and Barge Retrieval

System

The RRAT recommended

requirements for anchoring and barge

retrieval systems for manned and

unmanned barges operating in the

Northeast. These requirements are the

subject of the national rulemaking

addressing emergency control systems

for tank barges. See 62 FR 52057 (Oct.

6, 1997).

3. Navigational Safety Equipment

Aboard Towing Vessels

The RRAT recommended—

(a) The extension of the navigational

safety equipment requirements for

towing vessels in 33 CFR part 164 to

include all waters beyond three miles,

and not just the navigable waters of the

Northeast; and

(b) A requirement for Differential

Global Positioning System (DGPS) on

towing vessels operating in all waters of

the Northeast.

This recommendation is being

addressed separately by Commandant

(G–M).

4. Lightering Activities

The RRAT referred to the existing

regulations contained at 33 CFR part

156, subpart B, governing lightering,

and recommended only that individual

Captain of the Ports (COTP) develop

guidelines that reflect the best

recognized practices for lightering of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 54641

petroleum products in their areas of

responsibility.

5. Double-Hull Tank Barges

The RRAT acknowledged the

expected benefits from the use of

double-hull tank barges but deferred

recommendations until after the

National Research Council’s review,

conducted in accordance with section

4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,

Pub. L. 101–380 (OPA 90), of the

economic and operational impacts of

the double-hull requirement on the

marine petroleum transportation

industry. Subsequently published in

November 1997, after the RRAT

recommendations, the report of the

National Research Council did not

recommend any change to the phase-out

schedule for single-hull tank vessels

established by OPA 90.

6. Crew Fatigue: The Human Factor

The RRAT recommended providing

human factors awareness training to

operational and management personnel

every two years and ensuring that

records of the training be kept for a

period of two years.

The human factor, specifically as it

relates to crew fatigue, is a national

issue. Commandant (G–M), through the

Coast Guard Research and Development

Center, is currently conducting a study

to develop measures that counteract

crew fatigue in the towing industry.

This Coast Guard study,

‘‘Watchstanding Alertness in Towing

Operations,’’ will examine the nature

and extent of fatigue among towing

vessel crews. Following analysis of the

data, measures will be recommended

that the towing industry can implement

to counteract crew fatigue. The results

will be presented to the Towing Safety

Advisory Committee.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The First District Commander has

limited delegated authority to impose

operational requirements based upon

circumstances peculiar to his

jurisdiction. Design, construction, or

equipment standards are generally

subject to national standards. This

proposed rule would require four

operational measures to improve the

safety of towing vessels and petroleum

laden tank barges operating on the

navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District.

1. Positive Control for Barges

This proposal would require vessels

towing single-hull tank barges carrying

petroleum oil as cargo in bulk, to be

equipped with twin-screws and two

engines while operating on the

navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District. Each engine must—

(a) Be independent of the other; and

(b) Be capable of maintaining the

navigational control of the tank barge in

the event of a casualty to the other

engine. Under the proposed rule, the

use of double-hull tank barges precludes

the need for twin-screw, twin engine

tugs as a primary towing vessel. Doublehull vessels provide a greater level of

protection than single-hull vessels.

Further, single-hull vessels are being

phased-out in accordance with OPA 90.

Therefore, the present use of doublehulls is a sufficient measure of

protection under the proposed rule.

The requirements of the proposed rule

for twin screws and two engines would

supplement the language used in 33

CFR 157.460. That rule requires certain

vessels to be equipped with twin-screw

propulsion unless they have installed

alternative steering systems. This

proposed rule would require that all

towing vessels not equipped with twinscrew propulsion and two engines, and

engaged in towing single-hull tank

barges carrying petroleum oil in bulk on

the navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District, must operate with an

escort or assist tug, or provide an

equivalent means of positive control for

the barges acceptable to the COTP,

regardless of any secondary or

alternative steering system. Unless the

bank barge meets the definition of a

double-hull vessel in 33 CFR 157.03, it

is a single-hull vessel. The Coast Guard

believes that the operational conditions

proposed in this rule would

significantly reduce the likelihood of an

oil spill.

Most of the vessels towing tank barges

in the Northeast are already of the twinscrew propulsion, two-engine type. This

propulsion redundancy ensures a

backup system in the event of engine

failure or fouling of one screw. The

Coast Guard would require an escort or

assist tug in those instances when only

a single-screw towing vessel is towing a

single-hull tank barge. Such an

alternative would enhance safety and

reduce the risk of oil pollution to the

marine environment.

On certain restricted routes, however,

limited channel depths and widths may

make application of these standards

impracticable. In these instances, the

COTP may grant exemptions upon

application and consideration.

Additionally, this proposed rule

would require the immediate calling of

additional resources to assist a towing

vessel towing any tank barge if either

the tank barge or towing vessel suffers

a casualty that adversely affects its safe

navigation or seaworthiness.

Other situations requiring the

employment of additional resources

include steering-gear failure and loss of

the tow. The requirement to call on

these additional private resources to

render emergency assistance does not

negate or otherwise lessen the

requirement to notify the Coast Guard if

the tank barge or towing vessel suffers

a reportable marine casualty in

accordance with 46 CFR subpart 4.05, or

develops a hazardous condition as

defined in 33 CFR 160.215.

2. Enhanced Communications

This proposed rule would require that

masters of vessels towing any loaded

tank barge initiate and broadcast

securite calls identifying their positions

at specific locations during transits in

the First Coast Guard District.

Currently, there are no regulations

requiring towing vessel operators to

share operational information or to issue

securite ́ calls at specific locations,

Enhanced communications among

vessels is critical in reducing the risk

associated with transporting petroleum

in tank barges in the Northeast United

States. This proposed rule should

increase situational awareness and

enhance communications, thereby

reducing the risk of casualties.

There are recognized areas in Long

Island Sound, Block Island Sound,

Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards Bay

where the risk of collision is higher

because cross-traffic is more likely to be

encountered. These locations include

dedicated ferry routes and areas where

the bays and sounds open to the ocean.

Accordingly, this proposed rule

contains a list of locations for initiating

securite ́ calls.

3. Voyage Planning

This proposed rule would require that

the owner or operator of a towing vessel

employed to tow a tank barge prepare a

voyage plan, addressing specific

minimum requirements, before a

voyage. The master would validate the

contents of the voyage plan before the

voyage, adjust the plan if necessary, and

ensure its proper use. Currently, there

are no regulations requiring the use of

voyage plans aboard towing vessels or

tank barges. Proper planning and

preparation of the vessel and crew may

identify potential risks, equipment

concerns, and human factors, one or a

combination of which may lead to a

marine casualty during a voyage. A

comprehensive voyage plan should

improve the prospects for the successful

execution and completion of a voyage.

The minimum contents of a voyage

plan are as follows:
54642 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(1) A description of the type, volume,

and grade of cargo.

(2) Applicable information from

nautical charts and publications;

including Coast Pilot, Coast Guard Light

List, and Coast Guard Local Notice to

Mariners, for the destination(s).

(3) Current and forecasted weather,

including visibility, wind, and sea state

for the destination(s).

(4) Data on tides and tidal currents for

destination(s).

(5) Forward and after draft for the

tank barge, and under-keel and vertical

clearance for the ports(s) and berthing

area(s).

(6) Pre-departure checklists.

(7) Calculated speed and estimated

time of arrival at proposed waypoints.

(8) Communication contact at Vessel

Traffic Service (VTS) (if applicable),

bridges, facilities and port-specific

requirements for Very High Frequency

(VHF) radio.

(9) Master’s standing orders for closest

point of approach, special conditions,

and critical maneuvers.

The proposed rule would authorize an

abbreviated version of the voyage plan

to address short intra-port tank barge

transits. A short intra-port transit is a

transit of not more than four hours

within the same port complex. The

abbreviated version would contain:

(1) Weather conditions including but

not limited to visibility, wind and sea

state.

(2) Data on tides and tidal currents.

(3) The draft of the barge.

(4) Channels of VHF radio to monitor.

(5) Other considerations such as

availability of pilot, assist tug, berth,

and line handlers, depth of berth mean

low water, danger areas, and securite ́

calls.

4. Navigation Restriction Areas

The proposed rule would establish

navigational restrictions for towing

vessels with tank barges in two areas in

order to protect significant

environmental and cultural resources.

Located off the Connecticut coast,

Fishers Island Sound is subject to strong

currents and is bordered by

environmentally sensitive areas that

would be greatly affected by a spill.

Given the strength of the current and

wind variability in that area, any spill

would quickly spread, reducing the

critical time needed to begin taking

protective measures. The Sound has less

risky routes immediately adjacent,

which provide for greater navigational

safety of tank barge transits.

As a place with a high level of

plankton concentration, the eastern part

of Cape Cod Bay is a breeding ground

for the endangered Northern Right

Whale. Any significant oil spill would

potentially destroy the particularly

susceptible plankton and have a

devastating result on this important

breeding area. Cape Cod Bay is a

complex marine ecosystem that contains

a variety of sensitive tidal marshes, flats

and estuarine areas, making protection

strategies more difficult in the event of

a significant oil spill.

Regulatory Assessment

This notice of proposed rulemaking is

not a significant regulatory action under

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does

not require an assessment of potential

costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3)

of that Order. It has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under that Order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979).

A Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation

under paragraph 10e of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES. A summary of the

Evaluation follows:

Summary of Benefits

The principal benefits of this

proposed rule would be reduced

injuries and loss of life, environmental

damage caused by navigation-related

incidents of tank barges and towing

vessels while under way in the

navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District. Quantifiable benefits

will accrue in the forms of avoided

pollution, avoided injuries and deaths,

and avoided damage to vessels and

property.

Using information from the database

of the Coast Guard Marine Safety

Management System from January 1,

1992, to December 31, 1996, we

reviewed 96 tank barge casualty cases.

These casualties involved vessels that

were underway within the boundaries

of the First Coast Guard District which

would have been affected by this

proposed rule if it had been in effect.

This period is one which represents

post OPA–90 experience, is intended to

be long enough to survey a significant

number of casualties, and short enough

to avoid old problems which are now

solved. These 96 incidents provided the

pool from which the benefits are

estimated. During this base period, there

was no reported oil spilled from doublehull barges.

For all four proposed measures, we

reviewed each casualty case report to

assess whether the casualty could have

been prevented or diminished in

severity by this rule. A team of Coast

Guard analysts assigned an effectiveness

degree to which each proposed measure

which would have positively affected

each casualty case. The Coast Guard

tabulated data on deaths and injuries,

oil spillage, and dollar totals reported

for damage to the tank barges, towing

vessels, piers, or other structures, and

estimated benefits for each measure

adjusted to the accurate degree of

effectiveness.

The assessment indicated that, until

the phase-out of single-hull tank vessels

(Sec. 4115(a) of OPA 90), the

requirements of this RNA would bring

total benefits of $495,640 in avoided

damage to vessels and property (1998

dollars); $189,276 in avoided deaths

(1998 dollars); and 459.76 barrels of oil

in avoided pollution.

Summary of Costs

Businesses that use tank barge and

towing vessels within the geographic

boundaries of the First District, as well

as the tank barge and towing vessel

industries themselves, will bear the

majority of the costs of this proposed

rule.

The cost of this proposed rule is the

sum of costs from the requirements for

positive control for barges, enhanced

communications, voyage planning, and

restricted navigation areas. These

anticipated costs recognize that many of

the towing vessels and tank barges

operating within the geographic

boundaries of the First District are

already in compliance with these

requirements.

(1) Positive Control for Barges: Data

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

indicated that there are approximately

12,892 transits occurring within the

District each year. Of these transits, we

estimate 1.95%, or 251, involve a singlehull, petroleum-laden tank barge being

towed by a tug without twin engines or

twin screws, and thus, this proposal

would require an escort or assist tug.

The cost of an escort or assist tug is

$300 an hour. It is assumed this escort

or assist tug would, on average, spend

20 hours in round trip service on each

transit. The cost of the tug for a single

transit would therefore be $6,000.

Discounting to 1998 dollars, and

factoring in the phase-out of single-hull

tank barges, we calculate the costs of

these tugs at $12,796,834.

(2) Enhanced Communications: This

proposed rule would require the

operator of a towing vessel to make

approximately eight securite ́ calls

during the average transit in the Coast

Guard’s First District. Each securite ́ call

would take about 30 seconds or 4

minutes each transit. The securite ́ calls
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 54643

will be placed by the person on watch

and it is assumed that the master and

the mate each make half of the securite ́

calls. The average daily billing rate for

a towing vessel’s master is $400, while

the average daily billing rate for a

towing vessel’s mate is $270. Based on

an eight hour day, the opportunity cost

of the securite ́ call proposal for each

transit is $2.79. The Coast Guard

estimated that approximately 55% of

the 12,892 annual transits, 7,091

transits, involve oil-laden tank barges.

With 7,091 transits within the Coast

Guard’s First District each year affected

by the enhanced communications

proposal, discounting to 1998 dollars,

we calculate the opportunity cost of

enhanced communications at $186,892.

However, these enhanced

communication requirements do not

truly represent a cost upon the towing

vessel operator. The Securite ́ calls will

become a routine task of the person on

watch, and will neither cause this

person to spend additional time

performing his watch duties, nor detract

from the time available for performing

existing duties. Therefore, the total cost

of enhanced communications is $0.

(3) Voyage Planning: For each transit,

as a representative of the owner or

operator, the master of the towing vessel

spends approximately 30 minutes

preparing the voyage plan. Again, the

average daily billing rate for a towing

vessel’s master is $400. The Coast

Guard, using data from the American

Waterway Operators, assumes that 90%

of transits already are in compliance

with this proposed rule. Further, the

Coast Guard estimates that

approximately 55% annual transits

involve oil-laden tank barges. For the

12,892 transits within the First District

each year, voyage planning affects 714

transits. The cost of voyage planning,

discounted to 1998 dollars, would be

$167,461.

(4) Navigation Restriction Areas:

Currently all towing vessels and tank

barges operating within the geographic

boundaries of the First District, avoid

operating in the areas of Fishers Island

Sound and the eastern portion of Cape

Cod Bay addressed in this proposal. The

cost of navigation restriction area is $0.

Summary: The total present value of

the costs of this proposed rule (1998

dollars) would be $12,964,345

[$12,796,834 for positive control of

barges + $0 for enhanced

communications + $167,461 for voyage

planning + $0 for navigation restriction

areas]. In terms of cost-effectiveness,

this rule would prevent future pollution

in the Coast Guard’s First District at a

cost of $26,708 per barrel of oil not

spilled.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

considers whether this proposed rule, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include small businesses, notfor-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 proposed rule would require that

all transits involving towing vessels not

equipped with twin-screw and twinengine propulsion, and that are engaged

in towing petroleum-laden tank barges

in the navigable waters of the First Coast

Guard District, employ an escort or

assist tug.

It is primarily the businesses that hire

the towing vessels and tank barges for

transporting their goods who directly

incurs the costs of this rulemaking by

having to pay for the escort or assist tug.

However, some towing vessel

companies, the majority of which are

small entities, may be indirectly affected

by the proposed rule if they can no

longer provide tug service at a

competitive price due to the

requirement that they employ an escort

or assist tug.

These towing vessel companies do

have alternatives available allowing

them to use their non-twin-screw and

twin-engine towing vessels, such as

pushing barges in narrow rivers or

pushing freight barges. Additionally,

with only 5% of all towing vessels not

having the necessary propulsion

equipment, nearly all the towing vessel

companies are already in compliance.

Further, preliminary information from

towing vessel operators indicate that

they already select against the use of

their non-twin-screw and twin-engine

towing vessels for the practice of towing

petroleum-laden tank barges. Finally,

the cost of escort or assist towing vessels

is low in comparison with the cost of

replacing or retro-fitting all their nontwin-screw and twin-engine towing

vessels with a compliant propulsion

system.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed

rule, if adopted, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. If,

however, you think that your business

or organization qualifies as a small

entity and that this proposed rule will

have a significant economic impact on

your business or organization, please

submit a comment to the Coast Guard at

the address under ADDRESSES explaining

why you think it qualifies and in what

way and to what degree this proposed

rule will economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. 104–121), the Coast Guard wants 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 your

small business or organization would be

affected by this rule and you have

questions concerning its provisions or

options for compliance, please call LT

Rich Klein at 617–223–8243.

The Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were

established to receive comments from

small businesses about Federal agency

enforcement actions. The Ombudsman

will annually evaluate the enforcement

activities and rate each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on the enforcement

actions of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–

REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This proposed rule provides for a

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As defined in 5

CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of

information’’ includes reporting,

recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,

labeling, and other, similar actions. The

title and description of the information

collection, a description of the

respondents, and an estimate of the total

annual burden follow. Included in the

estimate is the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing sources

of data, gathering and maintaining data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection.

Title: Regulated Navigation Area:

Navigable waters within the First Coast

Guard District.

Summary of the Collection of

Information: The requirement of a

voyage plan would serve as a preventive

measure and assist in ensuring the

successful execution and completion of

a voyage in the First Coast Guard

District.

Need for Information: The

information for a voyage plan would

provide a mechanism for assisting

vessels towing tank barges in identifying

those specific risks, potential equipment

failures, or human errors that may lead

to accidents.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information would focus on the voyage
54644 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

planning in the preparation of the crew

and vessel for an anticipated voyage.

Description of The Respondents: The

owners or operators of towing vessels

and tank barges in the First Coast Guard

District.

Number of Respondents: 709

estimated transits of towing vessels a

year.

Frequency of Response: The

frequency of response is once per

transit.

Burden of Response: The owner or

operator of a towing vessel engaged in

a towing a tank barge must prepare a

written voyage plan before departure.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

354.5 hours.

As required by section 3507(d) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Coast Guard has submitted a copy of

this proposed rule to OMB for its review

of the collection of information.

The Coast Guard solicits public

comment on the proposed collection of

information to: (1) Evaluate whether the

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Coast Guard, including whether the

information would have practical

utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the

Coast Guard’s estimate of the burden of

the collection, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) minimize the burden

of the collection on those who are to

respond, as by allowing the submittal of

responses by electronic means or the

use of other forms of information

technology.

Persons submitting comments on the

collection of information should submit

them both to OMB and to the

Commander (m), First Coast Guard

District, where indicated under

ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.

Persons are not required to respond to

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. Before the requirements for this

collection of information become

effective, the Coast Guard will publish

notice in the Federal Register of OMB’s

decision to approve, modify, or

disapprove the collection.

Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

the proposed rulemaking does not have

sufficient federal implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment. Although the Coast Guard

has determined that this proposal does

not warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment, there will be

preemptive impacts on existing state

law, specifically the Rhode Island Tank

Vessel Safety Act, 46 Rhode Island

General Laws § 12.6. The proposed

regulations on positive control for

barges [33 CFR 165.100(d)(1)] will

preempt 46 R. I. Gen. Laws § 12.6–

8(a)(3). The proposed regulations on

enhanced communications [33 CFR

165.100(d)(2)] will preempt 46 R. I. Gen.

Laws § 12.6–8(b). The proposed

regulations on voyage planning [33 CFR

165.100(d)(3)] will preempt 46 R. I. Gen.

Laws § 12.6–8(c). However, Rhode

Island law, at 46 R. I. Gen. Laws § 12.6–

12 specifically envisions preemption

and supercession of their laws by the

adoption of Coast Guard regulations on

the areas covered by this proposal. No

other states within the proposed

regulated navigation area have similar

existing provisions. Thus the

Federalism implications of this proposal

are expected to be minimal.

Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub. L.

104–4, 109 Stat. 48), requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of certain

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments, and the private

sector. UMRA requires a written

statement of economic and regulatory

alternatives for proposed and final rules

that contain Federal mandates. A

‘‘Federal mandate’’ is a new or

additional enforceable duty imposed on

any State, local, or tribal government, or

the private sector. If any Federal

mandate causes those entities to spend,

in the aggregate $100 million or more in

any one year, the UMRA analysis is

required. This proposed rule would not

impose Federal mandates on any State,

local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that under figure 2–

1, paragraphs 34(g) and (i) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C,

this rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is available in the

docket for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waterways.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add § 165.100 to read as follows:

§ 165.100 Regulated Navigation Area:

Navigable waters within the First Coast

Guard District.

(a) Regulated Navigation Area. All

navigable waters of the United States, as

that term is used in 33 CFR 2.05–25(a),

within the geographic boundaries of the

First Coast Guard District, as defined in

33 CFR 3.05–1(b).

(b) Definitions. Terms used in this

section have the same meaning as those

found in 33 CFR 157.03. Single-hull

identifies any tank barge that is not a

double-hull tank barge.

(c) Applicability. This section applies

to primary towing vessels engaged in

towing tank barges carrying petroleum

oil in bulk as cargo in the regulated

navigation area, or as authorized by the

District Commander.

(d) Regulations—(1) Positive Control

for Barges. (i) Except as provided in

paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, a

single-hull tank barge, unless being

towed by a primary towing vessel with

twin-screw propulsion and with a

separate system for power to each

screw, must be accompanied by an

escort or assist tug of sufficient

capability to promptly push or tow the

tank barge away from danger of

grounding or collision in the event of—

(A) A propulsion failure;

(B) A parted towing line;

(C) A loss of tow;

(D) A fire;

(E) Grounding;

(F) A loss of steering; or

(G) Any other casualty that affects the

navigation or seaworthiness of either

vessel.

(ii) Double-hull tank barges are

exempt from paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this

section.

(iii) The cognizant COTP may

authorize an exemption from the

requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of

this section for any tank barge with a

capacity of less than 25,000 barrels, to

operate in an area with limited depth or

width such as a creek or small river.

Each request for an exemption under

this section must be submitted in

writing to the cognizant COTP.

(iv) The operator of a towing vessel

engaged in towing any tank barge must

immediately call for an escort or assist

tug to render assistance in the event of

any of the occurrences identified in

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 /Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 54645

(2) Enhanced Communications. Each

vessel engaged in towing a tank barge

must communicate by radio on marine

band or Very High Frequency (VHF)

channel 13 or 16, and issue securite ́

calls on marine band or VHF channel 13

or 16, upon approach to the following

places:

(i) Execution Rock Light (USCG Light

List No. [LLNR] 21440).

(ii) Race Rock Light (LLNR 19815).

(iii) Cable & Anchor Reef Buoy (LLNR

21330).

(iv) Stratford Shoal Middle Ground

Light (LLNR 21260).

(v) Old Field Point Light (LLNR

21275).

(vi) Approaching Stratford Point from

the south (NOAA Chart 12370).

(vii) Faulkner Island Light (LLNR

21170).

(viii) TE Buoy (LLNR 21160).

(ix) CF Buoy (LL 21140).

(x) PI Buoy (LLNR 21080) and Valiant

Rock Buoy (LLNR 19825).

(xi) Approach to Point Judith in

vicinity of Block Island ferry route.

(xii) Buzzards Bay Entrance Light

(LLNR 630).

(xiii) Buzzards Bay Midchannel

Lighted Buoy (LLNR 16055).

(xiv) Cleveland East Ledge Light

(LLNR 16085).

(xv) Hog Island buoys 1 (LLNR 16130)

and 2 (LLNR 16135).

(xvi) Approach to the Bourne Bridge.

(xvii) Approach to the Sagamore

Bridge.

(xviii) Approach to the eastern

entrance of Cape Code Canal.

(3) Voyage Planning. (i) The owner or

operator of a towing vessel employed to

tow a tank barge shall prepare a written

voyage plan for each tank barge transit.

The master of the towing vessel shall

ensure the proper use of each voyage

plan.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph

(d)(3)(iii) of this section, each voyage

plan must contain:

(A) A description of the type, volume,

and grade of cargo.

(B) Applicable information from

nautical charts and publications,

including Coast Pilot, Coast Guard Light

List, and Coast Guard Local Notice to

Mariners, for the destination(s).

(C) Current and forecasted weather,

including visibility, wind, and sea state

for the destination(s).

(D) Data on tides and tidal currents for

the destination(s).

(E) Forward and after drafts of the

tank barge, and under-keel vertical

clearances for all port(s) and berthing

area(s).

(F) Pre-departure checklists.

(G) Calculated speed and estimated

time of arrival at proposed waypoints.

(H) Communication contacts at Vessel

Traffic Service (VTS) (if applicable),

bridges, and facilities, and port-specific

requirements for VHF radio.

(I) The master’s standing orders

detailing closest points of approach,

special conditions, and critical

maneuvers.

(iii) Each owner or operator of a tank

barge on an intra-port transit of not

more than four hours may prepare a

voyage plan that contains:

(A) The information described in

paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) (C), (D), and (E) of

this section.

(B) The channels of VHF radio to

monitor.

(C) Other considerations such as

availability of pilot, assist tug, berth,

and line-handlers, depth of berth at

mean low water, danger areas, and

securite calls.

(4) Navigation Restriction Areas.

Unless authorized by the cognizant

COTP, no tank barge may operate in—

(i) The waters of Cape Cod Bay south

of latitude 42° 5′ North and east of

longitude 70° 25′ West; or

(ii) The waters of Fishers Island

Sound east of longitude 72° 2′ West, and

west of longitude 71° 55′ West.

Dated: October 5, 1998.

R.M. Larrabee

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 27361 Filed 10–9–98; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN52–01–7277b; MN53–01–7278b; FRL–

6162–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, the EPA is

proposing to approve revisions to

Minnesota’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Air

Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131.

This revision amends two State

Administrative Orders for two Northern

States Power facilities: Inver Hills and

Riverside.

In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, the USEPA is

approving the State’s request as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because USEPA views this action as

noncontroversial and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for approving the State’s request is set

forth in the direct final rule. The direct

final rule will become effective without

further notice unless the Agency

receives relevant adverse written

comment on this proposed rule within

30 days of today’s publication. Should

the Agency receive such comment, it

will publish a document informing the

public that the direct final rule will not

take effect and such public comment

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. If no adverse comments

are received, the direct final rule will

take effect on the date stated in that

document and no further activity will be

taken on this proposed rule. USEPA

does not plan to institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following address: United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please

telephone Victoria Hayden at (312) 886–

4023 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria Hayden, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone Number (312) 886–

4023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

rule of the same title which is located

in the Rules Section of this Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping.

Dated: September 3, 1998.

Gail Ginsberg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 98–26898 Filed 10–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P