[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28376-28377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13269]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Ch. I

46 CFR Ch. I

[CGD 95-022]


Presidential Regulation Review

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing an initial policy determination 
on regulatory reform initiatives. The Coast Guard is also reopening the 
comment period for public comment on the Coast Guard's regulatory 
process and its response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative.

DATES: Written comments must be received not later than December 8, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, 
Marine Safety Council (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may be delivered to room 3406 at the 
same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Comments will become part of this docket ad will be 
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, Coast Guard 
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce P. Novak, Regulations 
Coordinator, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 
Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone (202) 267-6819. 
This telephone is equipped to record messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 1995 (60 FR 16423) the Coast 
Guard announced it would be holding a public meeting in Washington, DC 
on April 20, 1995, to take comments on the President's recently 
announced Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and the Coast Guard's 
regulatory development process. The deadline for [[Page 28377]] written 
comments was May 1, 1995. On April 5, 1995 the Coast Guard published a 
second notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 17287) announcing a series 
of regional public meetings to be held on the same topics. The deadline 
for written comments in this notice was June 5, 1995.
    At the April 20, 1995 public meeting and in written comments to the 
docket, several commentors requested an extension of the May 1, 1995 
comment period. The issues discussed in the notice and at the public 
meeting are important and require careful thought and evaluation. Since 
the regulatory reform initiative is an ongoing process, a longer 
comment period can be accommodated. In addition to receiving comments 
on the regulatory policy announced in this notice, comments on the 
issues raised in the two prior notices may be submitted. To provide 
maximum value on this notice, comments should be received by December 
8, 1995. However, late comments will be accepted and evaluated to the 
extent practicable.
    In response to the Federal Register notice and public meetings, the 
Coast Guard has received and is still receiving comments suggesting 
specific regulations for review and identifying reasons why those 
regulations should be either amended or eliminated. The Coast Guard 
will fully evaluate each suggestion and may initiate appropriate 
rulemaking projects at a later date. However, the Coast Guard has 
already made a preliminary determination to proceed immediately with at 
least two regulatory reinvention initiatives. The first is to purge the 
Code of Federal Regulations of obsolete and out-of-date regulations. A 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a wide range of 
recissions was published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1995 (60 FR 
24748). This first set of obsolete and out-of-date regulations has 
minimal impact on the public and no controversy or objection is 
expected. Additional obsolete and out-of-date regulations will be 
proposed for elimination or revision in later rulemaking documents.
    Second, the Coast Guard has established a goal of eliminating any 
Coast Guard induced differential between requirements that apply to 
U.S. vessels in international trade and those that apply to similar 
vessels in international trade that fly the flag of responsible foreign 
nations. The Coast Guard will carefully evaluate every existing and 
newly proposed regulation. To the maximum extent possible, requirements 
that create an unwarranted differential between U.S. and responsible 
international standards will be eliminated. There are several new 
rulemaking projects under development that reflect this new Coast Guard 
policy.
    The U.S. maritime industry conducted several studies, some of which 
indicated that industry competitiveness has been adversely impacted by 
the cost differential between building a vessel to U.S. standards and 
building it to some foreign standards. The industry reported that 
differential was from 0% to 15% of the total construction cost. 
However, all of these industry studies were conducted prior to 
implementation of the 1981 and 1983 amendments to the 1974 Safety of 
Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. The Convention and its amendments have 
greatly reduced the gap between U.S. and international standards.
    The U.S. has sometimes unilaterally adopted more stringent 
standards than the international regulations promulgated by the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the 
United Nations. A Maritime Administration sponsored study conducted in 
1979 reported that the portion of the total construction cost 
differential directly attributable to discretionary requirements 
imposed by the Coast Guard was less than one-half of one percent. 
However, even a one-half of one percent differential in construction 
costs should be avoided if it does not result in needed additional 
safety or environmental protection.
    In the past, international standards were in large part inadequate 
or nonexistent which required the United States to adopt high quality 
standards of its own. This situation has changed in recent years. Great 
strides have been taken by the responsible members of the international 
community to adopt standards that provide levels of safety and 
environmental protection that are generally equivalent to U.S. 
standards. The IMO has adopted a wide range of safety and environmental 
protection requirements that parallel many of the standards that apply 
to U.S. vessels. However, the IMO requirements are in some cases 
general in nature and need amplifying national regulations. In 
addition, IMO requirements do not constitute a complete ship 
construction standard. They must be used together with classification 
society standards and flag state requirements. Responsible foreign flag 
states and classification societies now have standards that are 
equivalent to U.S. standards. Because these responsible flag states and 
classification societies now assure high levels of protection, it is no 
longer desirable for the United States to apply different requirements 
to U.D. vessels. Accordingly, in cooperation with the American Bureau 
of Shipping, the Coast Guard has identified various U.S. regulations 
that differ from the best international standards. The Coast Guard is 
now carefully evaluating each of those regulations to determine if it 
makes necessary additional safety or environmental protection 
contributions. Those regulations that do not provide necessary added 
levels of protection will be proposed for elimination.
    Because of the global nature of maritime commerce, it is seldom 
effective for an individual nation to require substantially different 
standards for its vessels engaged in international trade. Ships of 
every nationality call at ports all over the world. Substandard 
performers pose a risk to their host nations everywhere. For this 
reason, IMO recently formed the Flag State Implementation Subcommittee 
(FSI) to develop strong international standards for nations that flag 
vessels (flag states) and for nations that host vessels (port states). 
By working closely with the FSI the Coast Guard will assure both a high 
and a level playing field for U.S. flag vessels in international trade.
    The Coast Guard invites comment on this initial regulatory policy.

    Dated: May 22, 1995.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety, 
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-13269 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M