Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23871

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 140

[USCG–2001–9045]

RIN 2115–AG14

Inspections Under, and Enforcement

of, Coast Guard Regulations for Fixed

Facilities on the Outer Continental

Shelf by the Minerals Management

Service

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: We propose to authorize the

Minerals Management Service (MMS) to

perform inspections, on behalf of the

Coast Guard, on fixed facilities engaged

in Outer Continental Shelf activities and

to enforce Coast Guard regulations

applicable to those facilities. MMS

already performs inspections on these

facilities to determine whether they

comply with MMS regulations. By

authorizing MMS to also check for

compliance with Coast Guard

regulations, we avoid duplicating

functions, reduce Federal costs, and

increase the frequency of inspections.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility (USCG–2001–9045), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By hand delivery to room PL–401

on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. You may also

find this docket on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this proposed

rule, contact James M. Magill, Vessel

and Facility Operating Standards

Division (GMMSO–2), telephone 202–

267–1082 or fax 202–267–4570. If you

have questions on viewing or submitting

material to the docket, call Dorothy

Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (USCG–2001–9045),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. You may submit your

comments and material by mail, hand

delivery, fax, or electronic means to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please

submit your comments or material by

only one means. If you submit them 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 them by

mail and would like to know 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. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for one to the Docket Management

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one 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.

Background and Purpose

The purpose of this rulemaking is to

authorize the Minerals Management

Service (MMS) to perform inspections

on fixed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

facilities engaged in OCS activities and

to enforce Coast Guard regulations

applicable to those facilities for

compliance with Coast Guard

regulations in 33 CFR chapter I,

subchapter N. The Coast Guard and

MMS regulate safety on fixed OCS

facilities. MMS regulates the structural

integrity of the facility, in addition to

enforcing all regulations pertaining to

production and well-work activities,

such as drilling and workover

operations. The Coast Guard regulates

marine systems, such as lifesaving and

navigation equipment, and workplace

safety and health. Annually, MMS visits

all of the fixed OCS facilities to inspect

for violations in the area of its

responsibility. The Coast Guard,

because of the much fewer number of

inspectors available, visits less than 10

percent. On December 18, 1998, MMS

and the Coast Guard agreed to review

the regulations of both agencies to

ensure consistency and to eliminate

duplication. As part of this review,

MMS and the Coast Guard decided that,

because MMS was already visiting all of

the fixed OCS facilities at least once a

year, it would be beneficial to both

agencies if MMS was authorized, on

behalf of the Coast Guard, to inspect and

enforce the Coast Guard’s regulations for

fixed OCS facilities. Such an

authorization is allowed under the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,

which, in 43 U.S.C. 1348(a), allows the

Coast Guard to use the services and

personnel of other Federal agencies for

the enforcement of its OCS regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office

of Management and Budget has not

reviewed it 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). We

expect the economic impact of this

proposed rule to be so minimal that a

full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

The proposed rule would not impose

significant additional costs to MMS’s

inspection program or to the owners of

facilities being inspected. Owners or

operators of each facility would be

required to incur a slight burden

associated with keeping a copy of the

annual self-inspection form CG–5432 on

the facility. This burden is explained in

detail in the ‘‘Collection of Information’’

section. We expect the annual cost of

this burden to be about $8.25 per facility

or $28,776 for the 3,489 facilities

engaged in Outer Continental Shelf

activities. Using 7 percent as the

23872 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Proposed Rules

discount rate, the 10-year present value

of this cost is $202,110.

Authorizing MMS to check for

compliance with Coast Guard

regulations would avoid duplicating

functions and enhance the enforcement

of regulations.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises

small businesses, not-for-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.

We do not expect this proposed

rulemaking to create significant

additional costs to the MMS or the

inspected facilities. This proposed

rulemaking would authorize MMS to

inspect and enforce Coast Guard

regulations on fixed OCS facilities.

Coast Guard personnel currently

perform these inspections, and

authorizing MMS to do so does not

reduce the number of inspections nor

significantly increase the burden placed

on the affected entities. Though it

affects all small entities involved, we

estimate the additional burden to be

$8.25 per facility as shown in the

‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section of this

preamble. We further explain this

burden and the affected entities in the

‘‘Collection of Information’’ section of

this preamble.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

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

rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If you think

that your business, organization, or

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a

small entity and that this rule would

have a significant economic impact on

it, please submit a comment to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES. In your

comment, explain why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want 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 the rule would affect your small

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please consult James M.

Magill, Vessel and Facility Operating

Standards Division (GMMSO–2),

telephone 202–267–1082 or fax 202–

267–4570.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call

1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for a

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520). As defined in 5 CFR

1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’

comprises reporting, recordkeeping,

monitoring, posting, labeling, and other,

similar actions. The title and

description of the information

collections, a description of those who

must collect the information, and an

estimate of the total annual burden

follow. The estimate covers the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing sources of data, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the

collection.

Title: Inspection Under, and

Enforcement of, Coast Guard

Regulations for Fixed Facilities on the

Outer Continental Shelf by the Minerals

Management Service.

Summary of the Collection of

Information: This proposed rule would

require that a copy of form CG–5432, the

annual self-inspection report, be kept on

the facility. This form is already

required to be completed annually and

submitted to the Coast Guard, but a

copy is not required to be kept on the

facility. This proposed rule would

require that a copy be kept on the

facility for use by MMS inspectors. The

proposed requirement would be added

to the already approved collection of

information OMB 2115–0569.

Need for Information: A copy of the

report is needed on the facility to show

MMS inspectors that the annual selfinspection has been conducted.

Proposed Use of Information: The

copy of form CG–5432 would be used to

confirm that the self-inspection had

been conducted.

Description of the Respondents:

Owners or operators of fixed OCS

facilities.

Number of Respondents: We estimate

there are 3,489 facilities engaged in

Outer Continental Shelf activities.

Frequency of Response: Each year’s

form CG–5432 would be required to be

kept on the facility for 2 years.

Burden of Response: The burden

associated with meeting the proposed

requirement would involve duplicating

form CG–5432 so that the original can

be sent to the Coast Guard, as already

required, and a copy kept on the facility.

We expect this burden to be 15 minutes

annually per facility.

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We

estimate that the proposed requirement

would impose a total annual burden on

each facility of 15 minutes or 872 hours

for all fixed OCS facilities. This amount

would be added to the already approved

annual burden associated with OMB

collection 2115–0569.

As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of

this proposed rule to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for its

review of the collection of information.

We ask for public comment on the

proposed collection of information to

help us determine how useful the

information is; whether it can help us

perform our functions better; whether it

is readily available elsewhere; how

accurate our estimate of the burden of

collection is; how valid our methods for

determining burden are; how we can

improve the quality, usefulness, and

clarity of the information; and how we

can minimize the burden of collection.

If you submit comments on the

collection of information, submit them

both to OMB and to the Docket

Management Facility where indicated

under ADDRESSES, by the date under

DATES.

You need not respond to a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid control number from

OMB. Before the requirements for this

collection of information become

effective, we will publish notice in the

Federal Register of OMB’s decision to

approve, modify, or disapprove the

collection.

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, and have determined that it

does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23873

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions not specifically

required by law. In particular, the Act

addresses actions that may result in the

expenditure by a State, local, or tribal

government, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year. Though this proposed

rule would not result in such an

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of

this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce

burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(b), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

The proposed rule is excluded under

paragraph (34)(b) because it is

administrative in nature and has no

environmental effect. A ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 140

Continental shelf, Incorporation by

reference, Investigations, Marine safety,

Occupational safety and health,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 140 as follows:

PART 140—GENERAL

1. The authority citation for part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333, 1348, 1350,

1356; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. In § 140.10, add, in alphabetical

order, the definition of ‘‘Minerals

Management Service inspector’’ to read

as follows:

§ 140.10 Definitions.

* * * * *

Minerals Management Service

inspector or MMS inspector means an

individual employed by the Minerals

Management Service who inspects fixed

OCS facilities on behalf of the Coast

Guard to determine whether the

requirements of this subchapter are met.

* * * * *

3. In § 140.101—

a. Revise the section heading to read

as set forth below;

b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through

(e) as paragraphs (c) through (f);

c. Add a new paragraph (b) to read as

set forth below;

d. In redesignated paragraph (c),

before the words ‘‘marine inspectors’’,

add the words ‘‘Coast Guard’’; following

the words ‘‘OCS activities’’, add the

words ‘‘, and MMS inspectors may

inspect fixed OCS facilities,’’; and, at

the end of the last sentence, add the

words ‘‘or MMS’’; and

e. In redesignated paragraph (d),

remove the words ‘‘a marine inspector’’

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘a

Coast Guard marine inspector or an

MMS inspector’’; and remove the words

‘‘The marine inspector’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘The Coast Guard

marine inspector or the MMS

inspector’’.

§ 140.101 Inspection by Coast Guard

marine inspectors or Minerals Management

Service inspectors.

* * * * *

(b) On behalf of the Coast Guard, each

fixed OCS facility engaged in OCS

activities is subject to inspection by the

Minerals Management Service (MMS).

* * * * *

4. In § 140.103—

a. In paragraph (b), remove

‘‘140.101(e)’’ and add, in its place,

‘‘140.101(f)’’; and remove the words

‘‘Marine inspectors’’ and add, in their

place, the words ‘‘marine inspectors and

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

inspectors’’; and

b. In paragraph (c), remove

‘‘140.101(e)’’ and add, in its place,

‘‘140.101(f)’’; and at the end of the

paragraph, add a sentence to read as

follows:

§ 140.103 Annual inspection of fixed OCS

facilities.

* * * * *

(c) * * * A copy of the completed

form must be retained on the facility for

2 years after the inspection and made

available to MMS on request.

* * * * *

§ 140.105 [Amended]

5. In § 140.105—

a. In paragraph (a), after the words

‘‘during an inspection’’, add the words

‘‘by a Coast Guard marine inspector or

a Minerals Management Service (MMS)

inspector’’;

b. In paragraph (b), before the words

‘‘is reported to’’, add the words ‘‘or an

MMS inspector’’; and, after the words

‘‘time specified by the’’, remove the

words ‘‘Coast Guard’’;

c. In paragraph (c), after the words

‘‘fire fighting equipment deficiencies’’,

add the words ‘‘on fixed OCS facilities’’;

and remove the words ‘‘the OCMI’’

wherever they appear and add, in their

place, ‘‘MMS’’; and

d. In paragraph (d), after the words

‘‘Marine Inspection,’’ add the words ‘‘or

MMS (for deficiencies or hazards

discovered by MMS during an

inspection of a fixed OCS facility)’’.

Dated: March 16, 2001.

R.C. North,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–11848 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 36

RIN 2900–AE20; 2900–AE60

Loan Guaranty: Title Evidence

Requirements and Occupancy

Requirements for Conveyance of

Properties to VA by Holders;

Acceptance of Partial Payments;

Indemnification of Default

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rules: withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws the

proposal to amend the loan guaranty

regulations that was published in the

Federal Register on August 6, 1990 (55

FR 31847). We proposed to authorize

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to

specify the title documentation required

from the holder when VA acquires a

property which was financed with a

VA-guaranteed loan that has been

terminated and to authorize the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish

a date by which VA must receive such

title documentation from the holder.

Further, we proposed to require that a

property acquired by VA be vacant