6168 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

miles to its intersection with SR 47; 

then 

(9) Proceed south on SR 47 for 

approximately 0.5 mile to its 

intersection with SR 534 at the village 

of Gardenville Center; then 

(10) Proceed southeasterly through 

Gardenville Center on SR 534 to its 

intersection with SR 544; then 

(11) Proceed northeasterly on SR 544 

to its intersection with SR 73 on the 

Hammonton map; then 

(12) Proceed north-northwesterly on 

SR 73 to its intersection with SR 70 in 

Cropwell; then 

(13) Proceed east on SR 70 to its 

intersection with U.S. 206 in Red Lion; 

then 

(14) Proceed north on U.S. 206, onto 

the Trenton map, to the intersection of 

U.S. 206 and an unnamed road locally 

known as CR 537, in the village of 

Chambers Corner; then 

(15) Proceed northeasterly on CR 537, 

through the village of Jobstown; then 

(16) Continue northeasterly on CR 

537, through the villages of Smithburg 

and Freehold, to its intersection with SR 

18, east-northeast of Freehold; then 

(17) Proceed easterly on SR 18 to its 

intersection with the Garden State 

Parkway; then 

(18) Proceed north on the Garden 

State Parkway to its intersection with 

SR 36 and proceed east along SR 36 

onto the Long Branch map; then 

(19) Using the Long Branch map, 

continue east on SR 36 to where it 

intersects with Joline Avenue; then 

(20) Proceed northeasterly on Joline 

Avenue to the Atlantic Ocean shoreline; 

then 

(21) Follow the Atlantic Ocean 

shoreline south, encompassing all 

coastal islands, onto the Trenton, 

Hammonton, Atlantic City, and Cape 

May maps, to the city of Cape May; then 

(22) Proceed west, then north, along 

the eastern bank of the Delaware River, 

onto the Atlantic City, Dover, and 

Wilmington maps to the beginning 

point. 

Dated: December 4, 2006. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: January 29, 2007. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 07–575 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 155 

[USCG–1998–3417] 

RIN 1625–AA19 

Salvage and Marine Firefighting 

Requirements; Vessel Response Plans 

for Oil 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; partial suspension of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: Current vessel response plan 

regulations require the owners or 

operators of vessels carrying Groups I 

through V petroleum oil as a primary 

cargo to identify in their response plans 

a salvage company with expertise and 

equipment, and a company with 

firefighting capability that can be 

deployed to a port nearest to the vessel’s 

operating area within 24 hours of 

notification (Groups I–IV) or a discovery 

of a discharge (Group V). On January 23, 

2004, a notice of suspension was 

published in the Federal Register, 

suspending the 24-hour requirement 

scheduled to become effective on 

February 12, 2004, until February 12, 

2007 (69 FR 3236). The Coast Guard has 

decided to extend this suspension 

period for another two years to allow us 

to complete the rulemaking that will 

revise the salvage and marine 

firefighting requirements. 

DATES: This extension is effective as of 

February 12, 2007. Termination of the 

suspension will be on February 12, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–1998–3417 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov; 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; 

(3) Fax: 202–493–2251; 

(4) Delivery: 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; or 

(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

The Docket Management Facility 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public 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 at the same address between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also access this docket on the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule or the 

partial suspension of regulations, call 

Lieutenant Commander Reed Kohberger, 

Office of Standards Evaluation and 

Development, Coast Guard 

Headquarters, telephone 202–372–1471, 

or via e-mail: 

Reed.H.Kohberger@uscg.mil. For 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–493–0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Regulatory History 

Requirements for salvage and marinefirefighting resources in vessel response 

plans have been in place since February 

5, 1993 (58 FR 7424). The existing 

requirements are general. The Coast 

Guard did not originally develop 

specific requirements because each 

salvage and marine firefighting response 

for an individual vessel is unique, due 

to the vessel’s size, construction, 

operating area, and other variables. The 

Coast Guard’s intent was to rely on the 

planholder to prudently identify 

contractor resources to meet their needs. 

The Coast Guard anticipated that the 

significant benefits of a quick and 

effective salvage and marine-firefighting 

response would be sufficient incentive 

for industry to develop salvage and 

marine firefighting capability parallel to 

the development of oil spill removal 

organizations. 

Early in 1997, it became apparent that 

there was disagreement among 

planholders, salvage and marinefirefighting contractors, maritime 

associations, public agencies, and other 

stakeholders as to what constituted 

adequate salvage and marine-firefighting 

resources. There was also concern as to 

whether these resources could respond 

to the port nearest to the vessel’s 

operating area within 24 hours. 

On June 24, 1997, a notice of meeting 

was published in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 34105) announcing a workshop 

to solicit comments from the public on 

potential changes to the salvage and 

marine-firefighting requirements 

currently found in 33 CFR part 155. 

A public workshop was held on 

August 5, 1997, to address issues related 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6169 

to salvage and marine-firefighting 

response capabilities, including the 24- 

hour response time requirement, which 

was then scheduled to become effective 

on February 18, 1998. The participants 

uniformly identified the following three 

issues that they felt the Coast Guard 

needed to address: 

(1) Defining the salvage and marine 

firefighting capability that is necessary 

in the plans; 

(2) Establishing how quickly these 

resources must be on scene; and 

(3) Determining what constitutes an 

adequate salvage and marine-firefighting 

company. 

Reason for Suspension 

On February 12, 1998, a notice of 

suspension was published in the 

Federal Register suspending the 24- 

hour requirement scheduled to become 

effective on February 18, 1998, until 

February 12, 2001 (63 FR 7069) so that 

the Coast Guard could address issues 

identified at a public workshop through 

a rulemaking that would revise the 

existing salvage and marine firefighting 

requirements. On January 17, 2001, a 

second notice of suspension was 

published in the Federal Register 

suspending the 24-hour requirement 

scheduled to become effective on 

February 12, 2001, until February 12, 

2004 (66 FR 3876) because the potential 

impact on small businesses from this 

new rulemaking requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This was not 

determined until a draft regulatory 

assessment was completed in November 

2000. On January 23, 2004, a third 

notice of suspension was published in 

the Federal Register suspending the 24- 

hour requirement scheduled to become 

effective on February 12, 2004, until 

February 12, 2007 (69 FR 3236) because 

during the preceding three years, the 

Coast Guard had to redirect the majority 

of its regulatory resources to issue 

security-related regulations as required 

by the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002. As a result, we were unable 

to complete our review of the comments 

we received in response to a May 10, 

2002, notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) (67 FR 31868) on the proposed 

revisions to the existing salvage and 

marine-firefighting requirements. Now 

that the comments have been reviewed, 

and a draft programmatic environmental 

assessment prepared, we will begin to 

prepare an updated regulatory 

assessment. 

The extension of the suspension 

period will continue to relieve the 

affected industry from complying with 

the existing 24-hour requirements until 

this rulemaking project is complete, and 

amendments to the salvage and marine 

firefighting requirements become final. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Although the final rule published in 

1996 was a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, the Office of Management and 

Budget does not consider this extension 

a significant action. As a result, it does 

not require an assessment of potential 

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

of that Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’

under the regulatory policies and 

procedures of the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

considered whether this extension will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include 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. 

This extension will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because it reflects existing conditions 

and relieves planholders from certain 

original requirements. Any future 

regulatory action on this issue will 

address any economic impacts, 

including impacts on small entities. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that 

this extension to a suspension of certain 

requirements will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

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 

annually evaluates the enforcement 

activities and rates 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 action does not provide for a 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Federalism 

We have analyzed this action under 

E.O. 13132 and have determined that it 

does not have implications for 

federalism under that Order. Because 

this action extends a suspension of 

certain requirements, it does not 

preempt any state action. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action will not result in an 

unfunded mandate under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538). 

Taking of Private Property 

This action will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This action meets applicable 

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

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this action under 

E.O. 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
6170 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We considered the environmental 

impact of this rule and concluded that 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement is not necessary. An 

Environmental Assessment and a 

Finding of No Significant Impact are 

available at http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/pdf33/50180_web.pdf. We 

have also reexamined that information 

and determined it is still accurate. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation 

by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 155 as follows: 

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 155 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 

U.S.C. 3715, 3719; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 

54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

Sections 155.110–155.130, 155.350–

155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 

155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also 

issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); and 

§§ 155.1110–155.1150 also issued 33 U.S.C. 

2735. 

Note: Additional requirements for vessels 

carrying oil or hazardous materials appear in 

46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 150, 151, and 

153. 

§ 155.1050 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 155.1050, paragraph (k)(3) is 

suspended until February 12, 2009. 

§ 155.1052 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 155.1052, the last sentence in 

paragraph (f) is suspended until 

February 12, 2009. 

Dated: February 5, 2007. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention, 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 07–572 Filed 2–6–07; 10:42 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 71 

[OST Docket No. 2006–26442] 

RIN 2105–AD65 

Standard Time Zone Boundary in 

Pulaski County, IN 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

the Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DOT is relocating the time 

zone boundary in Indiana to move 

Pulaski County, Indiana, from the 

Central Time Zone to the Eastern Time 

Zone. This action serves the 

convenience of commerce, the statutory 

standard for a time zone change, and is 

taken in response to a petition filed by 

the Pulaski County Commissioners and 

County Council. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

2 a.m. CST, Sunday, March 11, 2007, 

which is the changeover date from 

standard time to daylight saving time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith S. Kaleta, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room 10428, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

20590, indianatime@dot.gov; (202) 366–

9283. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Current Indiana Time Observance 

Indiana is divided into 92 counties. 

Under Federal law, 74 Indiana counties 

are in the Eastern Time Zone and 18 are 

in the Central Time Zone. The Central 

Time Zone counties include seven in 

the northwest (Lake, Porter, La Porte, 

Starke, Newton, Jasper, and Pulaski) and 

eleven in the southwest (Knox, Daviess, 

Martin, Gibson, Pike, Dubois, Posey, 

Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, and 

Perry). The remaining 74 counties are in 

the Eastern Time Zone. The entire State 

began to observe daylight saving time in 

2006. Neighboring States observe both 

Eastern and Central time. Illinois and 

western Kentucky observe Central time, 

while eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and the 

portion of Michigan adjoining Indiana 

observe Eastern time. 

In January 2006, DOT completed a 

rulemaking proceeding establishing new 

time zone boundaries that resulted in 

the current time zone observance. In 

that rulemaking in response to a petition 

from Pulaski County as well as other 

Indiana counties, the County was 

moved to the Central Time Zone. 

Pulaski County is bordered to the north 

and west by counties in the Central 

Time Zone and to the south and east by 

counties in the Eastern Time Zone. In 

February 2006, Pulaski County filed a 

Petition requesting a time zone change 

back to the Eastern Time Zone, and 

subsequently filed an Amended 

Petition. 

In August 2006, Knox, Daviess, 

Martin, Pike, and Dubois Counties in 

Southwestern Indiana (the 

Southwestern Counties) filed a Joint 

Petition for a Time Zone Change (Joint 

Petition). This Final Rule addresses only 

Pulaski County. DOT is evaluating the 

Joint Petition and supplemental 

information from the Southwestern 

Counties before making a determination 

whether to propose a time zone change 

or deny the Joint Petition. 

Statutory Requirements 

Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, 

as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 

1966 (15 U.S.C. 260–64), the Secretary 

of Transportation has authority to issue 

regulations modifying the boundaries 

between time zones in the United States 

in order to move an area from one time 

zone to another. The standard in the 

statute for such decisions is ‘‘regard for 

the convenience of commerce and the 

existing junction points and division 

points of common carriers engaged in 

interstate or foreign commerce.’’

DOT Procedures To Change a Time 

Zone Boundary 

DOT has typically used a set of 

procedures to address time zone issues. 

Under these procedures, DOT will 

generally begin a rulemaking proceeding 

to change a time zone boundary if the 

highest elected officials in the area 

provide adequate supporting data for 

the proposed change. We ask that the 

petition include, or be accompanied by, 

detailed information supporting the 

requesting party’s contention that the 

requested change would serve the 

convenience of commerce. The 

principal standard for deciding whether 

to change a time zone is defined very 

broadly to include consideration of all 

the impacts upon a community of a 

change in its standard of time. We also 

ask that the supporting documentation 

address, at a minimum, each of the 

following questions in as much detail as 

possible. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES