Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54997 

of this section, or some combination 

thereof; or 

(iii) At least 50 percent of the entity 

is owned by the GO Zone Targeted 

Population, low-income persons as 

defined in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this 

section, or some combination thereof. 

(2) Location—(i) In general. In order 

to be a qualified active low-income 

community business under paragraph 

(d)(9)(ii)(C) of this section, the entity 

must be located in a population census 

tract within the GO Zone that contains 

one or more areas designated by FEMA 

as flooded, having sustained extensive 

damage, or having sustained 

catastrophic damage as a result of 

Hurricane Katrina (qualifying 

population census tract). 

(ii) Determination—(A) For purposes 

of the preceding paragraph, an entity 

will be considered to be located in a 

qualifying population census tract if— 

(I) At least 50 percent of the total 

gross income of the entity is derived 

from the active conduct of a qualified 

business (as defined in paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section) within one or more 

qualifying population census tracts 

(gross income requirement); 

(II) At least 40 percent of the use of 

the tangible property of the entity 

(whether owned or leased) is within one 

or more qualifying population census 

tracts (use of tangible property 

requirement); and 

(III) At least 40 percent of the services 

performed for the entity by its 

employees are performed in one or more 

qualifying population census tracts 

(services performed requirement). 

(B) The entity is deemed to satisfy the 

gross income requirement if the entity 

satisfies the use of tangible property 

requirement or the services performed 

requirement on the basis of at least 50 

percent instead of 40 percent. 

(C) If the entity has no employees, the 

entity is deemed to satisfy the services 

performed requirement as well as the 

gross income requirement if at least 85 

percent of the use of the tangible 

property of the entity (whether owned 

or leased) is within one or more 

qualifying population census tracts. 

(D) 200-percent-income restriction— 

(1) In general—(i) In no case will an 

entity be treated as a qualified active 

low-income community business under 

paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section if the 

entity is located in a population census 

tract for which the median family 

income exceeds 200 percent of— 

(A) In the case of a tract not located 

within a metropolitan area, the 

statewide median family income, or 

(B) In the case of a tract located within 

a metropolitan area, the greater of 

statewide median family income or 

metropolitan area median family 

income (200-percent-income 

restriction). 

(ii) The 200-percent-income 

restriction shall not apply to an entity 

located within a population census tract 

with a population of less than 2,000 if 

such tract is not located in a 

metropolitan area. 

(iii) The 200-percent-income 

restriction shall not apply to an entity 

located within a population census tract 

with a population of less than 2,000 if 

such tract is located in a metropolitan 

area and more than 75 percent of the 

tract is zoned for commercial or 

industrial use. For this purpose, the 75 

percent calculation should be made 

using the area of the population census 

tract. For purposes of this paragraph 

(d)(9)(ii)(D)(1)(iii), property for which 

commercial or industrial use is a 

permissible zoning use will be treated as 

zoned for commercial or industrial use. 

(2) Population census tract location— 

(i) For purposes of the 200-percentincome restriction, an entity will be 

considered to be located in a population 

census tract for which the median 

family income exceeds 200 percent of 

the applicable median family income 

under paragraph (d)(9)(ii)(D)(1)(i)(A) or 

(B) of this section (non-qualifying 

population census tract) if— 

(A) At least 50 percent of the total 

gross income of the entity is derived 

from the active conduct of a qualified 

business (as defined in paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section) within one or more nonqualifying population census tracts 

(non-qualifying gross income amount); 

(B) At least 40 percent of the use of 

the tangible property of the entity 

(whether owned or leased) is within one 

or more non-qualifying population 

census tracts (non-qualifying tangible 

property usage); and 

(C) At least 40 percent of the services 

performed for the entity by its 

employees are performed in one or more 

non-qualifying population census tracts 

(non-qualifying services performance). 

(ii) The entity is considered to have 

the non-qualifying gross income amount 

if the entity has non-qualifying tangible 

property usage or non-qualifying 

services performance of at least 50 

percent instead of 40 percent. 

(iii) If the entity has no employees, the 

entity is considered to have the nonqualifying gross income amount as well 

as non-qualifying services performance 

if at least 85 percent of the use of the 

tangible property of the entity (whether 

owned or leased) is within one or more 

non-qualifying population census tracts. 

(E) Rental of real property for the GO 

Zone Targeted Population. The rental to 

others of real property for the GO Zone 

Targeted Population that otherwise 

satisfies the requirements to be a 

qualified business under paragraph 

(d)(5) of this section will be treated as 

located in a low-income community for 

purposes of paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this 

section if at least 50 percent of the 

entity’s total gross income is derived 

from rentals to the GO Zone Targeted 

Population, low-income persons as 

defined in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this 

section and/or to a qualified active lowincome community business that meets 

the requirements for the GO Zone 

Targeted Population under paragraphs 

(d)(9)(ii)(C)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(h) Effective/applicability dates * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Targeted populations. The rules in 

paragraph (d)(9) of this section apply to 

taxable years ending on or after the date 

of publication of the Treasury decision 

adopting these rules as final regulation 

in the Federal Register. 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–22481 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 138 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0007] 

RIN 1625–AB25 

Consumer Price Index Adjustments of 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Limits of 

Liability—Vessels and Deepwater 

Ports 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

increase the limits of liability for vessels 

and deepwater ports under the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) to 

account for inflation. This notice also 

sets forth the methodology the Coast 

Guard proposes to use for this and 

future adjustments to the OPA 90 limits 

of liability to reflect significant 

increases in the Consumer Price Index 

(CPI). These adjustments are required by 

OPA 90 to preserve the deterrent effect 

and polluter pays principle embodied in 

the OPA 90 liability provisions. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Docket Management 

Facility on or before November 24, 

2008. Comments sent to the Office of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
54998 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1See, Oil Pollution Desk Book, Environmental 

Law Institute 1991, hereinafter OPA 90 Desk Book, 

p. 88, H.R. Conf. Report 101–653, at p. 102, 

reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780 [‘‘The term 

‘liable’ or ‘liability’ * * * is to be construed to be 

the standard of liability * * * under section 311 of 

the [Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before November 24, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0007 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

You must also send comments on 

collection of information to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget. To 

ensure that the comments are received 

on time, the preferred method is by email at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov 

(include the docket number and 

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Coast 

Guard, DHS’’ in the subject line of the 

e-mail) or fax at 202–395–6566. An 

alternate, though slower, method is by 

U.S. mail to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Benjamin White, National 

Pollution Funds Center, Coast Guard, 

telephone 202–493–6863. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

paragraph below. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0007), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

For example, we may ask you to 

resubmit your comment if we are not 

able to read your original submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or 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 that 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. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time, 

click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter 

the docket number for this rulemaking 

(USCG–2008–0007) in the Docket ID 

box, and click enter. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act, system of records notice regarding 

our public dockets in the January 17, 

2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 

FR 3316). 

D. 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. 

II. Acronyms 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COFR Certificate of Financial 

Responsibility 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

CPI–U Consumer Price Index All Urban 

Consumers, Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. 

city average, All items, 1982–84 = 100 

DPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.) 

DOI United States Department of Interior 

DOT United States Department of 

Transportation 

DRPA Delaware River Protection Act of 

2006, Title VI of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–241, July 11, 2006, 120 

Stat. 516 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

Fund Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

LNG Liquefied natural gas 

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

MTR Marine transportation-related 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f) 

NMTR Non-marine transportation-related 

NPFC National Pollution Funds Center 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NTR Non-transportation-related 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPA 90 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.) 

SBA Small Business Administration 

U.S.C. United States Code 

U.S.C.C.A.N. United States Code 

Congressional and Administrative News 

III. Background and Purpose 

In general, under the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

2701, et seq.) (OPA 90), responsible 

parties (i.e., the owners and operators, 

including demise charterers) for a vessel 

or a facility from which oil is 

discharged, or which poses a substantial 

threat of discharge of oil, into or upon 

the navigable waters or adjoining 

shorelines or the exclusive economic 

zone are liable for the removal costs and 

damages specified in OPA 90, under 33 

U.S.C. 2702(b), that result from such an 

incident. (33 U.S.C. 2702(a)). 

Embodying the polluter pays principle, 

this liability is strict, joint and several.1


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54999 

1321]. * * * That standard of liability has been 

determined repeatedly to be strict, joint and several 

liability.’’]; OPA 90 Desk Book p. 93, H.R. Conf. 

Report 101–653, at 118, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N., at 797 

(Aug. 3, 1990) [’’[T]he primary responsibility to 

compensate victims of oil pollution rests with the 

person responsible for the source of the 

pollution[.]’’]. 

The responsible parties’ total liability 

(including any removal costs incurred 

by, or on behalf of, the responsible 

parties) may, however, be limited as 

provided in 33 U.S.C. 2704, except 

under certain circumstances as provided 

in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c). In instances when 

the limits of liability apply, the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (the Fund) is 

available to compensate the responsible 

parties and other claimants for removal 

costs and damages in excess of the 

applicable liability limits. 

OPA 90, at 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), sets 

forth the base dollar amounts of the 

limits of liability for four specified 

source categories: Vessels, onshore 

facilities, deepwater ports subject to the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended 

(33 U.S.C.1501, et seq.) (DPA), and 

offshore facilities other than deepwater 

ports subject to the DPA. In addition, to 

prevent the real value of the base limits 

of liability from depreciating over time 

as a result of inflation and to preserve 

the polluter pays principle embodied in 

OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d) requires the 

President to periodically increase the 

limits of liability by regulation to reflect 

significant increases in the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI). 

In Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, the 

President delegated implementation of 

the limit of liability inflation adjustment 

authorities under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d), 

dividing the responsibility among 

various Federal agencies. Through a 

series of further delegations, the Coast 

Guard was delegated the President’s 

authority to adjust the limits of liability 

for the following source categories: 

vessels, deepwater ports subject to the 

DPA (including associated pipelines), 

and transportation-related onshore 

facilities, not including pipelines, motor 

carriers and railroads (hereinafter ‘‘MTR 

onshore facilities’’). The Department of 

Transportation (DOT) was delegated the 

President’s authority to adjust the limits 

of liability for onshore pipelines, motor 

carriers, and railways (hereinafter 

‘‘NMTR onshore facilities’’). The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

was delegated the President’s authority 

to adjust the limits of liability for nontransportation-related onshore facilities 

(hereinafter ‘‘NTR onshore facilities’’). 

Finally, the Department of Interior (DOI) 

was delegated the President’s authority 

to adjust the limits of liability for 

offshore facilities and associated 

pipelines, other than deepwater ports 

subject to the DPA. 

In addition, on August 4, 1995, the 

Department of Transportation, which 

then included the Coast Guard, 

promulgated a facility-specific limit for 

the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) 

under the deepwater port limit of 

liability adjustment authority at 33 

U.S.C. 2704(d)(2). (60 FR 39849). That 

notice specifically contemplated that 

the LOOP limit would be adjusted for 

inflation to prevent the real value of the 

regulatory limit of liability for LOOP 

from depreciating over time. 

This proposed rule would be the first 

CPI adjustment, under 33 U.S.C. 

2704(d), to the limits of liability 

applicable to responsible parties for 

vessels, and deepwater ports subject to 

the DPA, including LOOP. This 

rulemaking would also establish the 

methodology for making future inflation 

adjustments to the OPA 90 limits of 

liability for all source categories for 

which the Coast Guard has jurisdiction. 

To ensure consistent inflation 

adjustments to the limits of liability for 

all OPA 90 source categories, the Coast 

Guard has coordinated the adjustment 

methodology proposed by this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with 

DOT, EPA, and DOI. In addition, the 

Coast Guard, DOT, EPA, and DOI have 

agreed to make inflation adjustments to 

the limits of liability for MTR onshore 

facilities (regulated by Coast Guard), 

NMTR onshore facilities (regulated by 

DOT), NTR onshore facilities (regulated 

by EPA), and offshore facilities and 

associated pipelines, other than 

deepwater ports subject to the DPA 

(regulated by DOI), as part of the next 

inflation increase to the limits of 

liability. This phased approach would 

establish the adjustment methodology 

proposed by this NPRM for all source 

categories. It also would allow time for 

additional interagency coordination 

necessary to ensure consistency in 

implementing the CPI adjustments to 

the limits of liability for onshore and 

offshore facilities. 

How are ‘‘not less than every 3 years’’ 

and ‘‘significant increases’’ defined? 

As noted above, to prevent the real 

value of the base limits of liability from 

depreciating over time as a result of 

inflation and to preserve the polluter 

pays principle embodied in OPA 90, 

OPA 90 provides for periodic increases 

to the limits of liability to reflect 

significant increases in the CPI. 

Specifically, 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4), as 

amended by Section 603 of the 

Delaware River Protection Act of 2006, 

Title VI of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–241, July 11, 2006, 120 

Stat. 516 (DRPA), requires that the OPA 

90 limits of liability be adjusted ‘‘not 

less than every 3 years * * * to reflect 

significant increases in the Consumer 

Price Index.’’ 

The word ‘‘increases’’ indicates 

clearly that Congress intended that the 

limits be adjusted under 33 U.S.C. 

2704(d)(4) only for inflation, and that 

there would be no decreases to the 

limits of liability due to decreases in the 

CPI. It, however, is equally apparent 

that, if Congress had wanted the 

adjustments to occur routinely every 3 

years, the mandate would not have 

included the qualifier ‘‘significant’’. We 

looked first to the legislative history to 

help interpret what Congress meant. 

Under OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 2712 and 

2713, when a responsible party is 

entitled to a limit of liability under 33 

U.S.C. 2704, the Fund is available to pay 

the removal costs and damages in excess 

of the limits. But Congress did not 

intend this authority to shift 

responsibility away from the 

responsible parties onto the victims of 

oil spills or the Fund. 

OPA 90 instead, imposes a duty on 

the responsible party in the first 

instance to reimburse third-party 

claimants and the Fund for removal 

costs and damages whenever an oil spill 

occurs. See, footnote 1, above. See also, 

R.V. Randle, ‘‘The Oil Pollution Act of 

1990: Its Provisions, Intent, and 

Effects’’, OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 3 [OPA’s 

claims and financial responsibility 

‘‘procedures make very clear that the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund is the fund of 

last resort to pay claims under the Act. 

Instead the responsible parties and their 

guarantors are the primary insurers 

against claims for removal costs and oil 

discharge damages’’]. 

To that end, when enacting OPA 90, 

Congress increased the limits of liability 

from those contained in prior laws to 

levels Congress believed would preserve 

the deterrent effects necessary to 

promote caution and best practices by 

the shipping industry. In that respect, 

Congress intended that the Fund would 

only be available as a last resort for 

catastrophic events. (See, OPA 90 Desk 

Book, p. 196, House Report 101–242, 

Part 2, p. 36 (September 18, 1989) 

[‘‘[The new] liability limits are designed 

to insure due care in transporting oil as 

historically all but the most catastrophic 

spills would be fully paid for by the 

spiller at these levels. The fund is 

designed to cover catastrophic spills.’’]) 

The CPI adjustment provisions of 

OPA 90 originated in Section 

102(c)(4)(B) of the Senate Bill, S. 686. 

(See, OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 504, and 

Statements On Introduced Bills And 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55000 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Joint Resolutions, 132 Cong. Rec. 

S12185–01 (Tuesday, September 9, 

1986). The Senate Report for S. 686 

includes the following explanation for 

the provision: 

‘‘In several of the existing Federal laws on 

oil spills, the liability limits have not been 

increased in 10 years so that, in real dollars, 

the liability limits have been decreasing over 

time. In order to prevent further diminution 

of compensation, section 102(c)(4)(B) 

requires the President to adjust the limits on 

liability by regulation not less often than 

every three years to take into account 

significant increases in the Consumer Price 

Index.’’ 

The Senate Report clarifies that 

Congress was concerned that inflation 

would erode responsible party liability 

and shift the economic risk of oil spills 

onto the Fund. (See, Pub. L. 101–380, 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, S. REP. 101– 

94, July 28, 1989). Congress also clearly 

believed waiting 10 years to adjust the 

limits was too long, and that 

adjustments in regular, more frequent, 

smaller increments would better 

support the polluter pays public policy 

objectives of OPA 90. 

The Conference Report Joint 

Explanatory Statement, at p. 106, also 

describes the mandate as requiring 

adjustments ‘‘at least once every three 

years’’, to reflect significant increases in 

the CPI. (See, OPA 90 Desk Book, p. 89, 

H.R. CONF. REP. 101–653, Joint 

Explanatory Statement, August 1, 1990.) 

This explanation indicates that the 

words ‘‘not less than’’ mean that 

adjustments are permitted, but not 

required, more frequently than every 

three years. The Conference Report does 

not, however, explain what Congress 

meant by the word ‘‘significant’’. 

There is no other discussion in the 

OPA 90 legislative history, and we 

found no other Federal statute that uses 

the same wording. Congress, therefore, 

plainly left it to the President to give 

meaning to the term ‘‘significant’’. 

The plain meaning of ‘‘significant’’ is 

‘‘meaningful’’ (see, Webster’s II New 

Riverside University Dictionary (1988)), 

but meaningful in respect to what? 

Consistent with the Congressional focus 

on preserving OPA 90’s deterrent effect 

and avoiding risk shifting to the Fund, 

the Coast Guard analyzed historical data 

on incident costs. We found that even 

small increases in the CPI can have 

significant risk shifting impacts. (See, 

Report On Oil Pollution Act Liability 

Limits, U.S. Department Of Homeland 

Security, United States Coast Guard, 

transmitted to the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

on January 5, 2007.) For example, based 

on our further analysis of the historical 

cost averages in that report, a 1 percent 

per year increase in the CPI will shift 

incident cost risk from the responsible 

party to the Fund by an estimated 

$900,000 over three years. 

When adjustments to limits of 

liability are delayed, the Fund will, with 

inflation, inevitably be at risk for a 

higher share of incident costs than 

intended by OPA 90. Consequently, 

responsible party risk is reduced. 

In consideration of the historical data, 

the Coast Guard believes it is reasonable 

and consistent with Congressional 

intent to treat any cumulative change in 

the CPI over a three year period of 3 

percent or greater as significant and as 

the appropriate threshold for triggering 

an adjustment to the limits of liability. 

A triennial 3 percent threshold would 

result in a predictable, regular schedule 

of smaller-increment adjustments for 

inflation. It would thereby maintain the 

balance Congress sought to strike 

between responsible party risk and 

Fund risk. 

How does the Coast Guard propose to 

calculate the CPI adjustment to the 

limits of liability for Coast Guard source 

categories? 

We propose calculating the CPI 

adjustments to the limits of liability for 

Coast Guard source categories using the 

following formula: 

New limit of liability = Current limit of 

liability value + (Current limit of liability 

value × percent change in the CPI from the 

time the limit of liability was established, or 

last adjusted by statute or regulation, 

whichever is later, to the present), then 

rounded to the closest $100. 

Which CPI does the Coast Guard 

propose to use? 

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a 

variety of inflation indices. We propose 

using the ‘‘All Urban Consumers, Not 

Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. city average, 

All items, 1982–84=100’’ index, also 

known as ‘‘CPI–U’’. This is the most 

current and broadest index. It also is 

commonly relied on in insurance 

policies and other commercial 

transactions with automatic inflation 

protection, by the media, and by 

economic analysts. 

How would a percent change in the CPI– 

U be calculated? 

We propose using the escalation 

formula developed by BLS for 

calculating percent changes in the CPI– 

U that is described in Fact Sheet 00–1, 

U.S. Department of Labor Program 

Highlights, ‘‘How to Use the Consumer 

Price Index for Escalation’’, September 

2000, available from the BLS online at 

http://www.bls.gov. The following 

example illustrates the BLS escalation 

formula, using a hypothetical three-year 

adjustment period: 

CPI–U for Current Period 

(2006).

201.6. 

Minus CPI–U for Previous Period (2003).184.0. 

Equals index point change .... 17.6. 

Divided by CPI–U for previous 

period.

184.0. 

Equals .................................... 0.096. 

Result multiplied by 100 ........ 0.096 × 100. 

Equals percent change in the 

CPI–U.

9.6 percent. 

The ‘‘Current Period’’ and ‘‘Previous 

Period’’ values used in this hypothetical 

are available from the BLS online at 

http://data.bls.gov. 

What ‘‘Previous Period’’ dates does the 

Coast Guard propose to use for this 

rulemaking? 

The ‘‘Previous Period’’ we propose 

using for adjustments to the LOOP limit 

of liability is 1995. This is based on the 

date the LOOP limit of liability was 

established by regulation, which was 

August 4, 1995. (See, 60 FR 39849). The 

LOOP limit of liability has not been 

adjusted since it was established in 

1995. The ‘‘Previous Period’’ we 

propose using for adjustments to the 

limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), 

which would apply to all Coast Guard 

delegated source categories other than 

LOOP, is 2006. This is based on the date 

of enactment of the DRPA, which was 

July 11, 2006, and is the last date the 

limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a) 

were adjusted. 

We note in respect to the limits of 

liability in 33 U.S.C. 2704(a) that DRPA 

only increased the limits for vessels. 

We, therefore, considered whether to 

use a 1990 ‘‘Previous Period’’ (based on 

the date of enactment of OPA 90) to 

adjust the limits of liability for the nonvessel source categories in 33 U.S.C. 

2704(a). Using a 1990 ‘‘Previous Period’’ 

would result in an increase to the limits 

of liability for the non-vessel source 

categories of more than 60 percent. 

The legislative history for DRPA, 

however, indicates that Congress only 

increased the base limits of liability for 

vessels in 2006 because the vessel limits 

were the only limits of liability in 33 

U.S.C. 2704(a) that were not adequate. 

Specifically, Congress was advised in 

Congressional testimony and reports to 

Congress that the only oil spill incidents 

since enactment of OPA 90 that had 

resulted in claims against the Fund by 

responsible parties for removal costs 

and damages in excess of the limits of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55001 

2See, e.g., Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2006: Hearing Before the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation (April 27, 2006) (Statements of Rear 

Admiral Thomas Gilmour, Assistant Commandant 

For Prevention, and Jan Lane, Director, National 

Pollution Funds Center); ‘‘Report on 

Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990’’, 

U.S. Coast Guard (May 12, 2005) (report under 

Section 705 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2004, Public Law 108–293, to 

the Chairmen of the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, the Senate 

Committee on Environmental and Public Works, 

and the Senate Committee, Commerce, Science and 

Transportation). 

liability were vessel incidents.2 By 

comparison, no incident involving the 

other source categories had exceeded 

the base limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 

2704(a). Thus, only the vessel base 

limits of liability needed to be increased 

at that time to preserve the deterrent 

effect and polluter pays principle 

embodied in the OPA 90 liability 

provisions. Id. 

What time interval CPI–U does the Coast 

Guard propose to use for the 

adjustments? 

BLS publishes the CPI–U in both 

monthly and annual periods. For 

consistency and simplicity, we propose 

using the annual period CPI–U 

(hereinafter the ‘‘Annual CPI–U’’) rather 

than the monthly period CPI–U. In this 

way we can avoid having to publish 

distinct percent change values for the 

different sources and source categories 

in future adjustment cycles, based on 

the month when each source or source 

category’s limit was established or last 

adjusted. 

For example, as noted, DRPA updated 

the limits of liability in 33 U.S.C. 

2704(a) on July 11, 2006. But DRPA did 

not affect the currently applicable limit 

of liability for LOOP, which was 

established by regulation on August 4, 

1995 (60 FR 39849). Thus, if we were to 

use the monthly CPI–U we would 

always have to calculate the 

adjustments for these two groups using 

the July and August monthly CPI–U 

values. 

Under the approach proposed here, 

the formula for the first set of regulatory 

inflation increases to the limits of 

liability would yield two Annual CPI– 

U percent change values, one based on 

the 1995 LOOP ‘‘Previous Period’’ and 

one based on the 2006 ‘‘Previous 

Period’’ applicable to vessels and other 

deepwater ports. By using the same 

‘‘Current Period’’ Annual CPI–U, as 

proposed by this rulemaking, we would 

be able to increase the limits of liability 

for all vessels and deepwater ports in 

the next adjustment cycle based on a 

single Annual CPI–U percent change 

value. 

Which Annual CPI–U ‘‘Previous Period’’ 

and ‘‘Current Period’’ values does the 

Coast Guard propose to use for the first 

inflation adjustments to the limits of 

liability? 

For the ‘‘Previous Period’’ values, as 

noted above, we propose using the 1995 

Annual CPI–U for LOOP and the 2006 

Annual CPI–U for the other Coast Guard 

source categories. 

For the ‘‘Current Period’’ value, due to 

the time lag for BLS publication of the 

Annual CPI–U and the time it takes to 

promulgate regulations, we propose 

adjusting the limits of liability using the 

2008 Annual CPI–U. 

The ‘‘Previous Period’’ and estimated 

‘‘Current Period’’ values we propose to 

use are as follows: 

(a) For LOOP, the ‘‘Previous Period’’ 

using the 1995 Annual CPI–U would be 

152.4; the ‘‘Current Period’’, using the 

2008 Annual CPI–U, as estimated for 

purposes of this proposal, would be 

213.6. 

(b) For vessels and deepwater ports 

other than LOOP, the ‘‘Previous Period’’ 

using the 2006 Annual CPI–U would be 

201.6; the ‘‘Current Period’’, using the 

2008 Annual CPI–U, as estimated for 

purposes of this proposal, would be 

213.6. 

Because the 2008 Annual CPI–U will 

not be published until after the date of 

this proposal, the 2008 Annual CPI–U 

‘‘Current Period’’ values shown here are 

a forecast using the average of the 

monthly CPI–U for the months of 

January 2008 through May 2008. We 

will use the 2008 Annual CPI–U 

published by the BLS in the final rule. 

Inserting these values into the BLS 

escalation formula yields the following 

(estimated) percent changes in the 

Annual CPI–U (rounded to one decimal 

place): 

Percent 

For LOOP ....................................... 40.2 

For vessels and other deepwater 

ports ............................................ 6.0 

What would the adjusted limits be? 

Inserting the estimated percent 

changes in the Annual CPI–U into the 

adjustment formula would result in the 

following estimated proposed limits of 

liability for vessels and deepwater ports 

(rounded to the closest $100): 

Source category Current limit of liability Proposed limit of liability 

(a) Vessels: 

(1) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons with a single 

hull, including a single-hull vessel fitted with double sides only 

or a double bottom only.

The greater of $3,000 per gross 

ton or $22,000,000.

The greater of $3,200 per gross 

ton or $23,320,000. 

(2) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, other than a 

vessel referred to in (a)(1).

The greater of $1,900 per gross 

ton or $16,000,000.

The greater of $2,000 per gross 

ton or $16,960,000. 

(3) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons with a 

single hull, including a single-hull vessel fitted with double sides 

only or a double bottom only.

The greater of $3,000 per gross 

ton or $6,000,000.

The greater of $3,200 per gross 

ton or $6,360,000. 

(4) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons, other 

than a vessel referred to in (3).

The greater of $1,900 per gross 

ton or $4,000,000.

The greater of $2,000 per gross 

ton or $4,240,000. 

(5) For any other vessel ................................................................... The greater of $950 per gross ton 

or $800,000.

The greater of $1,000 per gross 

ton or $848,000. 

(b) Deepwater ports subject to the DPA: 

(1) For a deepwater port subject to the DPA, other than the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP).$350,000,000 ................................. $371,000,000. 

(2) For LOOP ................................................................................... $62,000,000 ................................... $86,924,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55002 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

How will the percent change for 

subsequent periods be calculated? 

Although this rulemaking has been 

initiated to implement the first CPIrelated increases to the OPA 90 limits of 

liability under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d) for 

vessels and deepwater ports, the Coast 

Guard proposes to use the same 

methodology for subsequent CPI 

adjustments to the limits of liability for 

all Coast Guard source categories. 

Except in instances when increases in 

the Annual CPI–U over any three-year 

period were not significant, we would 

calculate future adjustments using the 

cumulative percent change in the 

Annual CPI–U for the previous three 

available years. Thus, for the 2012 

increase (assuming a significant increase 

in the Annual CPI–U), we would 

calculate the Annual CPI–U change 

using the 2008 Annual CPI–U as the 

‘‘Previous Period’’ value for vessels and 

deepwater ports including LOOP, and 

the 2011 Annual CPI–U as the ‘‘Current 

Period’’ value. Note that we would not 

be able to use the 2012 Annual CPI–U, 

due to the time lag for BLS publication 

of the Annual CPI–U. We would use the 

2006 Annual CPI–U as the ‘‘Previous 

Period’’ value for MTR facilities. 

What if the ‘‘significant’’ threshold is 

not met? 

After the first adjustment, we propose 

that, for any three-year period in which 

the percent change is not significant, in 

that the cumulative change is less than 

3 percent over three years, we would 

publish a notice of no adjustment in the 

Federal Register, and revisit the issue 

each subsequent year until the 

cumulative percent change in the 

Annual CPI–U from the last adjustment 

equals 3 percent or greater. We would 

then base the adjustment on the Annual 

CPI–U change since the last adjustment. 

Thus, if we determined in 2012 that 

the cumulative percent change in the 

Annual CPI–U from 2008 to 2011 was 2 

percent, we would not adjust the limits 

that year. In the following year, 2013, if 

the 3 percent change threshold were 

met, we would adjust the limits of 

liability for all vessels and deepwater 

ports based on the Annual CPI–U 

percent change from 2008 as the 

‘‘Previous Period’’ to 2012 as the 

‘‘Current Period’’. Note that we would 

not be able to use the 2013 Annual CPI– 

U, due to the time lag for BLS 

publication of the Annual CPI–U. The 

next adjustment would be three years 

later, in 2016, assuming the cumulative 

percentage increase between the 2012 

Annual CPI–U and the 2015 Annual 

CPI–U was significant. 

How does the Coast Guard plan to 

promulgate subsequent periodic 

adjustments to the limits of liability in 

the regulations? 

This notice and comment rulemaking 

provides the public the opportunity to 

comment on the inflation index (Annual 

CPI–U), significance threshold, and 

calculation methodology the Coast 

Guard proposes to use for the first and 

subsequent CPI adjustments to the 

limits of liability. Once these technical 

issues are resolved in the final rule for 

the first set of CPI adjustments proposed 

here, we do not anticipate future CPI 

adjustments to the limits of liability will 

be controversial. 

In the next rulemaking to adjust the 

limits of liability, the Coast Guard will 

work with the other delegated agencies 

(DOT, EPA and DOI) on a coordinated 

rulemaking to adjust the OPA 90 limits 

of liability for all source categories. This 

would, include adjustments to the limits 

of liability for onshore and offshore 

facilities based on the Annual CPI–U 

percent change from 2006 as the 

‘‘Previous Period’’ to 2012 as the 

‘‘Current Period’’. The issues to be 

considered at that time will include 

whether to propose that routine CPI 

adjustments be implemented in the 

future using a different procedure 

whenever the level of inflation reaches 

or exceeds the threshold significance 

amount. Those issues will also include 

whether to propose using the 

adjustment procedure proposed by this 

rulemaking at § 138.240 in a direct final 

rule, or implementing future CPI 

increases through self-executing 

regulatory provisions without additional 

rulemaking procedures. For example, if 

increases to the OPA 90 limits of 

liability were implemented without 

additional rulemaking procedures, the 

amount of the increases would be 

calculated in the same manner as 

proposed here, and notice of the 

increased limits of liability would be 

given in the Federal Register and 

published in media such as the 

agencies’ Internet pages, in advance of 

the effective date of the increased limits 

of liability. 

If we propose a self-executing 

approach, we would also consider 

whether to propose provisions to ensure 

that abnormally large increases in 

inflation would not automatically be 

translated into abnormally large 

increases in the limits of liability. One 

possible such provision could be to 

require a notice and comment 

rulemaking whenever the level of 

inflation for a given period exceeds a set 

limit. Another could be to reserve the 

Coast Guard and other agencies’ 

discretion to conduct a notice and 

comment rulemaking for any adjustment 

when the agencies conclude that it 

would be in the public’s interest to do 

so. 

Either of these approaches may be 

more practical and flexible, and would 

promote predictability and consistency. 

The specific procedures for future 

adjustments would be determined 

during the second rulemaking. 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Subpart B. This proposed rule would 

increase the limits of liability for vessels 

and deepwater ports in 33 CFR part 138, 

subpart B, for inflation, in accordance 

with the Coast Guard’s delegated 

authority for making CPI adjustments 

under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d). It also would 

establish the formula for making 

inflation adjustments to the OPA 90 

limits of liability for all Coast Guard 

source categories, and will thereby 

facilitate future adjustments to the 

limits of liability to reflect significant 

increases in the CPI. 

The Coast Guard first proposed the 

creation of subpart B in the Financial 

Responsibility for Water Pollution 

(Vessels and Deepwater Ports) NPRM 

(73 FR 6642, February 5, 2008; and 73 

FR 8250, February 13, 2008) (hereinafter 

the ‘‘COFR Rule’’) for the purpose of 

stating the OPA 90 limits of liability for 

vessels and deepwater ports, including 

LOOP, in the regulations. The final 

COFR Rule was published in the 

Federal Register on September 17, 2008 

(73 FR 53691). 

Section 138.220. We are proposing to 

insert a new § 138.220 to add definitions 

to subpart B, and to renumber § 138.220 

as set forth in the COFR Rule as 

§ 138.230. New § 138.220 would add 

definitions for ‘‘Annual CPI–U’’ and 

‘‘Director, NPFC’’, and would crossreference certain terms that are used in 

subpart B and defined in OPA 90. 

Section 138.230. We are proposing to 

increase the limits of liability for vessels 

and deepwater ports, including LOOP, 

from those set forth in § 138.220 of the 

COFR Rule (proposed § 138.230), to 

reflect significant increases in the CPI. 

Additionally, we propose adding and 

reserving new subparagraphs 

§ 138.230(b)(2)(ii) and (c). This will 

ensure these subparagraphs are 

available for use for any future 

rulemaking to establish new facilityspecific limits of liability for deepwater 

ports under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(2), and to 

add the limits of liability for MTR 

onshore facilities, which we expect to 

adjust during the next adjustment cycle. 

The limits of liability given in this 

section are estimates, which were 

calculated using an estimated Annual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55003 

CPI–U. The updated limits of liability in 

the final rule will be calculated using 

the most recent Annual CPI–U available 

at the time of publication of the rule, 

and may be different than the estimates 

in this NPRM. 

Section 138.240. We propose adding 

new § 138.240 in 33 CFR part 138, 

subpart B to set out the procedure the 

Coast Guard proposes to use to calculate 

adjustments to the limits of liability 

contained in proposed § 138.230 for 

significant increases to the CPI. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. 

A draft Regulatory Assessment is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. A summary of the 

Assessment follows: 

There are two regulatory costs that are 

expected from this proposed rule. 

Regulatory Cost 1: An increased cost of 

liability to responsible parties of vessels 

and deepwater ports. Regulatory Cost 2: 

An increased cost for establishing and 

maintaining evidence of financial 

responsibility to responsible parties of 

vessels. (Deepwater ports are not 

expected to have any increased 

evidence of financial responsibility 

costs as a result of this proposed rule.) 

Discussion of Regulatory Cost 1 

This proposed rulemaking could 

increase the dollar amount of removal 

costs and damages a responsible party of 

a vessel or deepwater port would be 

responsible to pay in the event of a 

discharge, or substantial threat of 

discharge, of oil (hereafter an ‘‘OPA 90 

incident’’). Regulatory Cost 1 would, 

however, only be incurred by a 

responsible party if an OPA 90 incident 

results in removal costs and damages 

that exceed the vessel or deepwater 

port’s current limit of liability. In any 

such case, the difference between the 

current limit of liability amount and the 

proposed limit of liability amount 

would be the increased cost to the 

responsible party. 

Affected Population—Vessels 

Coast Guard data, as of May 2007, 

indicate that, for the years 1991 through 

2006, 41 OPA 90 incidents involving 

vessels resulted in removal costs and 

damages in excess of the current limits 

of liability (an average of approximately 

three OPA 90 incidents per year). For 

the purpose of this analysis, we assume 

that three OPA 90 incidents involving 

vessels would occur per year over a 10- 

year analysis period (2009–2018), with 

removal costs and damages reaching or 

exceeding the proposed limits of 

liability for vessels. 

Affected Population—Deepwater Ports 

At this time, LOOP is the only 

deepwater port subject to OPA 90. To 

date, LOOP has not had an OPA 90 

incident that resulted in removal costs 

and damages in excess of LOOP’s 

current limit of liability of $62 Million. 

Accordingly, for the purpose of this 

analysis, we assume that only one OPA 

90 incident would occur at LOOP over 

the 10-year analysis period (2009–2018), 

with removal costs and damages 

reaching or exceeding the proposed 

limit of liability for LOOP. 

There are two liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) deepwater ports currently in 

operation (Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge 

and Northeast Gateway). In 2003 and 

2007, respectively, however, the Coast 

Guard determined that the designs of 

the two LNG deepwater ports did not 

meet the definition of an OPA 90 facility 

under 33 U.S.C. 2701(9). This is because 

neither deepwater port was designed to 

use structures, equipment or devices for 

purposes of exploring, drilling, 

producing, storing, handling, 

transferring, processing, or transporting 

oil. Therefore, unless the design and 

operations at either LNG port is 

changed, the port will not be affected by 

this proposed rule. We, therefore, 

assume that LOOP would be the only 

existing deepwater port that could incur 

increased removal costs and damages as 

a result of this proposed rule. 

Cost Summary Regulatory Cost 1 

The average annual cost of this 

rulemaking resulting from the three 

forecasted vessel OPA 90 incidents per 

year is estimated to be between $1.5 

Million and $2.9 Million (nondiscounted Dollars). The average annual 

cost of this rulemaking resulting from 

the one forecasted LOOP OPA 90 

incident over 10 years is estimated to be 

between $2.4 Million and $2.7 Million 

(non-discounted Dollars). The 10-year 

(2009–2018) present value at a 3 percent 

discount rate of this regulatory cost 

(vessels and LOOP) is estimated to be 

between $34.1 Million and $49.7 

Million. The 10-year (2009–2018) 

present value at a 7 percent discount 

rate of this regulatory cost (vessels and 

LOOP) is estimated to be between $29.2 

Million and $42.5 Million. The low end 

of the range assumes a 5 percent 

increase in the limits of liability for 

vessels and deepwater ports, except 

LOOP, and a 39 percent increase in the 

limit of liability for LOOP. The high end 

of the range assumes a 10 percent 

increase in the limits of liability for 

vessels and deepwater ports, except 

LOOP, and a 44 percent increase in the 

limit of liability for LOOP. These ranges 

were analyzed because the value of the 

2008 Annual CPI–U would not be 

known until after the publication of this 

NPRM. 

Discussion of Regulatory Cost 2 

Under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2716) 

responsible parties of vessels and 

deepwater ports are required to 

establish and maintain evidence of 

financial responsibility to prove that 

they have the ability to pay for removal 

costs and damages in the event of an 

OPA 90 incident up to their applicable 

limits of liability. Because this proposed 

rulemaking would increase the limits of 

liability for vessels and deepwater ports, 

responsible parties may incur additional 

cost associated with the corresponding 

requirements for establishing and 

maintaining evidence of financial 

responsibility. 

Affected Population—Vessels 

The proposed rule would potentially 

increase the cost associated with 

establishing financial responsibility 

under OPA 90 and 33 CFR part 138 for 

responsible parties of vessels in two 

ways. Responsible parties using 

commercial insurance as their method 

of financial guaranty could incur higher 

insurance premiums. Responsible 

parties using self-insurance as their 

method of financial guaranty would 

need to seek out and acquire 

commercial insurance for vessels they 

operate if they were no longer eligible 

for self-insurance based on their 

working capital and net worth. There 

are approximately 17,064 vessels using 

commercial insurance and 741 vessels 

using self-insurance methods of 

guaranty. 

Affected Population—Deepwater Ports 

As previously discussed (see Affected 

Population—Deepwater Ports above 

under Regulatory Cost 1), LOOP is the 

only deepwater port that would be 

affected by this proposed rule. An 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55004 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

increase in the LOOP limit of liability of 

the magnitude proposed by this 

rulemaking, however, is not expected to 

increase the cost associated with 

establishing and maintaining LOOP’s 

evidence of financial responsibility. 

This is because LOOP uses a facilityspecific method of providing evidence 

of financial responsibility to the Coast 

Guard. Specifically, LOOP is insured 

under a policy issued by Oil Insurance 

Limited (OIL) of Bermuda up to $150 

Million per OPA 90 incident and a $225 

Million annual aggregate. The Coast 

Guard has historically accepted the OIL 

policy, along with the policy’s $50 

Million minimum net worth and 

minimum working capital requirements, 

as evidence of financial responsibility. 

The Coast Guard does not expect that an 

increase in the LOOP limit of liability of 

the magnitude proposed by this 

rulemaking would change the terms of 

the OIL policy, result in an increased 

premium for the OIL policy, or require 

LOOP to have higher minimum net 

worth or working capital requirements. 

Cost Summary—Regulatory Cost 2 

For purposes of calculating 

Regulatory Cost 2, we assume that this 

rulemaking would cause the insurance 

premiums for vessels that are now 

commercially insured to increase by 5 

percent from current levels. We also 

assume that 2 percent of the vessel 

responsible parties who use selfinsurance to provide evidence of 

financial responsibility would migrate 

to commercial insurance. Depending on 

the particular year and the discount rate 

used, annual costs of this proposed rule 

range from $1.7 Million to $3.4 Million 

per year. The 10-year (2009–2018) 

present value at a 3 percent discount 

rate of this regulatory cost is estimated 

to be between $27.8 Million and $28.6 

Million. The 10-year (2009–2018) 

present value at a 7 percent discount 

rate of this regulatory cost is estimated 

to be between $23.8 Million and $24.6 

Million. The ranges reflect two vessel 

profiles that were developed and 

analyzed separately to account for the 

uncertainty, due to data gaps, of when 

existing single-hulled tank vessels 

would be phased out. 

Total Cost—Regulatory Cost 1 + 

Regulatory Cost 2 

Depending on the particular year and 

the discount rate used, annual costs of 

this proposed rule range from $3.8 

Million to $9.0 Million per year. The 10- 

year present value of the total cost of 

this proposed rule (Regulatory Cost 1 + 

Regulatory Cost 2) at a 3 percent 

discount rate would be between $61.9 

Million and $78.3 Million. The 10-year 

present value of the total cost of this 

proposed rule (Regulatory Cost 1 + 

Regulatory Cost 2) at a 7 percent 

discount rate would be between $53 

Million and $67 Million. 

Benefits 

With respect to benefits, this 

proposed rule is expected to: 

• Ensure that the real value of the 

OPA 90 limits of liability keep pace 

with inflation over time; 

• Preserve the polluter pays principle 

embodied in OPA 90 and, thereby, 

ensure that limited Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (Fund) resources can be 

optimally utilized in responding to 

future incidents; and 

• Result in a slight reduction in 

substandard shipping in United States 

waterways and ports because insurers 

would be less likely to insure 

substandard vessels to this new level of 

liability. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have 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. Based 

on the threshold analysis conducted 

below, we determined that an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was not necessary for this proposed 

rule. 

Regulatory Cost 1 

Small entities from more than 80 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes could be affected 

by Regulatory Cost 1 of this proposed 

rule. Regulatory Cost 1 would, however, 

only be incurred by a small entity if an 

OPA 90 incident resulted in removal 

costs and damages that exceeded the 

vessel or deepwater port’s current limit 

of liability. 

Because of the large number of small 

entities that own or operate vessels 

which carry oil as cargo or fuel, it is not 

possible to predict which specific 

NAICS Codes might be affected by this 

proposed rule in any given year. 

Therefore, to quantify the potential 

economic impact of Regulatory Cost 1 

on small entities that own or operate 

vessels, we have estimated a high end 

range of this cost based on historical 

spill cost data for all vessels. 

Coast Guard data, as of May 2007, 

indicate that for the years 1991 through 

2006 only 41 vessel incidents exceeded 

the current limits of liability (average of 

approximately three per year). For the 

purpose of this analysis, we assume that 

three OPA 90 incidents involving 

vessels would occur per year throughout 

the 10-year analysis period (2009–2018), 

with removal costs and damages 

reaching or exceeding the proposed 

limits of liability for vessels. 

Assuming a worst case scenario that 

all of the forecasted incidents would 

involve small entities, there would be 

only three small entities affected 

annually by Regulatory Cost 1. As 

discussed above in the Executive Order 

12866 analysis, Coast Guard incident 

cost data indicate that the average 

annual cost of Regulatory Cost 1 for 

vessels is between $1.5 Million to $2.9 

Million (non-discounted Dollars). 

Dividing the average annual cost by the 

three small entities possibly affected 

equals a per small entity cost of between 

$487,200 and $974,400 (non-discounted 

Dollars). 

As previously discussed, the only 

deepwater port affected by this 

proposed rule is LOOP. LOOP, however, 

does not meet U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) criteria to be 

categorized as a small entity. 

Regulatory Cost 2 

In this analysis, we researched vessel 

and deepwater port responsible party 

size and revenue data using public and 

proprietary business databases. We then 

determined which entities were small 

based on the SBA’s criteria on business 

size standards for all sectors of the 

NAICS. 

There are an estimated 600 small 

entities that would be affected by 

Regulatory Cost 2. These represent those 

vessel responsible parties required by 33 

CFR 138 subpart A to provide evidence 

of financial responsibility to the Coast 

Guard. As discussed above, LOOP is not 

classified as a small entity. 

We found that 82 distinct NAICS 

codes were represented in the 

population of small entities (of which 

32 contained more than five entities). 

For those small entities using 

commercial insurance, this proposed 

rule could result in an increased average 

annual cost of $183 per vessel. An 

estimated 2 percent of small entities 

using self-insurance are expected to 

migrate to commercial insurance at an 

increased average annual cost of $7,540 

per vessel. 

Of the small entities impacted, 98 

percent could experience an annual 

economic impact of less than 1 percent 

of their annual sales. The remaining 2 

percent could experience an annual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55005 

economic impact of less than 2 percent 

of their annual sales. 

Based on this threshold analysis, we 

certify that implementation of this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Coast Guard, 

however, is seeking comments to inform 

our decision regarding the economic 

impact of this proposed rule on small 

entities. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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 Benjamin 

White, National Pollution Funds Center, 

Coast Guard, telephone 202–493–6863. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

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). 

D. 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: Consumer Price Index 

Adjustments of Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 Limits of Liability—Vessels and 

Deepwater Ports 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: Not later than 90 days after 

the effective date of the final rule, 

operators would be required to establish 

evidence of financial responsibility to 

the applicable amounts determined 

under 33 CFR part 138, subpart A, 

§ 138.80(f), based on the limits of 

liability as adjusted by this rulemaking. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

current information collection entitled, 

Financial Responsibility for Water 

Pollution (vessels) (Office of 

Management and Budget Control 

Number 1625–0046, Approved 

December 7, 2006). 

Need for Information: This 

information collection is necessary to 

enforce the evidence of financial 

responsibility requirements at 33 CFR 

part 138, subpart A. Without this 

collection, it would not be possible for 

the Coast Guard to know which 

operators were in compliance with the 

financial responsibility applicable 

amounts determined under 33 CFR part 

138, subpart A, and which were not. 

Vessels not in compliance would be 

subject to the penalties provided in 33 

CFR 138.140. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard would use this information 

to verify that vessel operators have 

established evidence of financial 

responsibility to reflect the financial 

responsibility applicable amounts 

determined under 33 CFR part 138, 

subpart A, based on the limits of 

liability as adjusted by this rulemaking. 

Description of the Respondents: 

Operators, as this term is defined in 33 

CFR part 138, subpart A, and guarantors 

of vessels that require COFRs under 33 

CFR part 138, Subpart A. 

Number of Respondents: There are 

approximately 900 United States 

operators of vessels, 9,000 foreign 

operators of vessels, and 100 guarantors 

that would submit information to the 

Coast Guard. 

Frequency of Response: This is a onetime submission occurring not later than 

90 days after the effective date of the 

final rule. Subsequent submissions that 

may be required as a result of regulatory 

changes to limits of liability under 33 

U.S.C 2704(d) are not included here 

because they will be addressed in future 

rulemakings. 

Burden of Response: Increased burden 

associated with reporting requirements: 

10,000 operators and guarantors × 1.0 

hours per response = 10,000 hours. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We 

used the ‘‘All Occupations’’ average 

hourly wage of $18.84 per hour, found 

in the May 2006 National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates 

United States, published by the 

Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and applied a 43 percent 

overhead factor to estimate employee 

benefits to calculate the burdened labor 

rate. Bureau of Labor Statistics data 

show that total employee benefits is 

approximately 30 percent of total 

compensation. By applying a benefit 

factor of 43 percent to the hour wage, 

we calculate total compensation: 

$18.84 per hour + ($18.84 per hour × 43 

percent) = $27 per hour. 

We then multiplied the number of net 

burden hours by the burdened labor rate 

calculated above. 

Increased burden associated with the 

reporting requirements: 

10,000 hours × $27 per hour = $270,000. 

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. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
55006 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. 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. 

G. 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. 

H. 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. 

I. 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 would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. 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. 

L. 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 

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 proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination, 

under the Instructions, that this action 

is not likely to have a significant effect 

on the human environment. A 

preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 138 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Insurance, Limits of Liability, Oil 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 138 to read as 

follows: 

PART 138—FINANCIAL 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WATER 

POLLUTION (VESSELS) AND OPA 90 

LIMITS OF LIABILITY (VESSELS AND 

DEEPWATER PORTS) 

1. The authority citation for part 138 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704; 33 U.S.C. 2716, 

2716a; 42 U.S.C. 9608, 9609; Sec. 1512 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–296, Title XV, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 

2310 (6 U.S.C. 552); E.O. 12580, Sec. 7(b), 3 

CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 198; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 13286, Sec. 89 (68 

FR 10619, Feb. 28, 2003); Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation Nos. 0170.1 

and 5110. Section 138.30 also issued under 

the authority of 46 U.S.C. 2103, 46 U.S.C. 

14302. 

2. Revise Subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—OPA 90 Limits of Liability 

(Vessels and Deepwater Ports) 

Sec. 

138.200 Scope. 

138.210 Applicability. 

138.220 Definitions. 

138.230 Limits of liability. 

138.240 Procedure for calculating limit of 

liability adjustments for inflation. 

Subpart B—OPA 90 Limits of Liability 

(Vessels and Deepwater Ports) 

§ 138.200. Scope. 

This subpart sets forth the limits of 

liability for vessels and deepwater ports 

under Section 1004 of the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

2704) (OPA 90), including adjustments 

to the limits of liability under Section 

1004(d) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)). 

This subpart also sets forth the 

procedures for adjusting the limits of 

liability for inflation. 

§ 138.210. Applicability. 

This subpart applies to you if you are 

a responsible party for a vessel as 

defined under Section 1001(37) of OPA 

90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(37)) or a deepwater 

port as defined under Section 1001(6) of 

OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2701(6)), unless your 

OPA 90 liability is unlimited under 

Section 1004(c) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 

2704(c)). 

§ 138.220. Definitions. 

(a) As used in this subpart, the 

following terms have the meaning as set 

forth in Section 1001 of OPA 90 (33 

U.S.C. 2701): responsible party, vessel, 

and deepwater port. 

(b) As used in this subpart— 

CPI–U means the Consumer Price 

Index All Urban Consumers, Not 

Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. city average, 

All items, 1982–84=100, published by 

the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55007 

Director, NPFC means the head of the 

U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC). 

Double hull has the meaning set forth 

in 33 CFR part 157. 

Single hull means any hull other than 

a double hull. 

§ 138.230. Limits of liability. 

(a) Vessels. The OPA 90 limits of 

liability for vessels are— 

(1) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 

gross tons with a single hull, including 

a single-hull vessel fitted with double 

sides only or a double bottom only, the 

greater of $3,200 per gross ton or 

$23,320,000; 

(2) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 

gross tons with a double hull, the 

greater of $2,000 per gross ton or 

$19,960,000. 

(3) For a tank vessel less than or equal 

to 3,000 gross tons with a single hull, 

including a single-hull vessel fitted with 

double sides only or a double bottom 

only, the greater of $3,200 per gross ton 

or $6,360,000. 

(4) For a tank vessel less than or equal 

to 3,000 gross tons with a double hull, 

the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or 

$4,240,000. 

(5) For any other vessel, the greater of 

$1,000 per gross ton or $848,000. 

(b) Deepwater ports. The OPA 90 

limits of liability for deepwater ports 

are— 

(1) Generally. For any deepwater port 

other than a deepwater port with a limit 

of liability established by regulation 

under Section 1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 

U.S.C. 2704(d)(2)) and set forth in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 

$371,000,000; 

(2) For deepwater ports with limits of 

liability established by regulation under 

Section 1004(d)(2) of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 

2704(d)(2)): 

(i) For the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

(LOOP), $86,924,000; and 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(c) [Reserved]. 

§ 138.240 Procedure for calculating limit of 

liability adjustments for inflation. 

(a) Formula for calculating a 

cumulative percent change in the 

Annual CPI–U. The Director, NPFC, 

calculates the cumulative percent 

change in the Annual CPI–U from the 

year the limit of liability was 

established, or last adjusted by statute or 

regulation, whichever is later, to the 

present year, using the escalation 

formula described in Fact Sheet 00–1, 

U.S. Department of Labor Program 

Highlights, ‘‘How to Use the Consumer 

Price Index for Escalation’’, September 

2000. This cumulative percent change 

value is rounded to one decimal place. 

(b) Significance threshold. Every three 

years from the year a limit of liability 

was established, or last adjusted by 

statute or regulation, whichever is later, 

the Director, NPFC, will evaluate 

whether the cumulative percent change 

in the Annual CPI–U since that date has 

reached a significance threshold of 3 

percent or greater. For any three-year 

period in which the cumulative percent 

change in the Annual CPI–U is less than 

3 percent, the Director, NPFC, will 

publish a notice of no adjustment to the 

limit of liability in the Federal Register. 

If this occurs, the Director, NPFC, will 

recalculate the cumulative percent 

change in the Annual CPI–U since the 

year in which the limit of liability was 

most recently established or last 

adjusted by statute or regulation, 

whichever is later, each year thereafter 

until the cumulative percent change 

equals or exceeds the threshold amount 

of 3 percent. Once the 3-percent 

threshold is reached, the Director, 

NPFC, will increase the limit of liability 

by an amount equal to the cumulative 

percent change in the Annual CPI–U. 

(c) Formula for calculating inflation 

adjustments. The Director, NPFC, 

calculates adjustments to the limits of 

liability in § 138.230 of this part for 

inflation using the following formula: 

New limit of liability = Current limit of 

liability value + (Current limit of 

liability value × percent change in 

the Annual CPI–U from the year the 

limit of liability was established, or 

last adjusted by statute or 

regulation, whichever is later, to the 

present year), then rounded to the 

closest $100. 

(d) [Reserved]. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Craig A. Bennett, 

Director, National Pollution Funds Center, 

United States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E8–22444 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204, 237, 239, 245, and 

252 

RIN 0750–AF92 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Government 

Property (DFARS Case 2007–D020) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

update text addressing management of 

Government property in the possession 

of contractors. The DFARS changes are 

consistent with changes made to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before 

November 24, 2008, to be considered in 

the formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2007–D020, 

using any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2007–D020 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: 703–602–7887. 

Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 

OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 

3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal 

Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, 

Arlington, VA 22202–3402. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Gomersall, 703–602–0302. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This proposed rule updates and 

reorganizes DFARS Subparts 245.1, 

245.3, 245.4, and 245.5 for consistency 

with FAR changes addressing 

management of Government property in 

the possession of contractors, published 

at 72 FR 27364 on May 15, 2007. Minor 

related changes are made in Parts 204, 

237, 239, and 252. The following table 

summarizes the proposed DFARS 

changes: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS