56492 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable here because, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 804(3)(C), this final rule ‘‘does 

not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties.’’ 

List of Subjects 

29 CFR Part 2200 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

29 CFR Part 2203 

Sunshine Act. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on the 23rd day 

of September, 2008. 

Horace A. Thompson III, 

Chairman. 

Thomasina V. Rogers, 

Commissioner. 

■ Accordingly, 29 CFR parts 2200 and 

2203 are corrected by making the 

following amendments: 

PART 2200—RULES OF PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2200 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g), unless 

otherwise noted. Section 2200.96 is also 

issued under 28 U.S.C. 2112(a). 

■ 2. In § 2200.57, paragraph (a), in the 

third sentence, remove the ZIP code 

suffix ‘‘3419’’ and add, in its place, 

‘‘3457’’. 

■ 3. In § 2200.63, paragraph (b), correct 

‘‘zequesten¢’’ to read ‘‘requested’’. 

■ 4. In § 2200.91, paragraph (c), in the 

fourth sentence, remove the number 

‘‘20’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘10’’. 

■ 5. In § 2200.96, in the first sentence, 

remove the ZIP code suffix ‘‘3419’’ and 

add, in its place, ‘‘3457’’. 

■ 6. In § 2200.209, paragraph (g), in the 

last sentence, remove the phrase ‘‘21 

day’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘11-day’’. 

PART 2203—REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNMENT IN 

THE SUNSHINE ACT 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 2203 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g); 5 U.S.C. 

552b(d)(4); 5 U.S.C. 552b(g). 

■ 8. In § 2203.2, in the definition of 

‘‘Regularly-scheduled meetings,’’ 

remove the time ‘‘10:00 a.m.’’ and add, 

in its place, ‘‘10:30 a.m.’’ 

■ 9. In § 2203.4, paragraph (c), in the 

first sentence, remove the time ‘‘10:00 

a.m.’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘10:30 a.m.’’ 

■ 10. In § 2203.4, paragraph (c), in the 

first sentence, remove the ZIP code 

suffix ‘‘3419’’ and add, in its place, 

‘‘3457’’. 

■ 11. In § 2203.7, paragraph (b), in the 

third sentence, remove the ZIP code 

suffix ‘‘3419’’ and add, in its place, 

‘‘3457’’. 

[FR Doc. E8–22783 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7600–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 151 

[Docket No. USCG–2004–19621] 

RIN 1625–AA89 

Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the 

Great Lakes 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS 

ACTION: Interim rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 

its regulations to allow the discharge of 

bulk dry cargo residue (DCR) in limited 

areas of the Great Lakes by selfpropelled vessels and by any barge that 

is part of an integrated tug and barge 

unit. DCR is the residue of non-toxic 

and non-hazardous bulk dry cargo like 

limestone, iron ore, and coal. These 

regulations also add new recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements and 

encourage carriers to adopt voluntary 

control measures for reducing 

discharges. Discharges are now 

prohibited in certain protected and 

sensitive areas where, previously, they 

were allowed. The Coast Guard also 

requests public comments on the need 

for and feasibility of additional 

conditions that might be imposed on 

discharges in the future, such as 

mandatory use of control measures, or 

further adjustments to the areas where 

discharges are allowed or prohibited. 

DATES: This interim rule takes effect 

September 29, 2008. Initial reports 

under amended 33 CFR 151.66(c)(4) are 

due January 15, 2009. Comments and 

related material submitted in response 

to the request for comments must reach 

the Docket Management Facility on or 

before January 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2004–19621 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments identified by Coast Guard 

docket number USCG–2004–19621 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: Same as mail 

address above, 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. 

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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this interim rule, 

call LT Heather St. Pierre, U.S. Coast 

Guard, telephone 202–372–1432 or email Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Acronyms 

II. Regulatory History and Good Cause for 

Immediate Effectiveness 

III. Background, Purpose, and Discussion of 

Rule 

IV. Discussion of Comments 

V. Request for Additional Comments 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Business 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Acronyms 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

DCR Dry Cargo Residue 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 56493 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

IEP Interim Enforcement Policy 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

ROD Record of Decision 

II. Regulatory History and Good Cause 

for Immediate Effectiveness 

In the Federal Register on May 23, 

2008, we published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) and a notice of 

availability for the accompanying Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

(73 FR 30014). We received written 

comments on the proposed rule from 55 

sources, and heard from 3 commenters 

at public meetings. The public meetings 

were announced in the Federal Register 

on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273) and held 

in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on 

July 15 and 17, 2008, respectively. 

Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) was announced 

on August 22, 2008, by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (73 

FR 49667) and by the Coast Guard (73 

FR 49694), and the Record of Decision 

(ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS 

was signed on [DATE]. 

This interim rule takes effect 

immediately upon its publication in the 

Federal Register. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(d), a substantive rule such as 

this must be published not less than 30 

days before its effective date, unless the 

agency finds good cause for an earlier 

effective date and publishes that finding 

with the rule. As we subsequently 

discuss in more detail, this rule 

generally allows the continuation of 

existing practices in the Great Lakes. 

Those practices have been sanctioned 

by Congress and, although they have 

minor indirect adverse impacts on the 

Great Lakes environment, their 

discontinuation could impose a 

substantial economic burden on Great 

Lakes maritime commerce. 

Congressional sanction for the existing 

practices expires on September 30, 

2008, and it was Congress’s intent that 

the Coast Guard review existing 

practices and issue new regulations 

governing those practices by that date. 

If the APA’s 30-day provision were 

given effect, then there would be a 

period of up to a month during which 

existing practices would be prohibited, 

and the resulting burden on Great Lakes 

maritime commerce would be 

significant in relation to the duration of 

the prohibition and the potential 

environmental benefits of such a short 

prohibition. The Coast Guard has 

concluded the APA’s 30-day provision 

is unnecessary and contrary to the 

public interest due to the disruption 

entailed by so short a period of 

prohibition. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

finds good cause for this interim rule to 

take effect upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

III. Background, Purpose, and 

Discussion of Rule 

This interim rule adopts the 

regulatory text proposed in our May 

2008 NPRM, with only minor changes. 

For a fuller discussion of the 

background and purpose of this 

rulemaking, please consult the NPRM. 

A substantial portion of Great Lakes 

shipping involves ‘‘bulk dry cargos:’’ 

principally limestone, iron ore, and 

coal, but also lesser quantities of other 

substances like cement and salt. During 

ship loading or unloading operations, 

small portions of these cargos often fall 

on ship decks or within ship unloading 

tunnels. This fallen dry cargo residue 

(DCR) can contaminate other cargos or 

cause crew members to slip or otherwise 

injure themselves on a ship’s deck. 

Traditionally, Great Lakes carriers have 

managed DCR by periodically washing 

both the deck and cargo unloading 

tunnels with water in a practice 

commonly known as ‘‘cargo sweeping.’’ 

In order to reduce costs and minimize 

in-port time, ships typically conduct 

this cargo sweeping underway while 

transiting between ports. 

Prior to the adoption of this interim 

rule, Coast Guard regulations that 

implement the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. 1901 et 

seq., have treated DCR as an operational 

waste, which constitutes garbage. The 

discharge of any garbage, anywhere on 

the navigable waters of the United 

States, was prohibited. Strict 

enforcement of this regulatory scheme 

on the Great Lakes would have put an 

end to the practice of cargo sweeping. 

However, in recognition of the special 

characteristics of Great Lakes dry cargo 

shipping, an ‘‘interim enforcement 

policy’’ (IEP) allowed ‘‘incidental 

discharges’’ of non-toxic and nonhazardous DCR on the Great Lakes from 

1993 until 2008. The IEP was originally 

adopted by the Coast Guard’s Ninth 

District, and then mandated by Congress 

in 1998, 2000, and 2004 (Pub. L. 105– 

383, sec. 415; Pub. L. 106–554, sec. 

1117; Pub. L. 108–293, sec. 623). The 

IEP allowed cargo sweeping only in 

defined waters, most of which are 

relatively deep and far from shore. 

Additionally, it prohibited or restricted 

discharges in special areas that are 

considered environmentally sensitive. 

The congressionally mandated 

enforcement of the IEP expires 

September 30, 2008, or upon the 

promulgation of new regulations, 

whichever date comes first. 

The 2004 legislation gave the Coast 

Guard authority to regulate the 

discharge of DCR on the Great Lakes, 

notwithstanding any other law (Pub. L. 

108–293, sec. 623(b)). The Coast Guard 

interprets this authority to allow 

regulation on the Great Lakes, on water 

or on shore, of any operation related to 

the loading, transfer, or unloading of dry 

bulk cargo, or to cargo sweeping or other 

discharge of dry bulk cargo residue. All 

of these operations relate to and are part 

and parcel of the discharge of dry bulk 

cargo, as contemplated by Congress in 

the 2004 legislation. House Report 108– 

617, the conference report prepared in 

support of the 2004 legislation, states: 

It is expected that the [IEP] will be made 

permanent or replaced with an alternative 

regime that appropriately balances the needs 

of maritime commerce and environmental 

protection. 

This interim rule amends Coast Guard 

regulations so that DCR discharges may 

continue in the U.S. waters of the Great 

Lakes, so long as those discharges are in 

compliance with regulatory conditions 

that derive, with modifications, from the 

IEP. One modification is nonsubstantive: We are clarifying the 

current policy but not changing it, to 

exclude non-self propelled barges that 

are not part of an integrated tug and 

barge unit. Integrated tugs and barges 

remain included because they are 

designed and operated similarly to self 

propelled vessels of the same size and 

service. We are substantively modifying 

the IEP to add new recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for dry cargo 

carriers. We are adding, to the list of 

locations in the Great Lakes where DCR 

discharges will not be allowed, 

additional areas that the Final 

Environmental Impact Study designates 

as protected and sensitive. Finally, we 

are strongly encouraging carriers to 

voluntarily adopt control measures for 

reducing the amount of DCR that 

accumulates on or within vessels and 

that would ultimately be discharged 

into the Great Lakes. 

Based on our Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, we have concluded 

that continued discharges of DCR will 

have only a minor indirect impact on 

most areas within the Great Lakes 

environment. The FEIS indicated that 

unconstrained discharges could have a 

direct significant adverse impact on 

protected and sensitive areas. We will 

mitigate that impact by prohibiting most 

discharges in those areas, and within 

three miles of land-based protected and 

sensitive areas. Only discharges under 

certain conditions and in specified areas 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
56494 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

will be allowed in the Western Basin of 

Lake Erie, in order to avoid the adverse 

economic impact that the FEIS indicates 

could accompany the complete 

prohibition of discharges in that area. 

Vessels operating exclusively in the 

Western Basin will be allowed to 

discharge limestone, clean stone, coal, 

iron ore, and salt in dredged navigation 

channels between Toledo Harbor Light 

and Detroit River Light, where 

environmental conditions are already 

disturbed frequently due to dredging. 

IV. Discussion of Comments 

We received 55 comments during the 

public comment period on our May 

2008 NPRM, as well as comments from 

3 individuals at our two public 

meetings. Few, if any, commenters 

distinguished between the DEIS and 

NPRM in their comment, and therefore 

all comments were considered for both 

documents. We have addressed the 

comments in detail in the FEIS, which 

was made available to the public on 

August 22, 2008. In response to public 

comments, we are extending the areas 

where DCR discharges are prohibited to 

include waters within three miles of 

shore at the following sites: Indiana 

Dunes and Sleeping Bear National 

Lakeshores on Lake Michigan and 

Grand Portage National Monument and 

Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshores on Lake Superior. 

Otherwise, we are adopting the 

regulatory text we proposed in the 

NPRM without substantive change. 

A table presenting the substance of 

each comment received, and the Coast 

Guard’s response, appears in the FEIS 

which can be found in the docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov. The 

comments, and our responses, are 

summarized in the following 

discussion. During the drafting of this 

interim rule, we received late comments 

which did not raise new substantive 

issues and did not affect the following 

discussion. 

Comments in favor of prohibiting 

continued DCR discharges. Forty-six 

commenters favored prohibiting 

continued DCR discharges in the Great 

Lakes. We agree with these commenters 

that our environmental analysis shows 

that prohibition could minimize the 

potential for adverse environmental 

impacts, but disagree that DCR 

discharges should be completely 

prohibited. In giving the Coast Guard 

permanent regulatory authority over 

Great Lakes DCR discharges, Congress 

expected us to strike an appropriate 

balance between maritime commercial 

and environmental protection needs. By 

balancing the adverse environmental 

impact of continued DCR discharges in 

the Great Lakes against the potentially 

substantial economic cost of prohibiting 

discharges anywhere in the Great Lakes, 

we believe this interim rule best 

achieves Congress’ intent. 

Comments on the toxicity of DCR. 

Fifteen commenters expressed concern 

regarding toxic chemicals in DCR and 

their effects on humans, animals, and 

plants. As recounted in detail in the 

FEIS, we have carefully evaluated the 

toxic potential of DCR. In general, we 

found that any toxic components of DCR 

deposits in the Great Lakes do not exist 

in concentrations known to be toxic to 

organisms. In those few instances where 

a cargo’s residue concentration can be 

found near or above potentially harmful 

levels, natural sedimentation lowers the 

concentration to well below potentially 

harmful levels. There is little or no 

potential for any fish with toxic 

concentrations in their tissues to enter 

the food chain. Moreover, the inclusion 

of mandatory recordkeeping in our 

interim rule will enable us to track 

future DCR discharges, and should 

environmental conditions change 

significantly in the future, we retain the 

regulatory authority needed to address 

those changed conditions. 

Comments on the impact of DCR on 

invasive mussels and the aquatic 

environment. Eight commenters 

expressed concern regarding invasive 

mussels and the aquatic environment. 

The FEIS contains detailed information 

about how we evaluated the impact of 

DCR on the aquatic environment, 

especially with respect to invasive 

mussels. We found minor adverse 

effects on sediment physical structure, 

the benthic community, and invasive 

species. Except in portions of Lakes 

Michigan and Huron where the 

potential impact is minor, the discharge 

of DCR will not change the distribution 

or density of mussels in most of the 

Great Lakes, either because mussels are 

already ubiquitous (e.g., in Lakes Erie 

and Ontario) or because water depth, 

temperature, and calcium levels limit 

mussel distribution and density (e.g., in 

Lake Superior). Once again, we believe 

our interim rule best achieves the 

legislative intention behind our 

regulatory authority by balancing the 

minor adverse impact of continued DCR 

discharges on sediment physical 

structure, the benthic community, and 

invasive species against the potential 

economic cost of prohibiting those 

discharges. 

Comments on the legality of the Coast 

Guard’s proposal. Thirty-six 

commenters objected to the continued 

allowance of DCR discharge on the 

grounds that it is already illegal under 

U.S. or international laws, treaties, or 

agreements. Among the authorities 

listed by these commenters are the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL), APPS, the Great Lakes 

Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), 

and State laws in Michigan, Minnesota, 

and Pennsylvania. We discuss the 

possible interplay between this interim 

rule and State law more fully in 

‘‘Federalism,’’ Part V.E. of this 

preamble. 

This interim rule replaces the IEP 

with new regulations. We initially 

adopted the IEP in response to concerns 

that strict enforcement of existing 

authorities such as APPS would 

prohibit continued DCR discharge in the 

Great Lakes. Congress subsequently 

addressed that same concern by passing 

legislation in 1998, 2000, and 2004 that 

required the Coast Guard to implement 

and enforce the IEP on the Great Lakes. 

In 2004, Congress also gave the Coast 

Guard authority ‘‘notwithstanding any 

other law’’ to regulate the discharge of 

DCR in the Great Lakes. The legislative 

history of the 2004 legislation shows 

that Congress expected the Coast Guard 

to make the IEP permanent or replace 

the IEP with an alternative regime that 

appropriately balances maritime 

commercial and environmental 

protection needs. The 2004 legislation is 

the latest expression of Congress’s 

intentions with respect to regulating 

Great Lakes DCR discharge, and the 

basis for the Coast Guard’s rulemaking. 

Comments relating to recordkeeping 

and reporting. Seventeen commenters 

either opposed mandatory 

recordkeeping and reporting as 

unnecessary, or asked for modifications 

in the record form or in the frequency 

of reporting. We agree that some minor 

modifications to the reporting form are 

appropriate which will be reflected in 

Form CG–33. However, we disagree that 

the quarterly reporting schedule 

requires excessively frequent reporting. 

We have found through the numerous 

rules and programs we administer that 

recordkeeping is an integral and 

important part of ensuring regulatory 

compliance. The Coast Guard is not 

requiring the recording or reporting of 

any data that constitutes trade secrets or 

privileged and confidential commercial 

or financial information. We consider 

the economic cost of our new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to be reasonable, 

especially considering the value of 

comprehensive DCR practice data and 

its potential relationship with natural 

resources. Data reported to the Coast 

Guard will be useful as we evaluate the 

costs and benefits of DCR control 

measures. Quarterly reporting ensures 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 56495 

that data is assembled quickly. Once our 

data collection needs are satisfied, we 

will likely retain the recordkeeping 

requirement, but may modify or 

eliminate the reporting requirement. 

We have removed the facsimile of 

Form CG–33 from the regulation, but 

included information on how to obtain 

the form itself in the regulatory text. 

V. Request for Additional Comments 

In our May 2008 NPRM, we promised 

to open a new rulemaking to begin a 

new phase of DCR study, 

simultaneously with publication of the 

final rule for the present rulemaking. 

The new phase would consider what 

additional conditions, if any, should be 

imposed on DCR discharges in order to 

offset any long term impacts they might 

have. 

We have decided to conduct this new 

phase as part of the present rulemaking 

rather than as a separate project. 

Therefore, in this interim rule we 

announce the opening of the new phase, 

and strongly encourage you to submit 

public comments to assist us. We want 

to determine if, in the long term, the 

optimal balancing of commercial and 

environmental interests requires the 

mandatory use of DCR control measures, 

the adjustment of the geographical 

boundaries within which discharges are 

currently allowed, or other regulatory 

changes. 

The outcome of this new phase is not 

predetermined. We might find a clear 

case for imposing new DCR control 

measure requirements and altering 

geographical boundaries. Alternatively, 

we might find that the costs of any new 

regulatory measures outweigh the 

environmental benefits the new 

measures would provide, and leave our 

regulations unchanged. In determining 

the regulatory outcome, we intend to be 

guided by data on DCR discharges and 

on DCR control measures that are 

already in voluntary use, and by careful 

consideration of public comments. The 

DCR control measures we have 

identified for analysis are listed in the 

Table below. 

TABLE—POTENTIAL DRY CARGO RESIDUE CONTROL MEASURES

Shipboard measures: 

Enclosed conveyor. 

Troughed conveyor. 

Conveyor skirts. 

Belt scrapers. 

Water mist for dust control. 

Conveyor capacity indicators. 

Deck remote controls for conveyors. 

Stop conveyor while ship or belt is repositioned. 

Delay loading/unloading during high wind. 

Radio communication between deck and loader. 

Crew training on procedures to reduce DCR. 

Limit vertical angle of conveyor boom. 

Broom & shovel. 

Tarps to collect DCR. 

Cargo hold vibrator. 

Watertight gate seal. 

Cargo hold lining. 

Minimize hatch removal during poor weather. 

Careful cargo hold gate operation. 

Shoreside measures: 

Enclosed conveyor. 

Troughed conveyor. 

Conveyor skirts. 

Belt scrapers. 

Water mist for dust control. 

Conveyor capacity indicators. 

Deck remote controls for conveyors. 

Stop conveyor while ship or belt is repositioned. 

Delay loading/unloading during high wind. 

Radio communication between deck and loader. 

Crew training on procedures to reduce DCR. 

Limit vertical angle of conveyor boom. 

Flow feeder. 

Loading chute, including telescoping or conveyors. 

Chemical surfactants. 

Suction pumped cargo, slurry transport, pneumatic or screw conveyors. 

To better focus our efforts, we invite 

you to respond to the following 

questions: 

1. Is there a control measure, other 

than those listed in the Table, that we 

should study? 

2. Do you have data on the cost of 

installing, operating and maintaining 

control measures or their effectiveness 

in reducing the volume of DCR 

discharged? Can you identify a data 

source we should consult? 

3. If control measures were to be 

required, are you in favor of a phase-in, 

and if so, how might the phase-in be 

structured? 

4. Are you in favor of limiting the 

areas in which control measures should 

be required, and if so, what are the areas 

where those requirements should apply? 

5. Are there other changes the Coast 

Guard should make in order to regulate 

the long term discharge of DCR in the 

Great Lakes in a way that is both 

economically and environmentally 

sustainable? 

Please see the ADDRESSES section of 

this document for information on how 

you can share your responses to these 

questions with us. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
56496 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This 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. 

Public comments on the NPRM are 

summarized in Part IV of this preamble. 

We received no public comments that 

would alter our assessment of impacts 

in the NPRM. We have adopted the 

assessment in the NPRM as final. See 

the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section of 

the NPRM for the complete analysis. A 

summary of the assessment follows. 

The recordkeeping provisions in this 

rule require owners and operators of self 

propelled vessels to maintain records 

and report information on dry cargo 

operations. This rule does not require 

the use of control measures to reduce 

the amount of residue swept into the 

Great Lakes. 

There are minimal costs involved in 

requiring owners and operators of 

vessels to keep records of their bulk dry 

cargo residue sweeping operations and 

to make those records available to the 

Coast Guard. Moreover, many vessel 

operators already record this 

information voluntarily. We identified 

55 U.S., 33 Canadian, and 186 nonCanadian foreign vessels operating on 

the Great Lakes affected by the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this rule. 

We estimate the annual recurring cost 

of this rule to industry, both U.S. and 

foreign, to be $88,828 (non-discounted). 

The total combined U.S. and foreign 10- 

year (2009–2018) present value cost of 

this rule is $623,891 discounted at 7 

percent and $757,721 discounted at 3 

percent. 

We estimate the annual recurring cost 

of this rule to U.S. industry to be 

$60,077 (non-discounted). The total U.S. 

10-year (2009–2018) present value cost 

of this rule is $421,956 discounted at 7 

percent and $512,469 discounted at 3 

percent. See the ‘‘Regulatory 

Evaluation’’ section of the NPRM for 

additional details of the population and 

cost estimates. 

This rule will increase the Coast 

Guard’s ability to understand the 

practice of dry cargo sweeping, monitor 

the practice, and, if necessary, subject 

the practice of dry cargo sweeping to 

further controls in the future. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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. 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and we requested public 

comments on this certification. We 

received no comments on this 

certification and adopt it as final. 

In the NPRM, we identified 13 small 

entities affected by this rule involving 

inland water freight transportation, 

marine cargo handling, packaging and 

labeling services, and other navigation 

related industries. We estimated the per 

vessel annual cost impact of this 

rulemaking on small entities to be about 

$1,092. We determined that the cost of 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements would not significantly 

impact the annual operating revenues of 

the affected small entities. See the 

‘‘Small Entities’’ section of the NPRM 

for more details. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

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

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Assistance for Small Business 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could 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 Lt St. Pierre 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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). 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. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for a new 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. A summary of the title and 

description of the information 

collection, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 

follow. This information has not 

changed from the NPRM. 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. See the 

‘‘Collection of Information’’ section of 

the NPRM for additional details. 

Title: Dry Cargo Residue Sweepings in 

the Great Lakes. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: These DCR recordkeeping 

provisions will require vessel operators 

to maintain a DCR log to document what 

dry cargos are loaded, unloaded, and 

swept, when they are swept, how they 

are swept, how much is swept, what 

control measures, if any, are in place, 

and where, when, and how fast the 

vessel is traveling when the sweepings 

take place. 

Need for Information: By making DCR 

recordkeeping mandatory, we will 

greatly increase our ability to 

understand the practice of dry cargo 

sweeping, monitor the practice, and if 

necessary, subject the practice of DCR 

sweeping to further controls in the 

future. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

DCR recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements will provide additional 

data to support Coast Guard analysis of 

policies to reduce DCR discharges over 

the long term, beyond the next 6 to 10 

years. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are owners and operators of 

U.S., Canadian, and foreign flag vessels 

carrying dry-bulk cargos operated on the 

Great Lakes. The respondents will 

conduct DCR recordkeeping and handle 

the submissions. 

Number of Respondents: Based on 

estimates from the NPRM, the total 

number of vessels that handle Great 

Lakes dry bulk cargo shipments is 274 

(= 55 U.S. vessels + 33 Canadian vessels 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 56497 

+ 186 non-Canadian foreign vessels). We 

estimate the number of respondents 

equal the number of vessels since there 

will be crew on each vessel recording 

the information. 

Frequency of Response: Based on 

estimates from the NPRM, the annual 

frequency of response is 10,615 for U.S. 

vessels and 5,153 for foreign vessels. 

Burden of Response: Based on 

estimates from the NPRM, the total 

annual burden hours for this rule are 

886 hours for U.S. vessel operators and 

448 hours for foreign vessel operators. 

We estimate the annual costs of this 

burden to be $60,077 (non-discounted) 

for U.S. operators and $28,751 for 

foreign operators. 

During public hearings, one 

commenter questioned the usefulness of 

collecting man hour data stating that 

recording man hours can vary greatly by 

interpretation and that the data will be 

unusable. The Coast Guard disagrees 

with the commenter. The man hour data 

provided by vessel masters will enable 

the Coast Guard to better estimate the 

burden of implementing DCR control 

measures. The information will provide 

a benchmark for measuring DCR-related 

man hours for the different alternatives 

under consideration. We have provided 

instructions and guidance for recording 

man hours. As discussed in the NPRM, 

we found many vessel operators already 

record this information voluntarily. 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

submitted a copy of the proposed rule 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

for its review of the collection of 

information. OMB approved the 

collection for 33 CFR part 151 and Form 

CG–33 on September 4, 2008, and the 

corresponding approval number from 

OMB is OMB Control Number 1625– 

0072, which expires on September 11, 

2011. 

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. The Coast Guard 

received 10 comments in response to 

our NPRM regarding the possible 

interplay between Coast Guard 

regulations and State laws that may 

relate to DCR discharges. We 

understand that at least some States in 

the Great Lakes region already have 

legislation that may prohibit certain 

solid waste discharges in their Great 

Lakes waters, and that certain of those 

States take the position that DCR may be 

or at least may contain solid waste. 

However, we do not agree with the 

commenters that the Federal regulation 

either expressly preempts or necessarily 

conflicts with those laws. Rather, and to 

clarify our Federalism statement in 

accordance with the responsibilities and 

the principles contained in EO 13132 

regarding Federalism, the Coast Guard 

states that this regulation does not 

expressly preempt those State laws. Nor 

does the Coast Guard by promulgating 

this regulation take the position that 

such State laws facially frustrate an 

over-riding federal purpose. However, 

the ultimate question regarding 

preemption of State laws is a legal 

question that is subject to court 

interpretation and decision based on the 

application of particular facts to those 

individual laws. Because no court has 

ruled on the questions raised, the Coast 

Guard cautions carriers that they must 

comply with all applicable Federal and 

State laws regulating DCR discharges. 

We will work with States and carriers to 

make sure carriers are informed of any 

State laws that could impose more 

restrictions on DCR discharges than we 

have proposed. 

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. 

This rule will not result in such 

expenditure. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect 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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

will not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it will 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 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 rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision appear in the 

docket. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
56498 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 151 as follows: 

PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL, 

NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, 

GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR 

COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST 

WATER 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 151 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 

1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101; Pub. L. 104–227 (110 

Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108–293 (118 Stat. 1063), 

§ 623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 

DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, sec. 2(77). 

Subpart A—Implementation of 

MARPOL 73/78 and the Protocol on 

Environmental Protection to the 

Antarctic Treaty as it pertains to 

Pollution From Ships 

■ 2. Revise § 151.66 to read as follows: 

§ 151.66 Operating requirements: 

Discharge of garbage in the Great Lakes 

and other navigable waters. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, no person on board any 

ship may discharge garbage into the 

navigable waters of the United States. 

(b) On the United States’ waters of the 

Great Lakes, commercial ships, 

excluding non-self propelled barges that 

are not part of an integrated tug and 

barge unit, may discharge bulk dry cargo 

residues in accordance with this 

paragraph and paragraph (c) of this 

section. Owners and operators of ships 

to which these paragraphs apply are 

encouraged to minimize the volume of 

dry cargo residues discharged through 

the use of suitable residue control 

measures onboard and by loading and 

unloading cargo at facilities that use 

suitable shoreside residue control 

measures. As used in this paragraph and 

paragraph (c) of this section: 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

means the site on or near Lake Superior 

administered by the National Park 

Service, less Madeline Island, and 

including the Wisconsin shoreline of 

Bayfield Peninsula from the point of 

land at 46°57′19.7′′ N, 90°52′51.0′′ W 

southwest along the shoreline to a point 

of land at 46°52′56.4′′ N, 91°3′3.1′′ W. 

Bulk dry cargo residues means nonhazardous and non-toxic residues of dry 

cargo carried in bulk, including 

limestone and other clean stone, iron 

ore, coal, salt, and cement. It does not 

include residues of any substance 

known to be toxic or hazardous, such as, 

nickel, copper, zinc, lead, or materials 

classified as hazardous in provisions of 

law or treaty; 

Caribou Island and Southwest Bank 

Protection Area means the area enclosed 

by rhumb lines connecting the following 

coordinates, beginning on the 

northernmost point and proceeding 

clockwise: 

47°30.0′ N 85°50.0′ W 

47°24.2′ N 85°38.5′ W 

47°04.0′ N 85°49.0′ W 

47°05.7′ N 85°59.0′ W 

47°18.1′ N 86°05.0′ W 

Detroit River International Wildlife 

Refuge means the U.S. waters of the 

Detroit River bound by the area 

extending from the Michigan shore at 

the southern outlet of the Rouge River 

to 41°54′ N, 083°06′ W along the U.S.- 

Canada boundary southward and 

clockwise connecting points: 

42°02′ N 083°08′ W 

41°54′ N 083°06′ W 

41°50′ N 083°10′ W 

41°44.52 N 083°22′ W 

41°44.19 N 083°27′ W 

Grand Portage National Monument 

means the site on or near Lake Superior, 

administered by the National Park 

Service, from a southwest corner of the 

monument point of land, 47°57.521′ 

89°41.245′, to the northeast corner of the 

monument point of land, 47°57.888′ 

89°40.725′. 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

means the site on or near Lake 

Michigan, administered by the National 

Park Service, from a point of land near 

Gary, Indiana at 41°42′59.4′′ N 

086°54′59.9′′ W eastward along the 

shoreline to 41°37′08.8′′ N 

087°17′18.8′′ W near Michigan City, 

Indiana. 

Integrated tug and barge unit means 

any tug barge combination which, 

through the use of special design 

features or a specially designed 

connection system, has increased 

seakeeping capabilities relative to a tug 

and barge in the conventional pushing 

mode; 

Isle Royale National Park means the 

site on or near Lake Superior, 

administered by the National Park 

Service, where the boundary includes 

any submerged lands within the 

territorial jurisdiction of the United 

States within four and one-half miles of 

the shoreline of Isle Royale and the 

surrounding islands, including Passage 

Island and Gull Island. 

Mile means a statute mile, and refers 

to the distance from the nearest land or 

island; 

Milwaukee Mid-Lake Special 

Protection Area means the area enclosed 

by rhumb lines connecting the following 

coordinates, beginning on the 

northernmost point and proceeding 

clockwise: 

43°27.0′ N 87°14.0′ W 

43°21.2′ N 87°02.3′ W 

43°03.3′ N 87°04.8′ W 

42°57.5′ N 87°21.0′ W 

43°16.0′ N 87°39.8′ W 

Northern Refuge means the area 

enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the 

coordinates, beginning on the 

northernmost point and proceeding 

clockwise: 

45°45′ N 86°00′ W, 

western shore of High Island, southern 

shore of Beaver Island: 

45°30′ N 85°30′ W 

45°30′ N 85°15′ W 

45°25′ N 85°15′ W 

45°25′ N 85°20′ W 

45°20′ N 85°20′ W 

45°20′ N 85°40′ W 

45°15′ N 85°40′ W 

45°15′ N 85°50′ W 

45°10′ N 85°50′ W 

45°10′ N 86°00′ W 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

means the site on or near Lake Superior, 

administered by the National Park 

Service, from a point of land at 

46°26′21.3′′ N 086°36′43.2′′ W eastward 

along the Michigan shoreline to 

46°40′22.2′′ N 085°59′58.1′′ W. 

Six Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake Special 

Protection Area means the area enclosed 

by rhumb lines connecting the following 

coordinates, beginning on the 

northernmost point and proceeding 

clockwise: 

44°55′ N 82°33′ W 

44°47′ N 82°18′ W 

44°39′ N 82°13′ W 

44°27′ N 82°13′ W 

44°27′ N 82°20′ W 

44°17′ N 82°25′ W 

44°17′ N 82°30′ W 

44°28′ N 82°40′ W 

44°51′ N 82°44′ W 

44°53′ N 82°44′ W 

44°54′ N 82°40′ W 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore means the site on or near 

Lake Michigan, administered by the 

National Park Service, that includes 

North Manitou Island, South Manitou 

Island and the Michigan shoreline from 

a point of land at 44°42′45.1′′ N 

086°12′18.1′′ W north and eastward 

along the shoreline to 44°57′12.0′′ N 

085°48′12.8′′ W. 

Stannard Rock Protection Area means 

the area within a 6 mile radius from 

Stannard Rock Light, at 47°10′57′′ N 

87°13′34′′ W; 

Superior Shoal Protection Area means 

the area within a 6 mile radius from the 

center of Superior Shoal, at 48°03.2′ N 

87°06.3′ W; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 56499 

Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary means the site on or near 

Lake Huron designated by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration as the boundary that 

forms an approximately rectangular area 

by extending along the ordinary high 

water mark between the northern and 

southern boundaries of Alpena County, 

cutting across the mouths of rivers and 

streams, and lakeward from those points 

along latitude lines to longitude 83 

degrees west. The coordinates of the 

boundary are: 

45°12′25.5′′ N 83°23′18.6′′ W 

45°12′25.5′′ N 83°00′00′′ W 

44°51′30.5′′ N 83°00′00′′ W 

44°51′30.5′′ N 83°19′17.3′′ W 

Waukegan Special Protection Area 

means the area enclosed by rhumb lines 

connecting the following coordinates, 

beginning on the northernmost point 

and proceeding clockwise: 

42°24.3′ N 87°29.3′ W 

42°13.0′ N 87°25.1′ W 

42°12.2′ N 87°29.1′ W 

42°18.1′ N 87°33.1′ W 

42°24.1′ N 87°32.0′ W; and 

Western Basin means that portion of 

Lake Erie west of a line due south from 

Point Pelee. 

TABLE 151.66(b)—BULK DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES ALLOWED ON THE GREAT LAKES

Location Cargo Discharge allowed except as noted 

Tributaries, their connecting rivers, 

and St. Lawrence River.

Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited. 

Lake Ontario .................................... Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes. 

Iron ore .......................................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore. 

Lake Erie ......................................... Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes; prohibited in the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western 

Basin, except that a vessel operating exclusively within Western 

Basin may discharge limestone or clean stone cargo residues over 

the dredged navigation channels between Toledo Harbor Light and 

Detroit River Light. 

Iron ore .......................................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River 

International Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin, except 

that a vessel may discharge residue over the dredged navigation 

channels between Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River Light if it 

unloads in Toledo or Detroit and immediately thereafter loads new 

cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor. 

Coal, salt ........................................ Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River 

International Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin, except 

that a vessel may discharge residue over the dredged navigation 

channels between Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River Light if it 

unloads in Toledo or Detroit and immediately thereafter loads new 

cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; prohibited in the Detroit River 

International Wildlife Refuge; prohibited in Western Basin. 

Lake St. Clair .................................. Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited. 

Lake Huron except Six Fathom 

Scarp Mid-Lake Special Protection Area.

Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes; prohibited in the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

Iron ore .......................................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited 

in the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; prohibited for vessels up bound along the Michigan thumb as follows: 

(1) Between 5.8 miles northeast of entrance buoys 11 and 12 to the 

track line turn abeam of Harbor Beach, prohibited within 3 miles 

from shore; and 

(2) For vessels bound for Saginaw Bay only, between the track line 

turn abeam of Harbor Beach and 4 nautical miles northeast of 

Point Aux Barques Light, prohibited within 4 miles from shore and 

not less than 10 fathoms of depth. 

Coal, salt ........................................ Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; prohibited for 

vessels up bound from Alpena into ports along the Michigan shore 

south of Forty Mile Point within 4 miles from shore and not less 

than 10 fathoms of depth. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

Lake Michigan ................................. Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes; prohibited within the 

Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas; prohibited within the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 3 miles of the 

shore of the Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores; prohibited within Green Bay. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
56500 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 151.66(b)—BULK DRY CARGO RESIDUE DISCHARGES ALLOWED ON THE GREAT LAKES—Continued 

Location Cargo Discharge allowed except as noted 

Iron ore .......................................... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; north of 45° N, prohibited within 

12 miles from shore and in Green Bay; south of 45° N, prohibited 

within 6 miles from shore, and prohibited within the Milwaukee MidLake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and 

within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear 

National Lakeshores; except that discharges are allowed at: 

(1) 4.75 miles off Big Sable Point Betsie, along established Lake Carriers Association (LCA) track lines; and 

(2) Along 056.25° LCA track line between due east of Poverty Island 

to a point due south of Port Inland Light. 

Coal ............................................... Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from 

shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles 

of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores; except that discharges are allowed: 

(1) Along 013.5° LCA track line between 45° N and Boulder Reef, 

and along 022.5° LCA track running 23.25 miles between Boulder 

Reef and the charted position of Red Buoy #2; 

(2) Along 037° LCA track line between 45°20′ N and 45°42′ N; 

(3) Along 056.25° LCA track line between points due east of Poverty 

Island to a point due south of Port Inland Light; and 

(4) At 3 miles from shore for coal carried between Manistee and 

Ludington along customary routes. 

Salt ................................................. Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from 

shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles 

of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores, and in Green Bay. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; prohibited within 13.8 miles from 

shore and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles 

of the shore of Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores. 

Lake Superior .................................. Limestone and other clean stone .. Prohibited where there is an apparent impact on wetlands, fish 

spawning areas, and potable water intakes; and prohibited within 

Isle Royal National Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest 

Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and 

within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument. 

Iron ore .......................................... Prohibited within 6 miles from shore (within 3 miles off northwestern 

shore between Duluth and Grand Marais); and prohibited within 

Isle Royal National Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest 

Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and 

within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument. 

Coal, salt ........................................ Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore (within 3 miles off northwestern shore between Duluth and Grand Marais); and prohibited 

within Isle Royal National Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, 

and within 3 miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument. 

Cement .......................................... Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore (within 3 miles offshore west 

of a line due north from Bark Point); and prohibited within Isle 

Royal National Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, 

Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and within 3 

miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument. 

All other cargos ............................. Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore; and prohibited within Isle 

Royal National Park and the Caribou Island and Southwest Bank, 

Stannard Rock, and Superior Shoal Protection Areas, and within 3 

miles of the shore of the Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores or the Grand Portage National Monument. 

(c)(1) The master, owner, operator, or 

person in charge of any commercial ship 

loading, unloading, or discharging bulk 

dry cargo in the United States’ waters of 

the Great Lakes and the master, owner, 

operator, or person in charge of a U.S. 

commercial ship transporting bulk dry 

cargo and operating anywhere on the 

Great Lakes, excluding non-self 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 56501 

propelled barges that are not part of an 

integrated tug and barge unit, must 

ensure that a written record is 

maintained on the ship that fully and 

accurately records information on: 

(i) Each loading or unloading 

operation on the United States’ waters 

of the Great Lakes, or in the case of U.S. 

commercial ships on any waters of the 

Great Lakes, involving bulk dry cargo; 

and 

(ii) Each discharge of bulk dry cargo 

residue that takes place in United 

States’ waters of the Great Lakes, or in 

the case of U.S. commercial ships on 

any waters of the Great Lakes. 

(2) For each loading or unloading 

operation, the record must describe: 

(i) The date of the operation; 

(ii) Whether the operation involved 

loading or unloading; 

(iii) The name of the loading or 

unloading facility; 

(iv) The type of bulk dry cargo loaded 

or unloaded; 

(v) The method or methods used to 

control the amount of bulk dry cargo 

residue, either onboard the ship or at 

the facility; 

(vi) The time spent to implement 

methods for controlling the amount of 

bulk dry cargo residue; and 

(vii) The estimated volume of bulk 

dry cargo residue created by the loading 

or unloading operation that is to be 

discharged. 

(3) For each discharge, the record 

must describe: 

(i) The date and time the discharge 

started, and the date and time the 

discharge ended; 

(ii) The ship’s position, in latitude 

and longitude, when the discharge 

started and when the discharge ended; 

and 

(iii) The ship’s speed during the 

discharge. 

(iv) Records must be kept on Coast 

Guard Form CG–33, which can be found 

at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/ 

cg5224/dry_cargo.asp. The records must 

be certified by the master, owner, 

operator, or person in charge and kept 

in written form onboard the ship for at 

least two years. Copies of the records 

must be forwarded to the Coast Guard 

at least once each quarter, no later than 

the 15th day of January, April, July, and 

October. The record copies must be 

provided to the Coast Guard using only 

one of the following means: 

(A) E-mail to 

DCRRecordkeeping@USCG.mil; 

(B) Fax to (202) 372–1926, ATTN: 

DCR RECORDKEEPING; or 

(C) Mail to U.S. Coast Guard: 

Commandant (CG–522), ATTN: DCR 

RECORDKEEPING, CGHQ Room 1210, 

2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, 

DC 20593–0001. 

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine 

Safety, Security and Stewardship, United 

States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E8–22670 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Postage Payment for Bound Printed 

Matter Limited to Permit Imprint 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Postal 

Service is revising mailing standards for 

all Bound Printed Matter (BPM). In 

March we filed a notice with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission for a 

classification change requiring all 

mailings of Bound Printed Matter be 

paid by permit only. The Commission 

agreed, and we are moving forward with 

the change. 

Postage payment for BPM mailings: 

carrier route, presorted, and 

nonpresorted (single-piece) flats and 

parcels, regardless of volume, are 

limited to permit imprint. Mailers can 

no longer affix postage by adhesive 

stamps, postage meter, or PC Postage. 

BPM will not be accepted at retail 

counters, in collection boxes, or by 

carriers and must be deposited and 

accepted at the Post OfficeTM facility 

that issued the permit. Merchandise 

Return Service (MRS) permit holders 

may continue to pay nonpresorted BPM 

prices on eligible items returned with a 

MRS label. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

29, 2008, and is applicable beginning 

September 11, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol A. Lunkins at 202–268–7262. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mailers 

who are presently authorized to pay 

postage via permit imprint may use 

their existing permit to mail BPM at the 

Post OfficeTM where the permit is held. 

Mailers who wish to obtain a new 

authorization to pay postage via permit 

imprint must complete an application 

and pay a one-time application fee at 

each office of mailing to mail BPM on 

or after September 11, 2008. 

Authorization is obtained by submitting 

PS Form 3615, Mailing Permit 

Application and Customer Profile, and 

the applicable fee to the Post Office 

where mailings are to be deposited. As 

long as a permit remains active, there is 

no additional fee for use of a permit 

imprint indicia, but other fees (e.g., an 

annual destination entry mailing fee) 

may be due depending on where the 

mail is deposited. 

Payment for postage must be made for 

each mailing through an advance 

deposit account before the mailing can 

be released for processing. Funds to pay 

postage must be deposited as directed 

by the USPS. 

Nonpresorted BPM mailings, except 

discount mailings (e.g., barcode 

discounts), will be exempt from the 

general minimum volume requirement 

for a permit imprint mailing of at least 

200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail and 

will not have a minimum volume 

requirement. However, the current 

requirements for all other commercial 

nonpresorted and presorted minimum 

volumes will remain (e.g., nonpresorted 

barcoded—50 pieces and presorted— 

300 pieces). 

As a reminder, prices for BPM pieces 

vary by weight and zone of destination. 

Supporting documentation of postage is 

required for all nonidentical-weight 

pieces and for identical-weight pieces 

that are not separated by price and zone. 

This requirement, which limits the 

payment of postage for all BPM to 

permit imprint, is effective September 

11, 2008. 

The Postal Service adopts the 

following changes to Mailing Standards 

of the United States Postal Service, 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which is 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

■ Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the following sections of the 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) as follows: 

* * * * * 

300 Commercial Flats 

* * * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES