Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77981 

Description: This rule requires every 

transfer agent to establish and 

implement written procedures for the 

cancellation, storage, transportation, 

destruction, or other disposition of 

securities certificates. The rule requires 

transfer agents to mark each cancelled 

securities certificate with the word 

‘‘cancelled’’; maintain a secure storage 

area for cancelled certificates; maintain 

a retrievable database of all cancelled, 

destroyed, or otherwise disposed of 

certificates; and have specific 

procedures for the destruction of 

cancelled certificates. Additionally, the 

Commission amended its lost and stolen 

securities rule and its transfer agent 

safekeeping rule to make it clear that 

these rules apply to unissued and 

cancelled certificates. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 610: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with Section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act in 

conjunction with the adoption of 

Release No. 34–48931 (December 16, 

2003). The Commission solicited 

comment on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis prepared in the 

proposing release, Release No. 34–43401 

(October 2, 2000), but received no 

comment on that analysis. The 

Commission did receive comments 

related to small business, and 

considered those comments in the 

adopting release. 

* * * * * 

Title: Compliance Programs of 

Investment Companies and Investment 

Advisers 

Citation: 17 CFR 270.38a–1; 17 CFR 

275.204–2; 17 CFR 275.206(4)–7 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq., 

80a–34(d), 80a–37, 80a–39, 80b–1 et 

seq., 80b–2(a)(11)(F), 80b–2(a)(17), 80b– 

3, 80b–4, 80b–6(4), 80b–6a, 80b–11 

Description: The rules require each 

investment company and investment 

adviser registered with the Commission 

and each business development 

company to (i) adopt and implement 

written compliance policies and 

procedures, (ii) review those policies 

and procedures annually, and (iii) 

appoint a compliance officer to be 

responsible for administering the 

policies and procedures. The rules also 

impose a new recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 601: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with Section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act regarding rule 

38a–1 under the Investment Company 

Act of 1940, new rule 206(4)–7 under 

the Investment Advisers Act, and 

amendments to rule 204–2 under the 

Investment Advisers Act, and to Part 1, 

Schedule A, Item 2(a) of Form ADV in 

conjunction with the Commission’s 

adoption of Release No. IA–2204 

(December 17, 2003). The Commission 

considered comments on the proposing 

release and on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis prepared in Release 

No. IC–25925 (Feb. 5, 2003) at that time. 

* * * * * 

Title: Recordkeeping Requirements 

for Registered Transfer Agents 

Citation: 17 CFR 240. 240.17Ad–7 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 

77j, 77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 

77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 

78g, 78i, 78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 

78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 

78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 79q, 79t, 80a–20, 

80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b–3, 80b–4, 

80b–11, 7202, 7241, 7262, and 7263, 

and 18 U.S.C. 1350. 

Description: The Commission 

amended its rule concerning 

recordkeeping requirements for 

registered transfer agents. The 

amendments made it clear that 

registered transfer agents may use 

electronic, microfilm, and microfiche 

media as a substitute for hard copy 

records, including cancelled stock 

certificates, for purposes of complying 

with the Commission’s transfer agent 

recordkeeping rules and that a third 

party on behalf of a registered transfer 

agent may place into escrow the 

required software information. 

Prior Commission Determination 

Under 5 U.S.C. 610: A Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis was prepared in 

accordance with Section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act in 

conjunction with Release No. 34–48949 

(December 18, 2003). The Commission 

received comment letters in response to 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis in the proposing release, 

Release No. 34–48036 (June 16, 2003), 

that did not address the issues 

presented in the proposing release. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: December 19, 2014. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30265 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 101 and 105 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–1087] 

RIN 1625–AC15 

Seafarers’ Access to Maritime 

Facilities 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, 

notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

require each owner or operator of a 

facility regulated by the Coast Guard to 

implement a system that provides 

seafarers and other individuals with 

access between vessels moored at the 

facility and the facility gate, in a timely 

manner and at no cost to the seafarer or 

other individual. Generally, transiting 

through a facility is the only way that 

a seafarer or other individual can egress 

to shore beyond the facility to access 

basic shoreside businesses and services, 

and meet with family members and 

other personnel that do not hold a 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential. This proposed rule would 

help to ensure that no facility owner or 

operator denies or makes it impractical 

for seafarers or other individuals to 

transit through the facility, and would 

require them to document their access 

procedures in their Facility Security 

Plans. This proposed rule would 

implement section 811 of the Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2010. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before February 27, 2015 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. Comments sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before February 27, 2015. 

The Coast Guard will hold a public 

meeting in Washington, DC to solicit 

comments on the proposals in this 

notice on January 23, 2015 from 9:00 

a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The deadline to 

reserve a seat is January 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2013–1087 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) 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. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of Information Comments: 

If you have comments on the collection 

of information discussed in section 

VI.D. of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), you must also send 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget. To ensure that 

your comments to OIRA are received on 

time, the preferred methods are by email 

to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov 

(include the docket number and 

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Coast 

Guard, DHS’’ in the subject line of the 

email) 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. 

The public meeting will be held at the 

Department of Transportation 

Headquarters, Oklahoma Room, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590; the building telephone 

number is 202–366–1035. The meeting 

is open to the public. Seating is limited, 

so please reserve a seat as soon as 

possible, but no later than January 16, 

2015. To reserve a seat, please email 

Mason.C.Wilcox@uscg.mil with the 

participant’s first and last name for all 

U.S. Citizens, and additionally official 

title, date of birth, country of 

citizenship, and passport number with 

expiration date for non-U.S. Citizens. To 

gain entrance to the Department of 

Transportation Headquarters building, 

all meeting participants must present 

government-issued photo identification 

(i.e., state issued driver’s license). If a 

visitor does not have a photo ID, that 

person will not be permitted to enter the 

facility. All visitors and any items 

brought into the facility will be required 

to go through security screening each 

time they enter the building. For 

information on facilities or services for 

individuals with disabilities or to 

request special assistance at the public 

meeting, contact LT Mason Wilcox at 

the telephone number or email address 

indicated under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

notice. 

A live video feed of the meeting will 

be available upon request to LT Mason 

Wilcox at Mason.C.Wilcox@uscg.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email LT Mason Wilcox, 

Cargo and Facilities Division (CG–FAC– 

2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 

1123, email Mason.C.Wilcox@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting comments 

B. Viewing comments and documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

1. Need for the Regulatory Action 

2. Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the 

Regulatory Action 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) 

B. 33 CFR 105.237 

C. 33 CFR 105.405 

D. 33 CFR 101.112 (Federalism) 

E. Public Comments 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

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. 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. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2013–1087), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and insert 

‘‘USCG–2013–1087’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ 

box. Click on ‘‘Submit a Comment in the 

‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit your 

comments by mail or hand delivery, 

submit them in an unbound format, no 

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit comments by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

Facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

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 and insert 

‘‘USCG–2013–1087’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open 

Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

Internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of 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 notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We plan to hold a public meeting 

regarding the proposals in this NPRM. 

The meeting will be held on January 23, 

2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The 

meeting will be held at the location 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77983 

1For purposes of this rule, ‘‘MTSA-regulated 

facility’’ is described in 33 CFR 105.105, and is 

detailed more fully below in the Background 

section. 

indicated under the ADDRESSES section 

above. The deadline to reserve a seat is 

January 16, 2015. Information on 

reserving a seat for the meeting is 

provided under the ADDRESSES section 

above. 

II. Abbreviations 

CBP United States Customs and Border 

Protection 

CDC Certain Dangerous Cargoes 

CGAA 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act 

of 2010 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DoS Declaration of Security 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

FSP Facility Security Plan 

ISPS Code International Ship and Port 

Facility Security Code 

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002 

NMSAC National Maritime Security 

Advisory Committee 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

RA Regulatory Analysis 

SCI Seamen’s Church Institute’s Center for 

Seafarers’ Rights 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

§ Section symbol 

TWIC Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Throughout the maritime sector, 

vessels arrive at Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(MTSA)-regulated facilities for any 

number of commercial and other 

purposes.1 Vessels are operated by 

seafarers, who are individuals assigned 

to work on a vessel and who may be at 

sea for days, weeks, or months as part 

of their employment on that vessel. 

Generally, transiting through a MTSAregulated facility is the only way for 

seafarers to access the shore, and 

services, businesses, family members 

and friends, among other things, beyond 

the vessel and facility. Additionally, 

individuals providing services for 

seafarers or having another legitimate 

purpose for accessing the vessel, 

generally can only access a vessel 

moored at a MTSA-regulated facility by 

transiting through the facility. 

1. Need for the Regulatory Action 

This regulatory action is necessary to 

implement section 811 of the Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–281, codified at 46 U.S.C. 70103 

note) (CGAA 2010), which requires 

facility owners and operators to ensure 

shore access for seafarers and other 

individuals. Specifically, section 811 

requires each MTSA-regulated facility to 

‘‘provide a system for seamen assigned 

to a vessel at that facility, pilots, and 

representatives of seamen’s welfare and 

labor organizations to board and depart 

the vessel through the facility in a 

timely manner at no cost to the 

individual.’’ 

This regulatory action is necessary to 

help ensure that owners and operators 

of facilities regulated by the Coast 

Guard, under MTSA (Pub. L. 107–295, 

codified at 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq.), 

provide seafarers assigned to vessels 

moored at the facility with the ability to 

board and depart vessels to access the 

shore through the facility in a timely 

manner and at no cost to the seafarer. 

Additionally, this regulatory action is 

necessary to help ensure that facility 

owners and operators provide the same 

no-cost access between a vessel and 

facility gate to other individuals with a 

legitimate purpose for accessing the 

vessel. These individuals include: 

representatives of seafarers’ welfare and 

labor organizations; port workers 

organizations; port engineers or 

superintendents; classification society 

surveyors; ship’s agents; pilots; and 

other authorized personnel performing 

work for a vessel moored at the facility, 

in accordance with the Declaration of 

Security (DoS)or other arrangement 

between the vessel and facility. 

This regulatory action applies to 

owners and operators of MTSAregulated facilities, which are facilities 

required by MTSA to implement 

national maritime security initiatives. 

One of the required security features is 

the provision of security measures for 

access control. Coast Guard accesscontrol regulations at 33 CFR 105.255 

require MTSA-regulated facilities to 

control an individual’s access to the 

facility and designated secure areas 

within the facility unless that individual 

is either authorized to access that area 

or is escorted by someone who is 

authorized to access the area. 

Accordingly, facility owners and 

operators must consider the security 

implications of permitting seafarers and 

other individuals to transit through their 

facilities. Nonetheless, other Coast 

Guard regulations addressing MTSAregulated facility security requirements 

at 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) require such 

facilities to ensure coordination of shore 

leave for these persons. 

2. Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action 

Section 811 of the CGAA 2010 

requires each MTSA-regulated facility, 

in its Facility Security Plan (FSP), to 

‘‘provide a system for seamen assigned 

to a vessel at that facility, pilots, and 

representatives of seamen’s welfare and 

labor organizations to board and depart 

the vessel through the facility in a 

timely manner at no cost to the 

individual.’’ The Secretary of Homeland 

Security (Secretary) is authorized under 

46 U.S.C. 70124 to issue regulations 

necessary to implement 46 U.S.C. 

70103. The Secretary delegated to the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard the 

authority to carry out the functions and 

exercise the authorities in 46 U.S.C. 

70103 (DHS Delegation 0170.1(97)). 

Additionally, the Secretary is 

authorized under 33 U.S.C. 1226 to take 

certain actions to advance port, harbor, 

and coastal facility security. The 

Secretary is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 

1231 to promulgate regulations to 

implement 33 U.S.C. chapter 26, 

including 33 U.S.C. 1226. The Secretary 

has delegated this authority to the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS 

Delegation 0170.1(70) and (71)). 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

We propose to require each owner or 

operator of a MTSA-regulated facility to 

implement a system for providing 

seafarers and other individuals with 

access between vessels moored at the 

facility and the facility gate. Each owner 

or operator would be required to 

implement a system, within 1 year after 

publication of the final rule, that 

incorporates specific methods of 

providing access in a timely manner, at 

no cost to the individual, and in 

accordance with existing access control 

provisions in 33 CFR part 105. We also 

propose to require each owner or 

operator to ensure that the FSP includes 

a section describing the system for 

seafarers’ access. 

This rule would not affect the 

authority of the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to inspect and 

process individuals seeking entry to the 

U.S. For those seafarers and other 

individuals subject to CBP’s authority, 

this rule would apply to facility owners 

and operators only after such seafarers 

and other individuals have been 

inspected, processed, and admitted to 

the U.S. by CBP. 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

This rule would affect approximately 

2,498 MTSA-regulated facilities. We 

estimate that the annualized cost at 7 

percent would be $2.8 million and the 

total 10-year cost would be $19.9 

million—also discounted at 7 percent. 

This rule would provide benefits to 

industry by ensuring that an annual 

average of 907 seafarers would be able 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 ‘‘Dangerous cargoes’’ are defined at 33 CFR 

126.3. 

3 ‘‘Liquefied natural gas’’ is defined at 33 CFR 

127.005. 

4 ‘‘Liquefied hazardous gas’’ is defined at 33 CFR 

127.005. 

5 ‘‘Hazardous materials’’ are defined at 33 CFR 

154.105. 

6 ‘‘CDCs’’ are defined at 33 CFR 160.204. 

7Based on the Seamen’s Church Institute’s (SCI) 

Center for Seafarers’ Rights surveys from 2006 to 

2014. 

to obtain shore leave access through the 

facilities, reducing regulatory 

uncertainty, conforming to the intent of 

the International Ship and Port Facility 

Security Code (ISPS Code), ensuring the 

safety, health, and welfare of seafarers, 

and providing regulatory flexibility to 

accommodate facility sizes and 

functions. Facilities have options as to 

which method of access they would 

prefer to use. 

IV. Background 

Under MTSA, the Coast Guard is 

authorized to regulate maritime 

facilities. For purposes of MTSA, the 

term ‘‘facility’’ means ‘‘any structure or 

facility of any kind located in, on, 

under, or adjacent to any waters subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’ 

46 U.S.C. 70101(a)(2). 

Existing Coast Guard regulations at 33 

CFR part 105 implementing MTSA 

apply to certain facilities including: 

waterfront facilities handling dangerous 

cargoes; 2 waterfront facilities handling 

liquefied natural gas 3 and liquefied 

hazardous gas; 4 facilities transferring oil 

or hazardous materials 5 in bulk; 

facilities that receive vessels certificated 

to carry more than 150 passengers; 

facilities that receive vessels subject to 

the International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), 

Chapter XI; facilities that receive foreign 

cargo vessels greater than 100 gross 

register tons; generally, facilities that 

receive U.S. cargo and miscellaneous 

vessels greater than 100 gross register 

tons; and barge fleeting facilities that 

receive barges carrying, in bulk, cargoes 

regulated under the Coast Guard’s 

regulations regarding tank vessels or 

certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs).6 This 

rulemaking applies to the abovedescribed facilities regulated by the 

Coast Guard pursuant to the authority 

granted in MTSA. 

MTSA provides the Coast Guard with 

statutory authorities and mandates to 

advance the Coast Guard’s maritime 

security mission to detect, deter, 

disrupt, and respond to attacks and 

other disasters that might affect the 

United States, its territory, population, 

vessels, facilities, and critical maritime 

infrastructure. On July 1, 2003, the 

Coast Guard published a series of six 

temporary interim rules to promulgate 

maritime security requirements 

mandated by MTSA. (See 

Implementation of National Maritime 

Security Initiatives, 68 FR 39240 (July 1, 

2003).) One of the six interim rules 

specifically addressed security measures 

at maritime facilities. (See Facility 

Security, 68 FR 39315 (July 1, 2003)). 

The interim rule added part 105 

‘‘Maritime Security: Facilities’’ to 

subchapter H of Title 33 of the CFR. The 

interim rule required facility owners, 

operators, and security personnel to 

implement measures for controlling 

access to maritime facilities. In crafting 

the interim rule, we recognized both the 

need for facility access control 

measures, and the competing need for 

seafarers and other individuals to have 

the ability to board and depart vessels 

through the facilities. Thus, the interim 

rule included a requirement that each 

facility owner or operator ‘‘[e]nsure 

coordination of shore leave for vessel 

personnel or crew change-out, as well as 

access through the facility for visitors of 

the vessel (including representatives of 

seafarers’ welfare and labor 

organizations), with vessel operators in 

advance of a vessel’s arrival[.]’’ (See 68 

FR 39317). 

On October 22, 2003, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule adopting, with 

changes, the July 1, 2003, interim rule 

on security measures at maritime 

facilities. (See Facility Security, 68 FR 

60515 (Oct. 22, 2003)). Specifically, the 

final rule adopted the provision 

regarding coordination of shore leave, 

and also included an additional 

provision that permits facility owners or 

operators to ‘‘. . . refer to treaties of 

friendship, commerce, and navigation 

between the U.S. and other nations 

[when coordinating shore leave].’’ This 

new provision was added in response to 

public comments regarding the 

difficulty that some foreign seafarers 

have experienced when seeking shore 

leave. (See 68 FR 60520). 

The regulatory text adopted in the 

October 22, 2003, final rule remains 

unchanged today, although it has been 

relocated to 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9). 

Section 105.200(b)(9) provides, in part, 

that each facility owner or operator is 

currently required to ‘‘[e]nsure 

coordination of shore leave for vessel 

personnel or crew change-out, as well as 

access through the facility for visitors of 

the vessel (including representatives of 

seafarers’ welfare and labor 

organizations), with vessel operators in 

advance of a vessel’s arrival.’’ 

This current regulatory requirement 

for shore leave is bolstered by 

international agreement. The United 

States is a signatory to the ISPS Code, 

which sets forth international ship and 

port security measures. Like the Coast 

Guard’s implementation of MTSA that 

requires both secure facilities and shore 

leave, ISPS Code furthers facility 

security, but not at the expense of the 

seafarer. The preamble to ISPS Code 

(paragraph 11), ratified in December 

2002, states: ‘‘Contracting Governments 

when approving ship and port FSPs 

should pay due cognizance to the fact 

that ship’s personnel live and work on 

the vessel and need shore leave and 

access to shore-based seafarer welfare 

facilities, including medical care.’’ In 

light of this international agreement, if 

the U.S. is known internationally for 

having facilities that do not provide 

shore leave access, other countries may 

consider denying shore leave access to 

U.S. seafarers while they are abroad. 

The Coast Guard understands that, 

currently, approximately 90 percent of 

MTSA-regulated facility owners and 

operators comply with the current shore 

leave requirements in 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9) and provide seafarers and 

other individuals access between the 

vessel and the facility gate.7 However, 

we have received complaints that some 

facility owners and operators are still 

denying seafarers and other individuals 

any access between the vessel and 

facility gate despite 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9) because of how some 

facility owners and operators implement 

or interpret that requirement. The 

apparent rationale for denying such 

access is that 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) only 

requires coordination of shore leave if 

there is actual shore leave to coordinate, 

and there is no shore leave to coordinate 

if access to shore is denied altogether. 

We have received other complaints that 

some facilities comply with 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9) by permitting access to 

and from vessels, but make shore access 

impractical for seafarers and other 

individuals by placing extreme 

limitations on escort availability or by 

charging exorbitant fees. For example, 

we have received complaints of waittimes up to 3-hours for TWIC-holding 

facility personnel or taxi drivers to 

arrive and escort seafarers through a 

facility. The seafarers seeking access are 

often TWIC-holders themselves, and 

there is only a short distance between 

the vessel and the facility gate, the span 

of which is visible to security guards at 

the gate. Nonetheless, some facilities 

have prohibited TWIC-holding seafarers 

from walking between the vessel and 

facility gate. We have received other 

complaints of facilities charging $400– 

$500 (in addition to requiring the vessel 

agent to independently hire its own 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77985 

TWIC-holding escorts) before allowing 

seafarers ashore. We have also received 

complaints of facilities completely 

denying seafarers the ability to 

disembark a vessel to go ashore. 

To address these complaints, the 

Coast Guard issued guidance in October 

2008 (ALCOAST 529/08) and October 

2009 (ALCOAST 575/09), advising 

Coast Guard Captains of the Port 

(COTPs) to encourage facility owners 

and operators to remedy inadequate 

access issues. Subsequent to those 

efforts, we also conducted a joint 

evaluation of seafarers’ access issues 

with CBP, culminating in additional 

Coast Guard guidance instructing 

COTPs to compile lists of facilities 

identified as deficient with respect to 

seafarers’ access. In January 2010, the 

COTPs had reviewed 62 percent of all 

FSPs and reported that 4 percent lacked 

adequate seafarers’ access provisions. 

While the Coast Guard was addressing 

these complaints, Congress mandated 

seafarers’ access in section 811 of the 

CGAA 2010. This mandate requires each 

FSP to ‘‘provide a system for seamen 

assigned to a vessel at that facility, 

pilots, and representatives of seamen’s 

welfare and labor organizations to board 

and depart the vessel through the 

facility in a timely manner at no cost to 

the individual.’’ The National Maritime 

Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) 

also considered section 811 in a 

working group that met on March 22 

and May 3, 2011, resulting in a 

resolution containing recommended 

definitions for the statutory terms 

‘‘system,’’ ‘‘timely,’’ and ‘‘no cost to the 

individual.’’ The NMSAC resolution 

provided the Coast Guard with useful 

conceptual information. Although the 

Coast Guard did not adopt the exact text 

of the NMSAC definitions in this 

NPRM, the proposals in this NPRM are 

consistent with the NMSAC 

recommendations. The NMSAC 

resolution is available for viewing in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

This proposed rule would implement 

section 811 by amending current 

regulations to comply with statutory 

requirements for each facility owner or 

operator to provide seafarers associated 

with a vessel moored at the facility, and 

other individuals, access between the 

vessel and facility gate in a timely 

manner and at no cost to the seafarer or 

other individual. 

This rule would not affect the 

authority of CBP to inspect and process 

individuals seeking entry to the U.S. For 

those seafarers and other individuals 

subject to CBP’s authority, this rule 

would apply to facility owners and 

operators only after such seafarers and 

other individuals have been inspected, 

processed, and admitted to the U.S. by 

CBP. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The following discussion explains the 

proposed changes to 33 CFR part 105 

that would implement section 811. In 

addition to the proposed changes 

discussed below, we propose several 

minor technical amendments to 33 CFR 

105.200 that would clarify acronyms 

and improve readability, but are not 

intended to make any substantive 

changes. Finally, we propose a 

provision on the Federalism issues 

associated with the Coast Guard’s 

maritime security regulations in 33 CFR 

part 105. 

A. 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) 

We propose to amend 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9), which contains the 

existing seafarers’ access requirements. 

This amendment would require each 

facility owner or operator to coordinate 

shore leave in accordance with new 

specific requirements implementing 

section 811 set forth in 33 CFR 105.237. 

This cross-reference to the proposed 

specific requirements for seafarers’ 

access would remove any possible 

ambiguity in, or opportunity for 

misinterpretation of, the existing 

seafarers’ access requirements in 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9). 

We also propose to replace the current 

parenthetical explanation of the term 

‘‘visitors’’ in § 105.200(b)(9) with a 

reference to the proposed list of 

‘‘individuals covered’’ in proposed 

§ 105.237. Currently, paragraph (b)(9) 

requires access through a facility for 

shore leave for vessel personnel, crew 

change-out, and ‘‘visitors to the vessel 

(including representatives of seafarers’ 

welfare and labor organizations).’’ 

Because section 811 also specifies 

individuals that must be provided 

access through a facility, we propose to 

incorporate in 33 CFR 105.237(b) the 

individuals covered under the existing 

seafarers’ access requirement in current 

33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) with the new 

proposed list of individuals covered 

under section 811. 

B. 33 CFR 105.237 

We propose to add this new section, 

implementing section 811, which would 

require each facility owner or operator 

to implement a system for providing 

access to and from vessels moored at the 

facility and the facility gate. 

33 CFR 105.237(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) would set 

forth the general requirements for a 

system of seafarers’ access, which 

incorporates the language of section 

811. Each owner or operator would be 

required to implement a system that 

incorporates specific methods of 

providing access in a timely manner, at 

no cost to the individual, and in 

accordance with the provisions in 33 

CFR part 105. 

Part 105 sets forth facility security 

requirements, and facility owners and 

operators would have to provide 

seafarers’ access within these facility 

security requirement parameters. The 

proposed rule would provide facility 

owners and operators flexibility to 

implement a system to provide 

seafarers’ access that is tailored to each 

facility. We propose to require 

implementation of the system within 1 

year after publication of the final rule to 

provide facility owners and operators 

time to tailor a system specific to the 

facility. 

33 CFR 105.237(b) 

Section 811 lists the individuals to 

whom Congress intended facility 

owners and operators provide access 

through their facilities. Specifically, 

section 811 requires ‘‘[e]ach Facility 

Security Plan . . . to provide a system 

for seamen assigned to a vessel at that 

facility, pilots, and representatives of 

seamen’s welfare and labor 

organizations to board and depart the 

vessel through the facility. . . .’’ 

Additionally, current 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9) requires access through a 

facility for shore leave for vessel 

personnel, crew change-out, and 

‘‘visitors to the vessel (including 

representatives of seafarers’ welfare and 

labor organizations).’’ Because these two 

lists overlap, and both identify the 

individuals to whom facility owners or 

operators must provide access to and 

from vessels, we propose to provide one 

list of individuals covered by seafarers’ 

access requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (b), ‘‘Individuals 

covered’’, would list individuals 

covered by seafarers’ access 

requirements. The proposed paragraph 

(b) lists: 

• Seafarers assigned to a vessel 

moored at the facility; 

• vessel pilots and other authorized 

personnel performing work for a vessel 

moored at a facility (to cover 

individuals that are not considered 

seafarers or pilots); 

• representatives of seafarers’ welfare 

and labor organizations; and 

• other authorized individuals, in 

accordance with a DoS or other 

arrangement between the vessel and 

facility, to cover visitors to a vessel 

other than representatives of seafarers’ 

welfare and labor organizations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8 If access is provided through secure areas of the 

facility, the Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) requirements in 33 CFR 101.514 

would apply. 

The categories of ‘‘other authorized 

personnel’’ and ‘‘other authorized 

individuals’’ would be broad categories 

to cover individuals such as port 

workers organizations, port engineers 

and superintendents, technicians, port 

agents, new crew (not yet technically 

assigned to the vessel), marine 

insurance writers, cargo surveyors, and 

family members of the seafarers and 

other vessel personnel. We propose the 

provision covering any other authorized 

individuals in order to provide 

flexibility that would enable the vessel 

and facility owners and operators to 

work directly with each other regarding 

individuals authorized to transit 

between the vessel and facility gate. 

33 CFR 105.237(c) 

Section 811 requires facility owners 

or operators to provide seafarers’ access 

in a ‘‘timely’’ manner. Due to the wide 

variety of facility types, sizes, and the 

nature of their operations, this 

rulemaking does not propose a single 

regulatory definition of ‘‘timely’’ access 

that would apply to all facilities. 

Instead, we propose under paragraph (c) 

to require each facility owner or 

operator to provide access without 

unreasonable delay, subject to review by 

the COTP. Proposed paragraph (c) also 

lists factors the facility owners or 

operators would have to consider when 

determining what ‘‘timely access 

without unreasonable delay’’ means for 

each vessel moored at its facility. The 

COTP would review each FSP to ensure 

that the facility owner or operator has 

appropriately considered the 

enumerated factors. The enumerated 

factors in proposed paragraph (c) relate 

to the amount of time that is reasonable 

for individuals to wait for access 

through the facility and the methods 

that the facility owner or operator 

would use for providing such access. 

The factors are: 

• The length of time a vessel is 

scheduled to remain in port. For 

example, if a ship is in port for 6 hours, 

the COTP could determine that a 2-hour 

wait for access each way would be 

unreasonable. If the ship is in port for 

2 weeks, the COTP could determine that 

a 2-hour wait for access is reasonable. 

• The distance of egress/ingress 

between the vessel and facility gate. 

This distance can influence the 

appropriate method(s) of providing 

timely access between vessel and 

facility gate (e.g., van, taxi, pedestrian 

walkway, escort, etc.). For example, if 

the distance between the vessel and 

facility gate is less than the average city 

block, the COTP could determine that it 

is unreasonable to require individuals to 

wait for a taxi instead of using a 

pedestrian walkway. 

• The vessel’s watch schedules. A 

vessel’s watch schedule is relevant to 

providing timely access because a vessel 

crew’s operations are based on various 

watch-hour rotations to ensure the 

safety and security of the vessel. The 

facility owner or operator would be 

required to take the vessel’s watch 

schedule into account in development 

of an access plan that ensures vessel 

crews have access to shore leave during 

the time they are not on watch. 

• A facility’s safety and security 

procedures required by law. These are 

relevant to providing timely access 

because they can determine the 

appropriate method(s) of providing 

timely access between a vessel and 

facility gate. For example, a pedestrian 

walkway might not be appropriate at a 

large container facility with extensive 

heavy equipment operations if the 

walkway would put pedestrians in the 

pathway of those operations, causing 

safety concerns for both pedestrians and 

operations. Similarly, the security 

footprint of a facility that handles CDCs 

might also preclude the use of 

pedestrian walkways as a method for 

providing access between a vessel and 

the facility gate due to the hazardous 

nature of the environment for 

pedestrians and any security concerns 

for the cargo. 

• Any other factors specific to the 

vessel or facility that could affect access 

to and from the vessel. There may be 

other factors specific to the vessel or 

facility that could be relevant to 

providing timely access, such as 

bunkering and stores operations that 

may limit movement throughout the 

facility for safety. The COTP would 

review these other factors included in 

the FSP and how the facility considers 

them in determining how to provide 

shore access in a timely manner. 

Defining timely access without 

unreasonable delay through the 

application of factors would provide 

flexibility to account for a diverse 

regulated population of maritime 

facilities. This approach would also 

provide appropriate COTP oversight to 

verify that ‘‘timeliness’’ is reasonable in 

each case. 

33 CFR 105.237(d) 

Proposed paragraph (d) of 33 CFR 

105.237 would require each facility 

owner or operator to provide seafarers’ 

access using one or more specific 

methods. The owner or operator would 

be required to either choose one of the 

listed methods or combine multiple 

methods to create an appropriate system 

for that facility. Whichever method they 

choose, facility owners or operators 

would ultimately be responsible for 

ensuring that all individuals covered by 

the regulations are provided timely 

access between the vessel and the 

facility gate. 

In order to provide timely access, 

facility owners and operators would 

choose their own method of providing 

that access. They could choose a 

method listed in proposed paragraph (d) 

or they could choose any other method, 

provided that the COTP approves it. The 

methods listed in proposed paragraph 

(d) are: 

• On-call or regularly scheduled 

escorts.8 On-call escorting would 

require the facility to provide a means 

of communication, such as a phone 

number or other means of 

communication that seafarers could call 

to arrange access, and the facility would 

dispatch one or more escorts upon 

request. Regularly scheduled escorts 

could operate on a set schedule or at 

specific times pre-arranged between 

facility and vessel personnel based on 

the vessel’s crew watch changes. 

Facility owners and operators would be 

permitted to choose the option(s) most 

suitable to their specific business 

operations so long as they are 

sufficiently timely. 

• Taxi services to provide escorted 

access through the facility. If a facility 

chose to permit access between the 

vessel and the facility gate only via taxi, 

regardless of whether the seafarer 

required a taxi beyond the facility gate, 

then that taxi fare would be considered 

a cost that the owner or operator 

imposes on the seafarer as a surcharge 

or tax on shore access. The owner or 

operator would be required to either pay 

that cost or provide an alternative 

method of timely, no-cost access 

through the facility for seafarers and 

other individuals. When the seafarer 

uses the taxi for travel to destinations 

beyond the facility boundaries (i.e., not 

solely for transit between the vessel and 

the facility gate), the seafarer would be 

responsible for paying the standard, 

local taxi fare to their destination, 

including the portion of transit between 

the vessel and facility gate, provided 

that there is no additional surcharge for 

transiting the facility. 

• Seafarers’ welfare organizations to 

facilitate the access, such as acting as 

escorts. The Coast Guard understands 

some seafarers’ welfare organizations 

currently provide this service at 

facilities, and we do not want to disrupt 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77987 

9 74 FR 24693. 

10 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000). 

existing arrangements successfully 

providing shore access. 

• Monitored pedestrian routes 

between the vessel and facility gate. 

Monitored pedestrian routes could 

include side-by-side escorting or other 

monitoring sufficient to observe 

whether the escorted individual is 

engaged in activities other than those for 

which escorted access has been granted. 

(See 33 CFR 101.105 ‘‘Escorting’’). The 

Coast Guard notes that NVIC 03–07 

provides guidance on monitoring 

protocols. 

Section 811 places the requirement to 

provide access on the facility owner or 

operator. Accordingly, facility owners 

and operators would not be permitted to 

rely solely on third parties, such as taxi 

services or seafarers’ welfare 

organizations, to provide access 

between the vessel and facility gate. 

Taxi services may not always be 

available to provide timely access to all 

of the seafarers at a given facility. 

Similarly, the seafarers’ welfare 

organizations are philanthropic 

organizations that voluntarily provide 

important services to seafarers, and may 

or may not have the resources to 

provide timely access to all of the 

seafarers at a facility. Owners and 

operators relying on one or more third 

parties as their primary method of 

providing the required access would 

also be required to include a back-up 

method of providing timely, no-cost 

access provisions in their FSPs. 

Facility owners and operators could 

also choose to develop their own 

method(s) for providing access between 

the vessel and facility gate, apart from 

the listed methods. In all cases, the 

method(s) included in the FSP would be 

subject to COTP review and approval. 

33 CFR 105.237(e) 

Section 811 specifically requires 

facility owners or operators to provide 

seafarers’ access at no cost to the 

individual. We propose to codify that 

requirement in 33 CFR 105.237(e). The 

Coast Guard has received complaints 

indicating that some facility owners and 

operators currently provide access 

through their facilities, but only do so 

by allowing taxis to shuttle seafarers 

between the vessel and the facility gates 

for a specific fee. Such an arrangement 

would not meet the requirement in 

Section 811 or in proposed § 105.237(e) 

to provide access at no cost. 

33 CFR 105.237(f) 

Section 811 specifically requires that 

approved FSPs must provide a system 

for seafarers’ access. We propose to 

require facility owners or operators to 

describe the seafarers’ access systems in 

their FSPs. In the FSP, owners or 

operators would be required to 

document the: (1) Location of transit 

areas used for providing seafarers’ 

access; (2) duties, and number of facility 

personnel assigned to each duty, 

associated with providing seafarers’ 

access; (3) methods of escorting and/or 

monitoring individuals transiting 

through the facility; (4) agreements or 

arrangements between the facility and 

private parties, nonprofit organizations, 

or other parties to facilitate seafarers’ 

access; and (5) maximum length of time 

an individual would wait for seafarers’ 

access. 

Documenting this information in the 

FSP would ensure that the facility’s 

system for seafarers’ access is described 

in sufficient detail for facility personnel 

to implement and for Coast Guard 

personnel, specifically COTPs, to 

confirm regulatory compliance. In 

accordance with 33 CFR 105.410 (for 

facilities submitting an initial FSP) or 33 

CFR 105.415 (for facilities amending an 

existing approved FSP), which already 

require that all FSP updates be 

submitted for COTP approval at least 60 

days before any operational change, we 

propose requiring facilities to update 

their FSPs and submit them for COTP 

review a minimum of 60 days before 

implementing any operational changes 

that would be necessitated by this rule. 

Because we propose requiring 

implementation of the system within 1 

year after publication of the final rule 

under proposed § 105.237(a), all FSP 

updates would need to be submitted no 

later than 10 months after the 

publication of the final rule. 

C. 33 CFR 105.405 

We propose updating 33 CFR 105.405, 

which dictates the format and content of 

the FSP, to add the proposed 

requirement that an FSP include a 

section on the facility’s system for 

seafarers’ access. 

D. 33 CFR 101.112 (Federalism) 

A Presidential Memorandum, dated 

May 20, 2009, entitled ‘‘Preemption,’’ 9

requires an agency to codify a 

preemption provision in its regulations 

if the agency intends to preempt State 

law. We propose to add a new section 

33 CFR 101.112, which would provide 

a statement regarding the preemption 

principles that apply to 33 CFR part 

105. 

We believe the field-preemption 

Federalism principles articulated in 

United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. 

Locke 10 apply to 33 CFR part 105, at 

least insofar as a State or local law or 

regulation applicable to MTSAregulated facilities for the purpose of 

their protection would conflict with a 

Federal regulation (i.e., it would either 

actually conflict or would frustrate an 

overriding Federal need for uniformity). 

E. Public Comments 

We invite the public to comment on 

any part of this proposed rule and the 

assumptions and estimates used in the 

‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA) 

and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis,’’ which is available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Specifically, we request comments on 

the following: 

1. We request comments on whether 

1 year is an appropriate timeframe to 

implement the system that would be 

required under this proposed rule. 

2. In formulating the proposed 33 CFR 

105.237(b) ‘‘Individuals covered’’, we 

sought to include the individuals to 

whom facility owners or operators 

should be required to provide timely, 

no-cost access through their facilities 

based on the language of section 811 

and the existing seafarers’ access 

requirements in 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9). 

We request comments on whether this 

proposal provides an appropriately 

inclusive list of individuals who should 

be allowed to access a vessel, or 

whether the list is too broad or too 

narrow. 

3. As stated above in this preamble, 

instead of proposing a single regulatory 

definition of ‘‘timely access’’ that would 

apply to all facilities, we propose factors 

for facility owners and operators to 

consider (and document in the FSP) so 

that they provide ‘‘timely access’’ 

without unreasonable delay. We request 

comments on whether this approach 

provides the necessary flexibility for a 

diverse regulated population, while also 

providing COTP oversight to ensure that 

‘‘timely access’’ is reasonable in each 

case. 

4. We request comments on whether 

the proposed 33 CFR 105.237(d) 

provides an appropriately inclusive list 

of methods for providing seafarers’ 

access, or whether there any other 

methods that should be on the list. 

5. We request comments on our 

estimate, discussed below under Section 

VI. Regulatory Analyses, that there is a 

10.3 percent non-compliance rate of 

MTSA-regulated facilities with respect 

to providing seafarers’ access. 

6. We request comments on our cost 

estimates, discussed below under 

Section VI. Regulatory Analyses, for FSP 

amendments and changes to facility 

operations to implement the proposed 

rule’s provisions. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11As explained above in the discussion of 

proposed § 105.237(f), the deadline to implement 

operational changes resulting from this rule would 

be one year after the final rule is published. Since 

Coast Guard regulations already require FSP 

amendments to be submitted for Coast Guard 

approval no later than 60 days before implementing 

7. We request comments on the 

regulatory alternatives to implementing 

section 811 discussed below under 

Section VI. Regulatory Analyses. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes or executive 

orders. Details regarding the regulatory 

analyses are located in the preliminary 

Regulatory Analysis (RA), which can be 

found by following the directions in 

paragraph I.B. above. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 13563 (‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’) 

and 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic impact of this rulemaking is 

not economically significant (i.e., the 

rulemaking has an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more a 

year). 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

and does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

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

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Nonetheless, 

we developed an analysis of the costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule to 

ascertain its probably impacts on 

industry. We consider all estimates and 

analysis in this RA to be preliminary 

and subject to change in consideration 

of public comments. 

Section 811 of the CGAA 2010 

requires each MTSA-regulated facility, 

in its FSP, to ‘‘provide a system for 

seamen assigned to a vessel at that 

facility, pilots, and representatives of 

seamen’s welfare and labor 

organizations to board and depart the 

vessel through the facility in a timely 

manner at no cost to the individual.’’ 

The CGAA 2010 builds on the 

requirements set forth under 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9), which stipulates that each 

facility owner or operator is currently 

required to ‘‘[e]nsure coordination of 

shore leave. . . .’’ We propose to require 

each owner or operator of a MTSAregulated facility to implement a system 

for providing seafarers and other 

individuals with access between vessels 

moored at the facility and the facility 

gate. Each owner or operator would be 

required to implement a system within 

1 year after publication of the final rule 

that incorporates specific methods of 

providing access in a timely manner, at 

no cost to the individual, and in 

accordance with existing access control 

provisions in 33 CFR part 105. We also 

propose to require each owner or 

operator to ensure that the FSP includes 

a section describing the system for 

seafarers’ access. This proposed rule 

proposes six methods of providing 

access as acceptable means of 

implementing a system of access. They 

are as follows: 

(1) Regularly scheduled escort 

between the vessel and the facility gate 

that conforms to the vessel’s watch 

schedule as agreed upon between the 

vessel and facility; 

(2) An on-call escort between the 

vessel and the facility gate; 

(3) Arrangements with taxi services; 

(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ 

welfare organizations to facilitate the 

access; 

(5) Monitored pedestrian access 

routes between the vessel and facility 

gate; or 

(6) A method, other than those 

described above, approved by the COTP. 

If a MTSA-regulated facility provides 

a method of access via third party (e.g., 

taxi service, seafarers’ welfare 

organization, etc.), they would need to 

have a ‘‘back-up’’ method so as to 

ensure access is provided in a timely 

manner, provided it is approved by the 

COTP. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

affected population, costs, and benefits 

to this proposed rule. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS, AND BENEFITS

Category Notice of proposed rulemaking 

Applicability ......................................................... Owners or operators of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard are required to implement a 

system that provides seafarers and other individuals with access between the shore and 

vessels moored at the facility. 

Affected population ............................................. 2,498 MTSA-regulated Facilities. 

Seafarers and other covered individuals that would receive access under the proposed rule. 

Total Cost to Industry and Government * (7% 

discount rate).

10-year: $19.9 million. 

Annualized: $2.8 million. 

Benefits ............................................................... Provides access through facilities for an average of 907 seafarers and other covered individuals that were otherwise denied access annually. Reduces regulatory uncertainty by harmonizing regulations with Sec. 811 of Pub. L. 111–281. 

Conforms with the intent of the ISPS Code. 

Ensures the safety, health, and welfare of seafarers. 

* Please refer to the preliminary RA in the docket for details. 

A summary of the RA follows: 

Affected Population 

The effect of the proposed rule would 

be to require facilities regulated by 

MTSA to implement a system of access 

for seafarers and other individuals, and 

to document that system in their FSPs. 

Many facilities already have a system 

that would likely satisfy this proposed 

rule, but they would still need to update 

their FSPs to document that system. 

Other facilities would have to both 

implement a system and update their 

FSPs to document it. 

Based on information about MTSAregulated facilities captured in the Coast 

Guard’s internal database, the Marine 

Inspection, Safety and Law Enforcement 

(MISLE), there are 2,498 facilities 

affected by this rulemaking. We 

anticipate that all (2,498 facilities) 

would need to modify their FSPs within 

10 months 11 of publication of the final 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77989 

operational changes, the deadline for submitting 

FSP amendments resulting from this rule would be 

10 months after publication of the final rule. 

12The number of FSPs have been decreasing from 

2004 to 2014. Therefore, we did not cost out 

changes to ownership. 

13Based on the 2011 SCI report 26 ports were 

surveyed. From those 26 ports, 17 terminals would 

not conform to the requirement of this proposed 

rule (pg. 3–4). Upon further investigation by USCG, 

the Seamen’s Church Institute stated that in 2011, 

they reviewed 165 terminals. The non-compliance 

rate is 17 terminals out compliance ÷ 165 terminals 

surveyed = 10.3 percent non-compliance rate. 

rule to document their system of 

providing access for seafarers and other 

individuals. Any needed changes in 

subsequent years would be 

accomplished under existing updates to 

FSPs or occurs as facilities changes 

ownership.12

In addition to documenting a system 

of access in their FSPs, some facilities 

may need to modify operations to 

implement that system. Based on a 2011 

survey conducted by the Seamen’s 

Church Institute’s (SCI) Center for 

Seafarers’ Rights and discussions with 

the SCI, we estimate that 10.3 percent of 

the facilities would need to update their 

existing systems of access to conform to 

the standards of this rulemaking.13 We 

used the 10.3 percent as our estimated 

non-compliance rate. At this rate, 257 

out of the total 2,498 facilities affected 

by this rulemaking would need to 

develop and implement a system of 

access through the facility for seafarers 

and other individuals and document it 

in their FSPs. 

Costs 

There are two main types of costs: 

administrative and operational. Table 2 

provides the outline of the proposed 

regulations and the effects that these 

changes will have on the affected 

population. 

TABLE 2—COST MATRIX

Section(s) and Descriptions Population Costs and Benefits 

§ 101.112 ............................................................. Adds Federalism language ... All facilities ............................. No cost because it deals with 

the interaction between the 

federal government and 

states. 

§ 105.200(b)(1)–(6) .............................................. Rewords language to clarify 

by adding the word ‘‘personnel’’ and removing the 

words ‘‘within that structure‘‘..

Spells out acronyms. .............

Rewords language to clarify ..

All facilities ............................. No cost because it clarifies 

parameter of security personnel 

It clarifies the acronyms 

It is a grammatical change 

only. 

§ 105.200(b)(9) .................................................... Replaces the word, ‘‘coordination’’ with ‘‘implementation of a system, in accordance with § 105.237 of this 

subpart, coordinating‘‘. Refers to § 105.237(b)(4).

All facilities .............................

All seafarers and covered individuals that would receive 

access under this rule.

Cost to implement a system 

of access for seafarers and 

covered individuals going 

through a facility. 

§ 105.200(b)(14) .................................................. Adds reference to 

§ 105.255(c).

All facilities .............................

All seafarers and covered individuals that would receive 

access under this rule.

No cost. Narrows reference 

from entire section to paragraph (c). 

§ 105.237(a)–(d) .................................................. (a) Facilities must have procedures in place to allow 

access through the facility.

(b) Provides list of seafarers 

and covered individuals.

(c) Timing of access is dependent on COTP.

(d) Outlines methods of access.

(d)(3) Individual cost is limited 

to local taxi fare.

Non-conforming facilities .......

All seafarers and covered individuals that would receive 

access under this rule.

Cost for non-conforming facilities to implement a system of access for seafarers 

and covered individuals 

going through a facility. 

§ 105.237(e) ......................................................... Stipulates no cost to the individual.All facilities .............................

All seafarers and covered individuals that would receive 

access under this rule.

Cost may be passed onto the 

vessel. 

§ 105.237(f) .......................................................... Stipulates that a system of 

access must be documented in the FSP.

All facilities ............................. Paperwork cost to add description in the FSP. 

§ 105.405(a)(9) .................................................... Specifies the location in the 

FSP where facilities must 

outline escorting procedures.

All facilities ............................. Paperwork cost to add description in the FSP. 

All MTSA-regulated facilities are 

expected to incur administrative costs 

and would need to update their FSPs to 

document their system of access. While 

all MTSA-regulated facilities describe a 

system of access, the description may 

not contain all of the proposed 

elements. Thus, we determined that all 

facilities’ FSPs would undergo 

modification to incorporate a 

description of seafarers’ access. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14See Chapter 3.1 of the standalone RA for 

information regarding wages. 

15 In COI 1627–007, we estimate that it takes 100 

hours to create a new FSP made up of 18 sections. 

We estimate that it would take 6 hours (100 hours 

÷ 18 sections = 5.55 hours) to create a new section 

in the FSP. 

16Executive Administrative Assistant hourly 

wage $34.81 * 0.1667 hours + $0.10 paper = $6.07. 

See chapter 3.1 of the standalone RA for 

information regarding wages. 

17Based on information from Coast Guard facility 

inspectors nationwide due to the fact that MISLE 

and other Coast Guard databases do not capture the 

physical sizes of these facilities. 

18Please refer to table 5 for 10-year breakdown in 

total cost. 

2,498 Population * (($63.40 wage 14 * 6 

hours 15) + $6.07 stationery 16) = 

$965,402 

We estimate that 257 facilities (10.3 

percent of 2,498 facilities) would be 

expected to incur operational costs and 

would also need to modify their systems 

of access to conform to their modified 

FSPs. The proposed rule provides six 

methods for providing access: (1) 

Regularly scheduled shuttle service, (2) 

on-call service, (3) taxi service, (4) 

arrangements with the seafarers’ welfare 

organizations, (5) monitoring of 

pedestrian routes, or (6) any other 

system, provided that the method is 

approved by the COTP. This proposed 

rule would require a ‘‘back-up’’ method 

of access if a facility chooses a method 

that relies on a third party. The back-up 

method would be how the facility 

ensures access if the third party fails to 

provide access. For the purposes of this 

RA, we assume that facilities would 

have a ‘‘back-up’’ system in place if 

using the seafarers’ welfare 

organization. We did not assume a backup method for the other since methods 

1, 2, or 5 does not deal with third 

parties, and because we assume that 

facilities would have a sufficient 

number of taxis available for method 3. 

For the purposes of this RA, we focus 

on the first five methods as primary 

methods of access, because facilities 

would choose the sixth option only if it 

had higher value (e.g., lower costs) than 

one of the first five. 

Based on information from Coast 

Guard internal subject matter experts 

(SMEs) and the costs associated with 

implementing the various methods, we 

expect that a small percentage of 

facilities are large enough, or carry out 

dangerous or hazardous operations, to 

warrant the purchase of a van. Some 

facilities would opt to use taxi service, 

as it provides flexibility to the facility as 

a relatively cheaper alternative. Some 

would choose to use a seafarers’ welfare 

organization (Method 4) to provide 

transit, but due to these organizations’ 

limited resources, facilities would not 

be able to solely depend on a seafarers’ 

welfare organization to provide escort. 

We assume that most facilities would 

choose monitoring (Method 5) since the 

majority of them are small 17 enough 

that existing security guards and/or 

monitoring equipment in place would 

be sufficient. However, if facilities 

choose this method, we anticipate 1 

hour of training annually to review 

security protocol in the event that a 

seafarer leaves the designated 

passageway. 

Table 3 provides the number of 

affected facilities and the per-facility 

cost to modify operations to include a 

system of access and to document it in 

their FSPs. Costs are broken down into 

initial cost to affected populations and 

then annually recurring costs.18

TABLE 3—PER-FACILITY ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS

[By method] 

Cost description Population Initial cost Annual 

recurring cost 

Cost Per Facility (FSP Documentation) ...................................................................................... 2,498 386 0 

Cost Per Facility Operations: 

Method 1: Regularly Scheduled Shuttle ............................................................................... 26 63,759 35,655 

Method 2: On-call Service .................................................................................................... 51 52,154 24,050 

Method 3: Taxi ...................................................................................................................... 51 7,619 3,208 

Methods 4: Seafarers’ Welfare Organization ....................................................................... 26 3,208 1,203

Method 5: Monitoring of Pedestrian Routes ........................................................................ 103 181 181 

Method 6: Alternate means of access, approved by the COTP .......................................... N/A N/A N/A 

Table 4 provides the key unit costs for 

the methods. Please refer to the 

standalone RA for the calculations of 

the costs by method. 

TABLE 4—KEY INPUTS FOR METHODS 1–5 

Key input Cost Source 

Security guard wage ............ $19.41 ................................ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes339032.htm. 

Cargo and Freight Agents 

Wage.

$30.18 ................................ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes435011.htm. 

Managers ............................. $63.35 ................................ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes113071.htm. 

Secretaries ........................... $35.81 ................................ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes436011.htm. 

Van ....................................... ranges from $25,060 to 

$35,620.

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-serieswagon/models/. 

http://www.toyota.com/sienna/trims-prices.html. 

http://www.gm.com/vehicles/browseByType.html#/?price=120000&brand=all&type=

van&appState=list. 

Cost of Gas .......................... $4.04 .................................. http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/

index.asp. 

Average Miles per Gallon .... 13 ....................................... http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Vans__Passenger_Type2012.shtml. 

Driving Speed ...................... ranges from 15 mph to 30 

mph.

http://www.panynj.gov/port/pdf/highway-speed-limits-2008.pdf. 

http://www.massport.com/port-of-boston/Conley%20Terminal/TerminalProcess.aspx. 

http://www.fmtcargo.com/terminal_guides/fmt_guide_burns_harbor.pdf. 

http://www.fmtcargo.com/terminal_guides/fmt_guide_cleveland.pdf. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77991 

TABLE 4—KEY INPUTS FOR METHODS 1–5—Continued 

Key input Cost Source 

http://www.fmtcargo.com/terminal_guides/fmt_guide_port_manatee.pdf. 

http://www.fmtcargo.com/terminal_guides/fmt_guide_lake_charles.pdf. 

http://www.fmtcargo.com/terminal_guides/fmt_guide_milwaukee.pdf. 

Driving Time ......................... 0.33 hours .......................... SME. 

TWIC .................................... $401.00 .............................. http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/twic/twic_faqs.shtm#twic_process. 

Taxi Driver Wage ................. $17.92 ................................ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes533041.htm. 

Miles to an enrollment Center.100 miles ............................ STCW. 

Average Commute Speed ... 28.87 .................................. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf. 

Mileage Reimbursement 

Rate.

$0.56 .................................. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715. 

Table 5 provides the total costs over 

10 years, to include the initial cost and 

annually recurring costs. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY COSTS 10-YEAR, 7 AND 3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES

Undiscounted 

cost 

Annualized 7% 

discount cost 

Annualized 3% 

discount cost 

Year 1 .............................................................................................................................. $5,773,631 $5,395,917 $5,605,467 

Year 2 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 2,067,543 2,231,247 

Year 3 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,932,283 2,166,259 

Year 4 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,805,872 2,103,164 

Year 5 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,687,731 2,041,907 

Year 6 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,577,319 1,982,434 

Year 7 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,474,130 1,924,693 

Year 8 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,377,691 1,868,634 

Year 9 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,287,562 1,814,208 

Year 10 ............................................................................................................................ 2,367,130 1,203,329 1,761,367 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 27,077,801 19,809,376 23,499,382 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 2,820,410 2,754,844 

Based on information from the SMEs, 

we estimate that it would take between 

15 and 30 minutes for an E–4, E–5, or 

E–6 to review the updated FSP. We 

calculate the one-time cost to review all 

FSPs to be as follows: 2,498 FSPs * 

$48.33 wage rate/hour * 0.5 hours = 

$60,364 

Table 6 provides the 10-year cost to 

both the government and industry. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT COSTS 10-YEAR, 7 AND 3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES

Undiscounted 

cost 

Annualized 7% 

discount cost 

Annualized 3% 

discount cost 

Year 1 .............................................................................................................................. $5,833,995 $5,452,332 $5,664,073 

Year 2 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 2,067,543 2,231,247 

Year 3 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,932,283 2,166,259 

Year 4 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,805,872 2,103,164 

Year 5 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,687,731 2,041,907 

Year 6 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,577,319 1,982,434 

Year 7 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,474,130 1,924,693 

Year 8 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,377,691 1,868,634 

Year 9 .............................................................................................................................. 2,367,130 1,287,562 1,814,208 

Year 10 ............................................................................................................................ 2,367,130 1,203,329 1,761,367 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 27,138,165 19,865,791 23,557,987 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 2,828,442 2,761,715 

For more details, please refer to the 

cost chapter of the preliminary RA in 

the docket. 

Benefits 

The primary benefit to this rule is to 

provide individuals, with a legitimate 

purpose, access to or egress from the 

vessel to the facility gate. The Center for 

Seafarers’ Rights organization, reports 

on the number of seafarers that are 

denied access through the terminal. 

Based on the SCI’s surveys from 2006 to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2014, there was an average of 907 

seafarers that were denied shore leave 

access due to terminal restrictions. 

While it was reported that there were 

denials of access to other individuals 

with a legitimate purpose, we do not 

have the numbers of facilities that do 

not provide access nor do we have the 

numbers of other individuals denied 

access. The benefit to this rule is that 

seafarers and other authorized 

individuals that would otherwise be 

denied access due to terminal 

restrictions would be able to obtain 

shore leave access. 

Providing seafarers’ access ensures 

the safety, health, and welfare of 

seafarers. Generally, transiting through a 

MTSA-facility is the only way for 

seafarers to access the shore, visit 

doctors, obtain prescriptions, visit 

businesses, visit family members and 

friends, among other things, beyond the 

facility. 

Another benefit to this rule is that it 

conforms to international conventions, 

specifically the International Ship and 

Port Facility Security Code. In light of 

this international agreement, if the U.S. 

is known internationally for having 

facilities that do not provide shore leave 

access, other countries may consider 

denying shore leave access to U.S. 

seafarers while they are abroad. 

Additionally, individuals providing 

services for seafarers or having another 

legitimate purpose for accessing the 

vessel, such as representatives of 

seafarers’ welfare and labor 

organizations, port workers 

organizations, port engineers or 

superintendents, generally can only 

access vessels moored at MTSAregulated facilities by transiting through 

the facility. 

Finally, this rule reduces regulatory 

uncertainty by harmonizing the Coast 

Guard’s regulations with section 811 of 

the CGAA (Pub. L. 111–281). 

The benefits to this rulemaking are 

described in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS

Implications Definitions 

Seafarers’ Access ............................................... From 2006 to 2014, there were an average 907 reported seafarers that were denied access 

due to terminal restrictions. This ensures that these seafarers would be allowed access. 

Ensures the safety, health, and welfare of seafarers. 

International Conventions ................................... Conforms with the intent of the ISPS Code. 

Regulatory Uncertainty ....................................... Reduces regulatory uncertainty by harmonizing the Coast Guard’s regulations with Sec. 811 of 

Pub. L. 111–281. 

Alternatives 

We propose several ways to ensure 

seafarers’ access: the proposed 

alternative (which is the chosen 

alternative), and four other alternatives. 

Proposed Alternative: 

The proposed alternative is to amend 

Coast Guard regulations to require 

MTSA-regulated facilities to implement 

a system of seafarers’ access and to 

amend their FSPs to document that 

system. This alternative was chosen 

because it provides regulatory flexibility 

at the least cost option that would 

comply with the intent of the statute. 

Other Considered Alternatives: 

Alternative 1—No change to 

regulations. Instead of amending the 

current regulations, COTPs would deny 

approval of FSPs that do not adequately 

address shore leave procedures in their 

security plans. While this approach may 

address some deficiencies at some 

facilities, we reject this alternative 

because it would not provide clear and 

consistent regulatory standards for 

facilities to implement and COTPs to 

enforce. Additionally, the current 

regulation in 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) does 

not explicitly require facility owners 

and operators to provide timely, no cost 

access to seafarers, or to include 

seafarers’ access provisions in their 

security plans. Section 811 makes these 

issues mandatory, necessitating an 

update to our regulations. 

Alternative 2—Require a section of 

the Declaration of Security (DoS) 

between the facility and the vessel to 

include the facility’s seafarers’ access 

procedures. We rejected this alternative 

due to the heavy burden it would place 

on the industry (see Chapters 1.3 and 

5.2 of the preliminary RA for more 

details on the cost of this alternative). 

Additionally, this alternative would not 

specifically target facilities with existing 

seafarers’ access issues, and would 

require a DoS between many facilities 

and vessels that would not otherwise be 

required to have one. 

Alternative 3—Require facilities to 

implement specific and prescriptive 

procedures for seafarers’ access and to 

include these procedures in their FSPs. 

This alternative would not allow 

facilities any flexibility or choice in the 

method of access appropriate for their 

facility and operations. One example of 

a prescriptive measure would be to 

require that all facilities provide shuttle 

service for all seafarers, 24-hours a day. 

Although this would solve the issues 

associated with seafarers’ access, we do 

not support this alternative due to the 

heavy burden it would place on 

industry, resulting from prescribed 

major procedural and operational 

changes required for all facilities and 

higher costs associated with 

implementing such prescriptive 

regulations. 

Alternative 4—Publish guidance to 

industry clarifying that 33 CFR 

105.200(b)(9) affirmatively requires 

facility owners/operators to provide 

shore leave and visitor access. We do 

not support this approach, because this 

approach has already been 

implemented, but has not completely 

solved the problems with seafarers’ 

access at some facilities. Some 

remaining facilities still deny seafarers’ 

access altogether or make shore access 

impractical based on a misinterpretation 

of our existing regulations (i.e., they 

contend that since 33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) 

only requires coordination of shore 

leave if there is actual shore leave to 

coordinate, and there is no shore leave 

to coordinate if access to shore is denied 

altogether). Though this alternative has 

been implemented, we have continued 

to receive complaints that some 

facilities grant seafarers’ access to and 

from vessels, but make it impractical by 

placing extreme limitations on escort 

availability or charging exorbitant fees. 

Additionally, the current regulation in 

33 CFR 105.200(b)(9) does not require 

facility owners and operators to provide 

timely, no cost access to seafarers, or to 

include seafarers’ access provisions in 

their FSPs. Section 811 makes these 

issues mandatory, necessitating an 

update to our regulations to avoid 

regulatory uncertainty. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77993 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of fewer than 50,000 

people. 

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis discussing the impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. 

Based on available data, we identified 

1,393 owners of the 2,498 facilities 

affected by this proposed rule. Of the 

1,393 owners, we researched a sample 

of 304 owners to determine the size and 

revenue characteristics of the 

population. Based on the sample 

population of 304 owners, we estimate 

that approximately 77 percent are small 

entities, as defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) or other 

applicable size standards. Facility 

owners are entities that could be 

businesses, non-profit organizations, or 

government agencies. For more details, 

please refer to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis chapter in the 

preliminary RA, available in the docket. 

Because we have no way to determine 

which facilities (and, therefore, which 

entities) would need to implement a 

system of access, we performed two 

analyses. The first assesses the impact 

on small entities for the FSP 

documentation only. The second 

estimates the impact from a combined 

FSP documentation and 

implementation. 

Assuming all small entities only have 

to document a system of access in their 

FSP, this proposed rule would have an 

impact on small entities of less than 1 

percent of revenues for all small 

entities. 

For facilities that have to modify 

operations and document the new 

system of access in their FSP, 68 percent 

would have an impact of 1 percent or 

less, 26 percent would have an impacts 

of greater than 1 percent to 10 percent, 

and 6 percent would have a revenue 

impact of greater than 10 percent. Table 

8 provides the breakdown of impacts. 

TABLE 8—REVENUE IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES

Revenue impact 

Initial 

implementation 

cost 

Annual recurring 

costs 

FSP Only Cost 

Cost to Modify FSP ..................................................................................................................................... $386 ..............................

0% < Impact <= 1% ..................................................................................................................................... 100% ..............................

FSP Plus Access Implementation 

Per facility cost (weighted average) ............................................................................................................ $18,724 $9,210 

0% < Impact <= 1% ..................................................................................................................................... 66% 82% 

1% < Impact <= 3% ..................................................................................................................................... 23% 8% 

3% < Impact <= 5% ..................................................................................................................................... 1% 4% 

5% < Impact <= 10% ................................................................................................................................... 4% 3% 

Above 10% .................................................................................................................................................. 6% 3% 

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 proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please consult 

LT Mason Wilcox, Cargo and Facilities 

Division (CG–FAC–2), Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1123, email 

Mason.C.Wilcox@uscg.mil. 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. 

Under the provisions of this proposed 

rule, the affected facilities and vessels 

would be required to update their FSPs 

to include provisions of seafarers’ 

access. This requirement would be 

added to an existing approved 

collection covered by Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1625–0077. 

Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, 

Facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf 

Facilities and other Security-Related 

Requirements 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0077. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: This proposed rule would 

modify an existing collection of 

information, in proposed §§ 105.200 

through 105.405, for owners and 

operators of certain MTSA-regulated 

facilities. MTSA-regulated facilities 

would need to include a description of 

seafarers’ access in their FSPs. These 

requirements would require a one-time 

change in previously approved OMB 

Collection 1625–0077. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard would use this information 

to determine whether a facility is 

providing adequate seafarers’ access 

provisions between the vessel and the 

facility gate. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are owners and operators of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

MTSA-regulated facilities regulated by 

the Coast Guard under 33 CFR Chapter 

I, subchapter H. 

Number of Respondents: The adjusted 

number of respondents is 10,158 for 

vessels, 5,234 for facilities, and 56 for 

Outer Continental Shelf facilities. Of 

these 5,234 facilities, 2,498 would be 

required to modify their existing FSPs. 

Frequency of Response: There will be 

a one-time response for all 2,498 

respondents. The FSP would need to be 

updated within 10 months after 

publication of the final rule. 

Burden of Response: This includes a 

one-time, 14,988-hour burden. The 

burden resulting from this NPRM is 6 

hours per respondent. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

estimated implementation period 

burden for facilities is 6 hours per FSP 

amendment. Since 2,498 facilities 

would be required to modify their 

existing FSPs, the total burden would be 

14,988 hours = (2,498 facilities * 6 

hours). 

The current burden listed in this 

collection of information is 1,108,043 

hours. The new burden, as a result of 

this proposed rulemaking, would be 

1,123,031 hours (1,108,043 + 14,988). 

As required by the Paperwork 

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

3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this 

proposed rule to the OMB for 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 OIRA 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 Coast Guard could 

enforce the collection of information 

requirements in this proposed rule, 

OMB would need to approve the Coast 

Guard’s request to collect this 

information. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for 

Federalism under Executive Order 

13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule and have determined 

that it is consistent with the 

fundamental Federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. 

This proposed rule would update 

existing regulations in 33 CFR part 105 

by requiring each owner or operator of 

a facility regulated by the Coast Guard 

to implement a system that provides 

seafarers and other individuals with 

access through the facility. 

Additionally, this proposed rule would 

add requirements to amend security 

plans in order to ensure compliance. 

It is well-settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. (See the 

decision of the Supreme Court in the 

consolidated cases of United States v. 

Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 

89, 120 S. Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). 

The Coast Guard believes the 

Federalism principles articulated in 

Locke apply to the regulations 

promulgated under the authority of 

MTSA. States and local governments are 

foreclosed from regulating within the 

fields covered by regulations found in 

33 CFR parts 101, 103, 104, and 106. 

However, with regard to regulations 

found in 33 CFR part 105, State 

maritime facility regulations are not 

preempted so long as these State laws or 

regulations are more stringent than what 

is required by 33 CFR part 105 and no 

actual conflict or frustration of an 

overriding need for national uniformity 

exists. 

While it is well settled that State law 

or regulations will be preempted where 

Congress intended Coast Guard 

regulations to have preemptive effect, 

the Coast Guard recognizes the key role 

that State and local governments may 

have in making regulatory 

determinations. Additionally, for rules 

with federalism implications and 

preemptive effect, Executive Order 

13132 specifically directs agencies to 

consult with State and local 

governments during the rulemaking 

process. If you believe this rule has 

implications for federalism under 

Executive Order 13132, please contact 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION section of this preamble. 

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 (adjusted for inflation) 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 cause 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. Though 

it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, it 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77995 

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 Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

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), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. This rule is likely to be 

categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(a) and 

(c) of the Instruction and 6(a) of the final 

agency policy published at 67 FR 48243 

on July 23, 2002. This rule involves 

regulations which are editorial or 

procedural, regulations concerning 

training, qualifying, licensing, and 

disciplining of maritime personnel and 

regulations concerning vessel operation 

safety standards. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 101 

Harbors, Incorporation by reference, 

Maritime security, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 105 

Maritime security, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR parts 101 and 105 as 

follows: 

33 CFR—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

PART 101—MARITIME SECURITY: 

GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive 

Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 101.112 to read as follows: 

§ 101.112 Federalism. 

(a) [RESERVED] 

(b) The regulations in 33 CFR part 105 

have preemptive effect over State or 

local regulations insofar as a State or 

local law or regulation applicable to the 

facilities covered by part 105 would 

conflict with the regulations in part 105, 

either by actually conflicting or 

frustrating an overriding Federal need 

for uniformity. 

PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: 

FACILITIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 105 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04– 

11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 105.200 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 105.200 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), after the words 

‘‘Define the’’, remove the words 

‘‘security organizational structure’’ and 

add, in their place, the words 

‘‘organizational structure of the security 

personnel’’; and after the word 

‘‘responsibilities’’, remove the words 

‘‘within that structure’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the 

words ‘‘an FSP’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘a Facility Security Plan 

(FSP)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(6), remove the 

acronym ‘‘TWIC’’ and add, in its place, 

the words ‘‘Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(6)(i), after the 

words ‘‘FSP are permitted to’’, add the 

words ‘‘serve as an’’, and at the end of 

the sentence, remove the symbol ‘‘;’’, 

and add, in its place, the symbol ‘‘.’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii), after the 

words ‘‘or other authorized 

individual,’’, remove the word ‘‘should’’ 

and add, in its place, the words ‘‘in the 

event that’’, and at the end of the 

sentence, remove the symbol and word 

‘‘; and’’, and add, in its place, the 

symbol ‘‘.’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii), after the 

word ‘‘employees’’, remove the symbol 

‘‘,’’; remove the word ‘‘what’’, and add, 

in its place, the word ‘‘which’’; and after 

the words ‘‘are secure areas and’’, add 

the words ‘‘which are’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(8), after the 

abbreviation ‘‘(DoS)’’, add the symbol 

‘‘,’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (b)(9), after the word 

‘‘Ensure’’, remove the words 

‘‘coordination of’’, and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘implementation of a 

system, in accordance with § 105.237 of 

this subpart, coordinating’’; and after 

the words ‘‘for visitors to the vessel’’, 

remove the words ‘‘(including 

representatives of seafarers’ welfare and 

labor organizations)’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘, as described in 

§ 105.237(b)(4) of this subpart’’ 

■ i. In paragraph (b)(14), after the words 

‘‘and of their obligation to inform’’, 

remove the acronym ‘‘TSA’’ and add, in 

its place, the words ‘‘Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA)’’; and 

■ j. In paragraph (b)(15), after the words 

‘‘protocols consistent with’’, remove the 

words ‘‘section 105.255(c)’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘paragraph (c) of 

§ 105.255’’. 

■ 5. Add § 105.237 to read as follows: 

§ 105.237 System for seafarers’ access. 

(a) Access Required. Each facility 

owner or operator must implement a 

system by (365 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE) for 

providing access through the facility 

that enables individuals to transit to and 

from a vessel moored at the facility and 

the facility gate in accordance with the 

requirements in this section. The system 

must provide timely access as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section and 

incorporate the access methods 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section at no cost to the individuals 

covered. The system must comply with 

the Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC) 

provisions in this part. 

(b) Individuals Covered. The 

individuals to whom the facility owner 

or operator must provide the access 

described in this section include— 

(1) The seafarers assigned to a vessel 

moored at the facility; 

(2) The pilots and other authorized 

personnel performing work for a vessel 

moored at the facility; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Representatives of seafarers’ 

welfare and labor organizations; and 

(4) Other authorized individuals in 

accordance with the Declaration of 

Security (DoS) or other arrangement 

between the vessel and facility. 

(c) Timely Access. The facility owner 

or operator must provide the access 

described in this section without 

unreasonable delay, subject to review by 

the Captain of the Port (COTP). The 

facility owner or operator must consider 

the following when establishing timely 

access without unreasonable delay: 

(1) Length of time the vessel is in port. 

(2) Distance of egress/ingress between 

the vessel and facility gate. 

(3) The vessel watch schedules. 

(4) The facility’s safety and security 

procedures as required by law. 

(5) Any other factors specific to the 

vessel or facility that could affect access 

to and from the vessel. 

(d) Access Methods. The facility 

owner or operator must ensure that the 

access described in this section is 

provided through one or more of the 

following methods: 

(1) Regularly scheduled escort 

between the vessel and the facility gate 

that conforms to the vessel’s watch 

schedule as agreed upon between the 

vessel and facility. 

(2) An on-call escort between the 

vessel and the facility gate. 

(3) Arrangements with taxi services, 

ensuring that any costs for providing the 

access described in this section, above 

the taxi’s standard fees charged to any 

customer, are not charged to the 

individual to whom such access is 

provided. If a facility provides 

arrangements with taxi services as the 

only method for providing the access 

described in this section, the facility is 

responsible to pay the taxi fees for 

transit within the facility. 

(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ 

welfare organizations to facilitate the 

access described in this section. 

(5) Monitored pedestrian access 

routes between the vessel and facility 

gate. 

(6) A method, other than those in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 

section, approved by the COTP. 

(7) If an access method relies on a 

third party, a back-up access method 

that will be used if the third-party is 

unable to or does not provide the 

required access in any instance. An 

owner or operator must ensure that the 

access required in paragraph (a) of this 

section is actually provided in all 

instances. 

(e) No cost to individuals. The facility 

owner or operator must provide the 

access described in this section at no 

cost to the individual to whom such 

access is provided. 

(f) Described in the Facility Security 

Plan (FSP). On or before [INSERT DATE 

10 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE], the facility owner or 

operator must document the facility’s 

system for providing the access 

described in this section in the 

approved FSP in accordance with 33 

CFR 105.410 or 33 CFR 105.415. The 

description of the facility’s system must 

include— 

(1) Location of transit area(s) used for 

providing the access described in this 

section; 

(2) Duties and number of facility 

personnel assigned to each duty 

associated with providing the access 

described in this section; 

(3) Methods of escorting and/or 

monitoring individuals transiting 

through the facility; 

(4) Agreements or arrangements 

between the facility and private parties, 

nonprofit organizations, or other parties, 

to facilitate the access described in this 

section; and 

(5) Maximum length of time an 

individual would wait for the access 

described in this section, based on the 

provided access method(s). 

■ 6. Amend § 105.405 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), at the end of the 

first sentence, remove the text ‘‘(a)’’; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(9) 

through (a)(18) as (a)(10) through (a)(19); 

■ c. In newly designated paragraphs 

(a)(18) and (a)(19), at the beginning of 

the paragraphs, add the word ‘‘The’’ 

before the word ‘‘Facility’’; and 

■ d. Add new paragraph (a)(9) as 

follows: 

§ 105.405 Format and content of the 

Facility Security Plan (FSP). 

(a) * * * 

(9) System for seafarers’ access; 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

J.C. Burton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Inspections & Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30013 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0399; FRL–9920–67– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and 

Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Missouri 

relating to the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program. On August 

16, 2007, and December 7, 2007, the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) requested to amend 

the SIP to replace the St. Louis 

centralized transient I/M240 vehicle test 

program Gateway Clean Air Program 

(GCAP) and associated state rule with a 

de-centralized, OBD only vehicle I/M 

program called, the Gateway Vehicle 

Inspection Program (GVIP), and a new I/ 

M rule reflecting these changes. In this 

action, EPA is also proposing approval 

of three additional SIP revisions 

submitted by Missouri related to the 

state’s I/M program including minor 

clarification edits to the new I/M rule, 

exemptions for specially constructed 

vehicles or ‘‘kit-cars,’’ exemptions for 

Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), 

and rescission of Missouri State 

Highway Patrol rules from the Missouri 

SIP. 

These revisions to Missouri’s SIP do 

not have an adverse effect on air quality 

as demonstrated in the technical 

support document which is a part of 

this docket. EPA’s approval of these SIP 

revisions is being done in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0399, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: brown.steven@epa.gov 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Steven Brown, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0399. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS