80 FR 29582 - Higher Volume Port Area-State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 99 (May 22, 2015)
Coast Guard
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 99 (May 22, 2015)
| Page Range | 29582-29589 | |
| FR Document | 2015-11760 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 29582-29589] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-11760] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 155 [Docket No. USCG-2011-0576] RIN 1625-AB75 Higher Volume Port Area--State of Washington AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes redefining the boundaries of the existing higher volume port area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, in Washington. This rulemaking is required by statute, and is related to the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions. DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before August 20, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG- 2011-0576 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 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR John G. Peterson, CG-CVC-1, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1226, email [email protected]. 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 for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Abbreviations III. Background IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule V. 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 submit comments (or related material) on this rulemaking. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2011-0576 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008). Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x 11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission. Documents mentioned in this notice of proposed rulemaking and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting. II. Abbreviations BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CFR Code of Federal Regulations E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register [[Page 29583]] GSA General Services Administration HVPA Higher volume port area MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement NAICS North American Industry Classification System OMB Office of Management and Budget OSRO Oil spill removal organization Pub. L. Public Law SBA Small Business Administration Sec. Section symbol U.S.C. United States Code VRP Vessel response plan III. Background The legal basis of this proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 1321(j), which require the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to issue regulations necessary for implementing the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and to require the President to issue regulations requiring response plans and other measures to protect against oil and hazardous substance spills. The President's authority under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) is delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, and the Secretary's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(70), (73), and (80). The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement section 710 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (``the Act''),\1\ which requires the Coast Guard to initiate by October 15, 2011, a rulemaking to modify the 33 CFR 155.1020 definition of the State of Washington's higher volume port area (the Washington HVPA) by replacing a reference to Port Angeles, WA, with a reference to Cape Flattery, WA, and by reviewing any modifications to vessel response plans (VRPs), made in response to the definitional change, not later than October 15, 2015. The Coast Guard initiated this project by the October 15, 2011 deadline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oil or hazardous material pollution prevention regulations for a U.S. vessel, and for a foreign vessel operating in U.S. waters, appear in Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR part 155. Many of those regulations require a vessel response plan (VRP) describing measures that the vessel owner or operator has taken or will take to mitigate or respond to an oil spill from the vessel. The VRP must demonstrate the vessel's ability, following a spill, to secure response resources within given time periods. These measures typically include the services of nearby response resources under a contract between the vessel's owner or operator and an oil spill removal organization (OSRO) that owns the response resources. The regulations provide for three different timeframes within which a combination of required response resources must arrive on the scene, which are described as Tiers 1, 2, and 3. In 33 CFR part 155, subparts D (petroleum oil as cargo), F (animal fat or vegetable oil as cargo), G (non-petroleum oil as cargo), and J (petroleum oil as fuel or secondary cargo) all share the same definition of ``Higher volume port areas.'' Required response times are significantly reduced in HVPAs. For example, Tier 1 response times for an oil tanker within an HVPA are half that required of the same vessel operating in open ocean. As defined in 33 CFR 155.1020, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, Washington constitute one of 14 HVPAs designated around the country. Since 1996, 33 CFR 155.1020 has defined the seaward boundary of the Washington HVPA as an arc 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance to Port Angeles, Washington. Port Angeles is approximately 62 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, at Cape Flattery, WA, and therefore, the Washington HVPA does not currently include any Pacific Ocean waters. Section 710 of the Act requires the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to relocate the HVPA's arc so that it extends seaward from Cape Flattery, not Port Angeles. This would add 50 nautical miles of Pacific Ocean water and an additional 12 nautical miles in the western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Waters affected by sec. 710 and by this rulemaking are shown on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration charts.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Waters affected by sec. 710 and this rulemaking are shown on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration charts 18460 (Cape Flattery, WA) and 18465 (Port Angeles, WA). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 710 requires us to initiate a rulemaking not later than October 15, 2011, to modify the definition of the Washington HVPA to relocate the arc. Section 710 also requires us to approve VRPs that require modification as a result of the rulemaking not later than October 15, 2015. We have determined that, with respect to existing VRPs, no modifications or new Coast Guard VRP approvals will be needed. To maximize the affected public's ability to plan for the change in the Washington HVPA's boundaries, we published a 2011 Federal Register notice of our intent to comply with sec. 710.\3\ This advised the public that regulatory implementation of sec. 710 was forthcoming. The notice did not request public comments and no public comments were received. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 76 FR 76299 (Dec. 7, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule The current definition of the Washington HVPA's boundaries \4\ reads: ``Higher volume port area means the following areas, including any water area within 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance(s) to the specified port: . . . (13) Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port Angeles, WA to and including Puget Sound, WA.'' In strict compliance with the express wording of sec. 710(a), we propose amending that definition by striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA'' in its place. As amended, the definition would then read: ``Higher volume port area means the following areas, including any water area within 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance(s) to the specified port: . . . (13) Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery, WA to and including Puget Sound, WA.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 33 CFR 155.1020(13). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Port Angeles lies about 62 miles east of the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. By moving the arc so that it centers on Cape Flattery, which lies at the entrance to the Strait, the proposed redefined Washington HVPA would cover an additional 50 nautical miles of Pacific Ocean water, while continuing to cover all the waters now included within the current HVPA. The larger Washington HVPA may affect the time and resources needed to respond to an oil spill from a vessel, because it is harder and more time-consuming to transit rough Pacific Ocean waters than it is to transit the sheltered waters of the Strait and the Sound. (We discuss these possibilities in more detail in the Regulatory Analysis section that follows.) V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 [[Page 29584]] emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. A draft preliminary Regulatory Assessment follows. This proposed rule would expand the existing Washington HVPA for Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Currently, the Washington HVPA boundary is measured from Port Angeles in a 50-mile seaward arc westward to the Pacific Ocean. As mandated by sec. 710 of the Act, this proposed rule would amend the definition of the term ``Higher volume port area'' and relocate the point at which the seaward arc is measured from Port Angeles to Cape Flattery, WA, an approximately 62-mile westward shift. As a result, the Washington HVPA would cover an additional 50 miles of open ocean and an additional 12 nautical miles in the western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. A VRP must list the OSRO provider that the vessel owner or operator has contracted with and stipulate the vessel's ability to secure response resources within specific regulatory timeframes (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) in the event of an oil spill. This proposed rule would codify the changes delineated in the Act and it would not require changes to VRPs. Affected Population Part 155 in 33 CFR directly applies to and regulates vessel owners and operators. Specified vessels prepare vessel response plans that must list the OSRO provider that the vessel owner or operator has contracted with and stipulate the vessel's ability to secure response resources within specific regulatory timeframes (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) in the event of an oil spill. The proposed rule has the potential to impact vessel response planholders covering vessels that transit the Washington HVPA and OSROs that provide response resources in the event of an oil spill. Based on Coast Guard review of vessel response plans, 2 OSROs may be impacted by the proposed rule. One OSRO has about 500 response resource contracts and the other OSRO has about 650 contracts with planholders that own vessels that call on the Cape Flattery higher volume port area. For the OSRO that has 500 contracts, about 3 percent or 15 are with U.S. planholders; the OSRO that has 650 contracts, about 2 percent or 13 are with U.S. planholders. Costs Vessel owners and operators would not need to revise or modify a current VRP to take into account expansion of the HVPA. Current VRPs already specify one or both of the OSROs that provide response resources to vessel owners and operators in the affected waters. Vessel owners and operators must only list the OSRO by name and include the contact information for each OSRO in the VRP; no other information or details are required in the VRP that are dependent upon the geographic location of response equipment. In addition to identifying the OSRO in the vessel response plan, vessel owners and operators must ensure the availability of response resources from the OSRO through a contract or other approved means. Depending on how the contract language is formulated, a contract may need to be modified to reflect the change in the HVPA geographical definition. One OSRO provided information which stated that contracts would need to be modified slightly to incorporate the geographic change of the expanded higher volume port while the other OSRO provided information which stated that no changes or modifications to existing contracts would be necessary on the part of either the OSROs or the planholders. For the purpose of this analysis, we estimate costs to modify a contract for the planholders of the OSRO that stated that changes would be necessary. This OSRO has about 500 planholders with written contractual agreements to secure response resource services in the event of an oil spill; of this amount, only about 3 percent or 15, are with U.S. planholders. Based on information we obtained from industry in formulating the Nontank Vessel Response Final Rule [78 FR 60100], it would take a General and Operations Manager approximately 2 hours of planholder time to amend the contract and send the contract to the OSRO for approval. If a plan preparer amends the contract on behalf of the planholder, we estimate it would take the same amount of time. We found that 36 percent of planholders perform this work internally and 64 percent hire a plan preparer to perform this work on their behalf. The amendment of a contract is a one-time cost; we estimate little or no submission cost for planholders because nearly 100 percent of contracts are submitted by email to the responsible OSRO. For planholders who perform the work internally and using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for General and Operations Manager (Occupation Code 11-1021), we obtain a mean hourly wage rate of $62.68. We then use BLS' 2014 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation databases to calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of about $95.30 for this occupation.\5\ For plan preparers, we obtained publicly available fully loaded billing rates for Senior Regulatory and Environmental Consultants and Environmental Program Managers from three environmental service companies using the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Acquisition eLibrary for service contracts.\6\ We took the average of these three rates to obtain a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $151.00 (rounded). Of about 500 planholders who have contracts with this OSRO, only about 15 are U.S. planholders. Of the 15 U.S. planholders, about 36 percent would amend the contract internally. We estimate the one- time cost to these planholders to be about $1,030 ($95.30 x 2 hours x 500 planholders x 0.03 x 0.36, rounded). For the remaining 64 percent of U.S. planholders who have a plan preparer amend the contracts on their behalf, we estimate the one-time cost to be about $2,899 ($151.00 x 2 hours x 500 planholders x .03 x 0.64, rounded); combined the total estimated one-time cost to U.S. planholders to amend the contracts would be about $3,930, rounded and undiscounted. We estimate the average one-time or initial cost for each U.S. planholder to amend a contract to be about $262 ($3,930/15 [[Page 29585]] U.S. planholders). We estimate the 10-year discounted cost to be about $3,673 using a 7 percent discount rate and the annualized cost to be about $523. Taking into consideration the uncertainty of this analysis, we request public comment on the cost impacts of this rule on OSROs and VRP planholders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Information can be viewed at, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_483000.htm. A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to employ a person, not the hourly wage. The loaded labor rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The load factor for wages is calculated by dividing total compensation by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS' Employer Cost for Employee Compensation/Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations, Private Industry report (Series IDs, CMU2010000520000D and CMU2020000520000D for all workers using the multi-screen data search). Using 2014 Q2 data, we divide the total compensation amount of $25.85 by the wage and salary amount of $17.04 to get the load factor of 1.517 or 1.52. See the following Web site, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm. We then rounded $62.68 to $62.70 and multiplied by 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of about $95.00. \6\ GSA Contract GS-10F-0263U Accessed 11/26/2014; GSA Contract GS-10F-0104T Accessed 11/26/2014; https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS10F0335R/0N9LCV.2VV7AR_GS-10F-0335R_GS10F0335R.PDF. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The remaining 485 planholders are foreign. For 36 percent of them who would amend the contracts internally, we estimate the one-time cost to be about $33,300 ($95.30 x 2 hours x 485 planholders x 0.36, rounded). For the remaining 64 percent of foreign planholders who have a plan preparer amend the contracts on their behalf, we estimate the one-time cost to be about $93,740 ($151.00 x 2 hours x 485 planholders x 0.64, rounded); combined the total estimated one-time cost to foreign planholders to amend the contracts would be about $127,040, rounded, or about $262 per planholder ($127,040/485 foreign planholders). The final category of potential costs relates to the OSRO's ability to meet the specified response times in the new geographic area of the HVPA. Based on information provided to Coast Guard, one OSRO stated that additional response equipment would not be required and capital expenditures would not be necessary as result of the expanded higher volume port area under current Coast Guard OSRO classification guidelines. Based on data from the other OSRO, we estimate that total initial capital costs could be as high as $5.5 million for temporary storage equipment and warehousing with annual capital recurring costs of approximately $250,000 for equipment maintenance, and up to $1 million for barge recertification (included in the $5.5 million estimate), warehousing, and other necessary resource equipment. However, we lack independent methods to verify these estimates. Moreover, the actual costs the OSRO may incur depend considerably on how they choose to comply with our regulations, which give OSROs substantial flexibility with respect to pre-positioning response resources. To the extent one OSRO would incur additional costs due to this proposed rule (such as increased capitalization costs), we expect that these costs would be generally passed onto their VRP planholders equally although the OSRO who provided this information conceded that this was speculative at this point due to the uncertainty of expenditures that may be needed as described below. Using the highest value of capital costs provided to us of $5.5 million, we use the capital recovery cost factor to determine the amount needed annually to recovery this payout since we assume the OSRO would finance the expenditures and attempt to recapture them equally over the life of the equipment. The capital recovery factor or ratio as it is often referred to, is the ratio of a constant annuity to the present value of the annuity over a given period of time using an acceptable discount rate, as in this case, 7 percent. The ratio also includes the general life expectancy of the investment and can be simply described as the ``share of the net cost that must be recovered each year to `repay the cost of the fixed input at the end of its useful life.' '' If we use a standard life expectancy of 20 years, we calculate the net amount that must be recovered by the OSRO annually to be about $519,161, undiscounted.\7\ If we assume this cost is distributed equally over the 650 planholders (U.S. and foreign planholders who own vessels that transit the higher volume port area) under contract with this OSRO, the amount needed to be recovered by the OSRO to recapture this initial investment is estimated to be about $800 (rounded) from each planholder annually, most likely in the form of higher retainer fees. However, only about 2 percent, or 13 of the 650 planholders are U.S. planholders. Therefore, for the 13 U.S. planholders, we estimate the total capital cost of this proposed rule to be about $10,400 (650 planholders x 0.02 x $800) annually, undiscounted, in addition to annual maintenance costs of about $385 per planholder ($250,000/650 planholders), undiscounted, in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period. We estimate the total 10- year discounted cost to the 13 U.S. planholders to be about $75,400 using a 7 percent discount rate (the 10-year discounted cost is estimated to be about $91,600 using a 3 percent discount rate) and the annualized cost to be about $10,734. See Table 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Calculated using a capital recovery factor of 0.0944. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It follows that the remaining 637 planholders are foreign. Again, if we assume this OSRO passes along its capital cost in the form of higher retainer fees to foreign planholders, we estimate the total capital cost of this proposed rule to foreign planholders to be about $509,600 (637 x $800) annually, undiscounted, in addition to annual maintenance costs of about $245,000 (637 x $385), undiscounted, in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period. We estimate the total 10- year discounted cost to foreign planholders to be about $3.6 million using a 7 percent discount rate (the 10-year discounted cost is estimated to be about $4.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate). As stated earlier, we neither have knowledge of the OSROs billing structure nor how costs would be distributed among planholders, although in our discussion with one OSRO, we learned that the composition of a planholder's vessel fleet affects the amount of the retainer fee since vessels such as nontank ships requires different response resources as opposed to towing vessels, for example. Table 1 summarizes the total estimated cost of the proposed rule to 28 U.S. planholders over a 10-year period of analysis. Table 1--Summary of Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule to U.S. Planholders [7 percent discount rate, 10-year period of analysis, 2015 dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update contracts for 15 U.S. OSRO equipment and other Total costs planholders capital costs ------------------------------- Year ---------------------------------------------------------------- Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1....................................................... $3,930 $3,673 $10,400 $9,720 $14,330 $13,393 2....................................................... 0 0 10,785 9,420 10,785 9,420 3....................................................... 0 0 10,785 8,804 10,785 8,804 4....................................................... 0 0 10,785 8,228 10,785 8,228 5....................................................... 0 0 10,785 7,690 10,785 7,690 6....................................................... 0 0 10,785 7,187 10,785 7,187 7....................................................... 0 0 10,785 6,716 10,785 6,716 [[Page 29586]] 8....................................................... 0 0 10,785 6,277 10,785 6,277 9....................................................... 0 0 10,785 5,866 10,785 5,866 10...................................................... 0 0 10,785 5,483 10,785 5,483 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... .............. 3,673 .............. 75,390 .............. 79,062 Annualized.......................................... .............. 523 .............. 10,734 .............. 11,257 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. As Table 1 shows, for 15 U.S. planholders who may need to revise their contracts, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost of the proposed rule to be about $3,673 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost to be about $3,816). We estimate the annualized cost to be about $523 for these 15 planholders. For the OSRO who may incur capital costs as a result of this proposed rule and pass these costs along to its 13 U.S. planholders, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost to be about $75,400 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost to be about $91,624). We estimate the annualized cost to be about $10,734 at a 7 percent discount rate for these 13 planholders. We estimate the total present discounted cost of the proposed rule to all 28 U.S. planholders to be about $79,062 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the total 10-year discounted cost to be about $95,440). We estimate the annualized cost to be about $11,257 at a 7 percent discount rate. We do not anticipate that this proposed rule would impose new costs on the Coast Guard or require the Coast Guard to expend additional resources because we do not expect any changes would be required to their VRPs. Alternatives Due to the specific nature of sec. 710(a), we are limited in the alternative approaches we can use to comply with Congress' intent. We considered three alternatives (including the preferred alternative) in the development of the proposed rule: (1) Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' in the definition of ``Higher volume port area'' of that section and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA''; (2) Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``50 nautical miles'' in the definition of ``Higher volume port area'' and inserting ``110 nautical miles''; and (3) Take no action. The Regulatory Analysis section further discusses the analysis of the preferred alternative (i.e., express adoption of the wording from sec. 710(a)) in comparison with other regulatory approaches considered. Analysis of Alternatives We considered three alternatives (including the preferred alternative) in the development of this proposed rule. The key factors that we evaluated in considering each alternative included: (1) The degree to which the alternative comported with the congressional mandate in sec. 710 of the Act; (2) What benefits, if any, would be derived, such as enhancement of personal and environmental safety and security; and (3) Cost effectiveness. The alternatives considered are as follows: Alternative 1: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' in the definition of ``Higher volume port area'' of that section and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' Since 1996, 33 CFR 155.1020 has defined the seaward boundary of the Washington HVPA as an arc 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance to Port Angeles, WA. The proposed change would relocate the arc's center to Cape Flattery, covering approximately 50 additional nautical miles of open ocean. Alternative 2: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ``50 nautical miles'' in the definition of ``Higher volume port area'' and inserting ``110 nautical miles.'' This change would affect the other 13 HVPAs throughout the United States because of the level of response resources required with the significantly reduced response times that would be associated with a 110-mile outward shift of the existing HVPAs from their entrances. A shift of this distance would require the purchasing and positioning of heavier and more expensive equipment such as oceangoing tugs and barges. In addition, OSROs would incur considerable costs of potentially retrofitting existing HVPAs with shoreside docks. Since this would include all HVPAs, the economic impact on the response resource industry, as a whole, would be greater as opposed to a single HVPA. Furthermore, this option goes beyond the requirements of sec. 710 of the Act, which specifically requires the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modify the definition of the term ``Higher volume port area'' by striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' Alternative 3: Take no action. This option was not selected as it would not implement the intent of sec. 710 of the Act, which specifically requires the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to modify the definition of the term ``Higher volume port area'' by striking ``Port Angeles, WA'' and inserting ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' It also precludes the protection intended by Congress for the waters at the entrance to and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We chose Alternative 1, which codifies the regulation directly and specifically implements sec. 710 of the Act as described earlier. We rejected Alternative 2, because it went beyond the direction provided by Congress in sec. 710 and adds burden, both in the Puget Sound region and in the other HVPAs throughout the United States. We rejected Alternative 3, the ``no action'' alternative, because it would not implement sec. 710. Benefits We do not identify any historic cases that could support the development of quantifiable benefits associated with this proposed rule. Using the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database with casualty cases transferred from MISLE's predecessor, the Marine Safety Management System database, we examined 283 spill cases from 1995 to 2013, beginning with the first spills that appeared in our database for this geographic region. Based on information from Coast Guard personnel who have experience in casualty case investigations and analysis, we found [[Page 29587]] no cases or spills that would have benefitted from the expanded HVPA. Qualitatively, oil spills are likely to result in a negative impact to the ecosystem and the economy of the surrounding area. These represent social welfare effects that are not accounted for solely by the amount of oil spilled into the water. In many cases, the scope of the impact is contingent on the vulnerability and resiliency of the affected area. A barrel of spilled oil may not have the same impact in one area as it would in another. Some locations are more sensitive or vulnerable than others. Depending on the ecosystem, VRPs could mitigate impacts to habitats that house multiple species. An area with an ecosystem that is damaged as a result of previous environmental incidents or damaged due to the cumulative effects of environmental injuries over time can be expected to have higher benefits from oil spill mitigation. The primary benefit of this proposed rule is to ensure that in the event of a spill, adequate response resources are available and can be mobilized within the expanded HVPA. This will ensure a timely response by vessel owners and operators and the OSROs in an effort to reduce the likelihood, and mitigate the impact of an oil spill on the marine environment that might occur in the expanded HVPA. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Regarding vessel owners and operators, as previously discussed, this proposed rule would codify the requirements in the Act of an expanded HVPA, and it would not require vessel owners and operators to make changes to VRPs. Therefore, owners and operators of vessels that transit the HVPA would not incur additional VRP modification costs as a result of this proposed rule. However, as assumed earlier for the purpose of this analysis, if contracts would need to be modified, as stated by one OSRO on the part of the planholders, U.S. planholders would bear some costs of this proposed rule as shown earlier in this preamble. We estimate that each of the 15 U.S. planholders would incur an average one-time cost of about $262 to amend its contract with the OSRO. Also, regarding capital costs, it is unclear whether or how these costs impact vessel owners and operators without knowledge of the OSROs' billing structures. Additionally, proprietary information is not available that would allow us to determine the distribution of costs among many vessel owners and operators contracting with each OSRO. Nevertheless, in our earlier analysis, if we assume capital costs are incurred by one of the OSROs and we assume this cost would be passed along equally to U.S. planholders in the form of higher retainer fees, we estimate each of the 13 U.S. planholders would incur an annual cost of about $800 from one particular OSRO in addition to $385 in maintenance costs in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period for a total planholder cost of about $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period. We assume for the purpose of this analysis that the two OSROs that provide response resource capabilities to the HVPA in Puget Sound may incur costs from this proposed rule and may likely pass along these costs to planholders in the form of higher retainer fees or planholders may incur one-time costs to amend their contracts with one of the OSROs. Using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for businesses and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards for small businesses, we determined the size of each OSRO. One OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 541618 with an SBA size standard of $15 million, which is under the subsector group 541 of the NAICS code with the description of ``Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.'' The other OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 562998 with an SBA size standard of $7.5 million, which is under the subsector group 562 of the NAICS code with the description of ``Waste Management and Remediation Services.'' Based on the information above and annual revenue data from publicly available and proprietary sources, Manta and ReferenceUSA, neither OSRO is considered to be small. There are about 1,400 U.S. planholders that have either tank vessel, nontank vessel, or combined vessel response plans. Based on the affected population of this proposed rule relative to the size of the industry as a whole, in this case U.S. vessel response plan owners (planholders), this proposed rule would potentially affect 28 or about 2 percent of the total population of U.S. planholders in the United States. As described earlier and dependent upon the OSRO considered, we estimate a U.S. planholder may incur an annual cost between $262 and $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period (and between $262 and $800 in the initial year since we assume maintenance costs are not incurred in the initial year of the analysis period) as a result of this proposed rule. Given the cost analysis and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Coast Guard certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\8\ 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 LCDR John G. Peterson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Pub. L. 104-121. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 29588]] E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis follows. As noted earlier in the preamble, this rule implements sec. 710 of the Act, which specifically directs the Coast Guard to amend 33 CFR 155.1020 by removing ``Port Angeles, WA'' and replacing it with ``Cape Flattery, WA.'' This rule carries out the Congressional mandate by amending the regulations to reflect this required change. Furthermore, this rule does not have a substantial direct effect upon the laws or regulations of the State of Washington. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, 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, E.O. 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 E.O. 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 \10\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 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 E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 A rule has implications for Indian Tribal Governments under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental principles and requirements described in E.O. 13175. As noted above, this rulemaking implements the Congressional mandate by implementing sec. 710 of the Act. It will improve marine safety by increasing response times to mitigate or respond to an oil spill from vessels and does not have tribal implications that would require consultation under the E.O. The Coast Guard, however, recognizes the key role that Indian Tribal Governments have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with tribal implications, E.O. 13175 specifically directs agencies to consult with Indian Tribal Governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for Indian Tribal Governments under E.O. 13175, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under E.O. 13211, because although it is a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the Administrator of OMB's 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 E.O. 13211. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act \11\ directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 15 U.S.C. 272 note. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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,\12\ and have made a preliminary determination that this 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 categorically excluded under section 6(b) of the ``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy.'' \13\ This rule involves [[Page 29589]] Congressionally-mandated regulations designed to protect the environment, specifically, regulations implementing the requirements of the Act (redefining and enlarging the boundaries of the existing higher volume port area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, in Washington). An environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f. \13\ 67 FR 48244 (July 23, 2002). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155 Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 155 as follows: PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 0 1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also issued under section 710 of Pub. L. 111-281. Section 155.480 also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101.380. Sec. 155.1020 [Amended] 0 2. In Sec. 155.1020, amend paragraph (13) of the definition of ``Higher volume port area'' by removing the words ``Port Angeles'' and adding, in their place, the words ``Cape Flattery''. Dated: May 7, 2015. J.C. Burton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-11760 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
![29582 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The ruling of the [Service] Court of Criminal Appeals is not necessarily the final resolution of this case. There are two courts superior
to the Court of Criminal Appeals from which the Appellant could also seek review. If the Court of Criminal Appeals rules against the
Appellant, [he][she] can seek review of that ruling at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F). If the Appellant is denied
review by the C.A.A.F. [his][her] case becomes final and you will be informed. If review is granted by the C.A.A.F., you will be
informed of the review taking place, of any courtroom proceedings, and of the final ruling. If C.A.A.F. grants review of the Appellant’s
case and rules against [him][her], [he][she] could potentially appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. If this
were to occur, you will be notified. Cases are also sometimes returned to the [Service] Court of Criminal Appeals for further
proceedings. In addition, the Appellants may also petition the respective Military Department Judge Advocate General for a new trial
based on newly discovered evidence or fraud upon the court. If that were to occur, you will be notified.
For now, the Appellant has sought review of [his][her] conviction at the [Service] Court of Criminal Appeals. Nothing is required of
you, but should you so desire, have any questions, or require further information, please contact [DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE
AND CONTACT INFORMATION].
Sincerely,
(Service designee)
Dated: May 15, 2015. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– rulemaking. We will consider all
Aaron Siegel, 0001. submissions and may adjust our final
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail action based on your comments.
Officer, Department of Defense. address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 Comments should be marked with
[FR Doc. 2015–12256 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] p.m., Monday through Friday, except docket number USCG–2011–0576 and
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Federal holidays. The telephone number should provide a reason for each
is 202–366–9329. suggestion or recommendation. You
To avoid duplication, please use only should provide personal contact
one of these four methods. See the information so that we can contact you
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ‘‘Public Participation and Request for if we have questions regarding your
SECURITY Comments’’ portion of the comments; but please note that all
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section comments will be posted to the online
Coast Guard
below for instructions on submitting docket without change and that any
33 CFR Part 155 comments. personal information you include can be
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If searchable online (see the Federal
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0576] you have questions on this proposed Register Privacy Act notice regarding
rule, call or email LCDR John G. our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17,
RIN 1625–AB75
Peterson, CG–CVC–1, Coast Guard; 2008).
telephone 202–372–1226, email Mailed or hand-delivered comments
Higher Volume Port Area—State of
John.G.Peterson@uscg.mil. If you have should be in an unbound 81⁄2 × 11 inch
Washington
questions on viewing or submitting format suitable for reproduction. The
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Docket Management Facility will
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Collins, Program Manager, Docket acknowledge receipt of mailed
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. comments if you enclose a stamped,
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes self-addressed postcard or envelope
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
redefining the boundaries of the existing with your submission.
higher volume port area in the Strait of Table of Contents for Preamble Documents mentioned in this notice
Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, in I. Public Participation and Request for
of proposed rulemaking and all public
Washington. This rulemaking is Comments comments, are in our online docket at
required by statute, and is related to the II. Abbreviations http://www.regulations.gov and can be
Coast Guard’s maritime safety and III. Background viewed by following the Web site’s
stewardship missions. IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule instructions. You can also view the
DATES: Comments and related material V. Regulatory Analyses docket at the Docket Management
A. Regulatory Planning and Review Facility (see the mailing address under
must either be submitted to our online
B. Small Entities ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
docket via http://www.regulations.gov C. Assistance for Small Entities
on or before August 20, 2015 or reach Monday through Friday, except Federal
D. Collection of Information
the Docket Management Facility by that E. Federalism
holidays.
date. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We are not planning to hold a public
G. Taking of Private Property meeting but will consider doing so if
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
H. Civil Justice Reform public comments indicate a meeting
identified by docket number USCG–
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Protection of Children would be helpful. We would issue a
2011–0576 using any one of the separate Federal Register notice to
J. Indian Tribal Governments
following methods: K. Energy Effects announce the date, time, and location of
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: L. Technical Standards such a meeting.
http://www.regulations.gov. M. Environment
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. II. Abbreviations
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
(M–30), U.S. Department of CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Transportation, West Building Ground We encourage you to submit E.O. Executive Order
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey comments (or related material) on this FR Federal Register
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_29681/page/1.svg)
![29584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
emphasizes the importance of call on the Cape Flattery higher volume submitted by email to the responsible
quantifying both costs and benefits, of port area. For the OSRO that has 500 OSRO.
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, contracts, about 3 percent or 15 are with For planholders who perform the
and of promoting flexibility. U.S. planholders; the OSRO that has 650 work internally and using the Bureau of
This proposed rule is not a significant contracts, about 2 percent or 13 are with Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2013
regulatory action under section 3(f) of U.S. planholders. National Industry-Specific Occupational
E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. Employment and Wage Estimates for
13563, and does not require an Costs
General and Operations Manager
assessment of potential costs and Vessel owners and operators would (Occupation Code 11–1021), we obtain
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. not need to revise or modify a current a mean hourly wage rate of $62.68. We
12866. The Office of Management and VRP to take into account expansion of then use BLS’ 2014 Employer Cost for
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under the HVPA. Current VRPs already specify Employee Compensation databases to
E.O. 12866. We developed an analysis of one or both of the OSROs that provide calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52
the costs and benefits of the proposed response resources to vessel owners and to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of
rule to ascertain its probable impacts on operators in the affected waters. Vessel about $95.30 for this occupation.5 For
industry. A draft preliminary Regulatory owners and operators must only list the plan preparers, we obtained publicly
Assessment follows. OSRO by name and include the contact available fully loaded billing rates for
This proposed rule would expand the information for each OSRO in the VRP; Senior Regulatory and Environmental
existing Washington HVPA for Puget no other information or details are Consultants and Environmental Program
Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. required in the VRP that are dependent Managers from three environmental
Currently, the Washington HVPA upon the geographic location of service companies using the General
boundary is measured from Port response equipment. Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal
Angeles in a 50-mile seaward arc In addition to identifying the OSRO in
Acquisition eLibrary for service
westward to the Pacific Ocean. As the vessel response plan, vessel owners
contracts.6 We took the average of these
mandated by sec. 710 of the Act, this and operators must ensure the
three rates to obtain a fully loaded
proposed rule would amend the availability of response resources from
hourly wage rate of $151.00 (rounded).
definition of the term ‘‘Higher volume the OSRO through a contract or other
Of about 500 planholders who have
port area’’ and relocate the point at approved means. Depending on how the
contracts with this OSRO, only about 15
which the seaward arc is measured from contract language is formulated, a
are U.S. planholders. Of the 15 U.S.
Port Angeles to Cape Flattery, WA, an contract may need to be modified to
planholders, about 36 percent would
approximately 62-mile westward shift. reflect the change in the HVPA
geographical definition. One OSRO amend the contract internally. We
As a result, the Washington HVPA estimate the one-time cost to these
would cover an additional 50 miles of provided information which stated that
contracts would need to be modified planholders to be about $1,030 ($95.30
open ocean and an additional 12
slightly to incorporate the geographic × 2 hours × 500 planholders × 0.03 ×
nautical miles in the western portion of
change of the expanded higher volume 0.36, rounded). For the remaining 64
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. A VRP must
port while the other OSRO provided percent of U.S. planholders who have a
list the OSRO provider that the vessel
information which stated that no plan preparer amend the contracts on
owner or operator has contracted with
changes or modifications to existing their behalf, we estimate the one-time
and stipulate the vessel’s ability to
contracts would be necessary on the cost to be about $2,899 ($151.00 × 2
secure response resources within
part of either the OSROs or the hours × 500 planholders × .03 × 0.64,
specific regulatory timeframes (Tiers 1,
planholders. For the purpose of this rounded); combined the total estimated
2, and 3) in the event of an oil spill. This
proposed rule would codify the changes analysis, we estimate costs to modify a one-time cost to U.S. planholders to
delineated in the Act and it would not contract for the planholders of the amend the contracts would be about
require changes to VRPs. OSRO that stated that changes would be $3,930, rounded and undiscounted. We
necessary. This OSRO has about 500 estimate the average one-time or initial
Affected Population planholders with written contractual cost for each U.S. planholder to amend
Part 155 in 33 CFR directly applies to agreements to secure response resource a contract to be about $262 ($3,930/15
and regulates vessel owners and services in the event of an oil spill; of 5 Information can be viewed at, http://
operators. Specified vessels prepare this amount, only about 3 percent or 15, www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_483000.htm. A
vessel response plans that must list the are with U.S. planholders. Based on loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour
OSRO provider that the vessel owner or information we obtained from industry to employ a person, not the hourly wage. The
operator has contracted with and in formulating the Nontank Vessel loaded labor rate includes the cost of benefits
stipulate the vessel’s ability to secure Response Final Rule [78 FR 60100], it (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The load factor for
wages is calculated by dividing total compensation
response resources within specific would take a General and Operations by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used
regulatory timeframes (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) Manager approximately 2 hours of BLS’ Employer Cost for Employee Compensation/
in the event of an oil spill. The planholder time to amend the contract Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations,
proposed rule has the potential to and send the contract to the OSRO for Private Industry report (Series IDs,
CMU2010000520000D and CMU2020000520000D
impact vessel response planholders approval. If a plan preparer amends the for all workers using the multi-screen data search).
covering vessels that transit the contract on behalf of the planholder, we
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Using 2014 Q2 data, we divide the total
Washington HVPA and OSROs that estimate it would take the same amount compensation amount of $25.85 by the wage and
provide response resources in the event of time. We found that 36 percent of salary amount of $17.04 to get the load factor of
1.517 or 1.52. See the following Web site, http://
of an oil spill. Based on Coast Guard planholders perform this work www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm. We then rounded
review of vessel response plans, 2 internally and 64 percent hire a plan $62.68 to $62.70 and multiplied by 1.52 to obtain
OSROs may be impacted by the preparer to perform this work on their a loaded hourly wage rate of about $95.00.
6 GSA Contract GS–10F–0263U Accessed 11/26/
proposed rule. One OSRO has about 500 behalf. The amendment of a contract is
2014; GSA Contract GS–10F–0104T Accessed 11/
response resource contracts and the a one-time cost; we estimate little or no 26/2014; https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/
other OSRO has about 650 contracts submission cost for planholders because GS10F0335R/0N9LCV.2VV7AR_GS-10F-0335R_
with planholders that own vessels that nearly 100 percent of contracts are GS10F0335R.PDF.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_29681/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29585
U.S. planholders). We estimate the 10- OSRO may incur depend considerably planholders are U.S. planholders.
year discounted cost to be about $3,673 on how they choose to comply with our Therefore, for the 13 U.S. planholders,
using a 7 percent discount rate and the regulations, which give OSROs we estimate the total capital cost of this
annualized cost to be about $523. substantial flexibility with respect to proposed rule to be about $10,400 (650
Taking into consideration the pre-positioning response resources. planholders × 0.02 × $800) annually,
uncertainty of this analysis, we request To the extent one OSRO would incur undiscounted, in addition to annual
public comment on the cost impacts of additional costs due to this proposed maintenance costs of about $385 per
this rule on OSROs and VRP rule (such as increased capitalization planholder ($250,000/650 planholders),
planholders. costs), we expect that these costs would undiscounted, in years 2 through 10 of
The remaining 485 planholders are be generally passed onto their VRP the analysis period. We estimate the
foreign. For 36 percent of them who planholders equally although the OSRO total 10-year discounted cost to the 13
would amend the contracts internally, who provided this information U.S. planholders to be about $75,400
we estimate the one-time cost to be conceded that this was speculative at using a 7 percent discount rate (the 10-
about $33,300 ($95.30 × 2 hours × 485 this point due to the uncertainty of year discounted cost is estimated to be
planholders × 0.36, rounded). For the expenditures that may be needed as about $91,600 using a 3 percent
remaining 64 percent of foreign described below. Using the highest discount rate) and the annualized cost
planholders who have a plan preparer value of capital costs provided to us of to be about $10,734. See Table 1.
amend the contracts on their behalf, we $5.5 million, we use the capital recovery
estimate the one-time cost to be about cost factor to determine the amount It follows that the remaining 637
$93,740 ($151.00 × 2 hours × 485 needed annually to recovery this payout planholders are foreign. Again, if we
planholders × 0.64, rounded); combined since we assume the OSRO would assume this OSRO passes along its
the total estimated one-time cost to finance the expenditures and attempt to capital cost in the form of higher
foreign planholders to amend the recapture them equally over the life of retainer fees to foreign planholders, we
contracts would be about $127,040, the equipment. The capital recovery estimate the total capital cost of this
rounded, or about $262 per planholder factor or ratio as it is often referred to, proposed rule to foreign planholders to
($127,040/485 foreign planholders). is the ratio of a constant annuity to the be about $509,600 (637 × $800)
The final category of potential costs present value of the annuity over a annually, undiscounted, in addition to
relates to the OSRO’s ability to meet the given period of time using an acceptable annual maintenance costs of about
specified response times in the new discount rate, as in this case, 7 percent. $245,000 (637 × $385), undiscounted, in
geographic area of the HVPA. Based on The ratio also includes the general life years 2 through 10 of the analysis
information provided to Coast Guard, expectancy of the investment and can be period. We estimate the total 10-year
one OSRO stated that additional simply described as the ‘‘share of the discounted cost to foreign planholders
response equipment would not be net cost that must be recovered each to be about $3.6 million using a 7
required and capital expenditures year to ‘repay the cost of the fixed input percent discount rate (the 10-year
would not be necessary as result of the at the end of its useful life.’ ’’ If we use discounted cost is estimated to be about
expanded higher volume port area a standard life expectancy of 20 years, $4.3 million using a 3 percent discount
under current Coast Guard OSRO we calculate the net amount that must rate). As stated earlier, we neither have
classification guidelines. Based on data be recovered by the OSRO annually to knowledge of the OSROs billing
from the other OSRO, we estimate that be about $519,161, undiscounted.7 If we structure nor how costs would be
total initial capital costs could be as assume this cost is distributed equally distributed among planholders,
high as $5.5 million for temporary over the 650 planholders (U.S. and although in our discussion with one
storage equipment and warehousing foreign planholders who own vessels OSRO, we learned that the composition
with annual capital recurring costs of that transit the higher volume port area) of a planholder’s vessel fleet affects the
approximately $250,000 for equipment under contract with this OSRO, the amount of the retainer fee since vessels
maintenance, and up to $1 million for amount needed to be recovered by the such as nontank ships requires different
barge recertification (included in the OSRO to recapture this initial response resources as opposed to towing
$5.5 million estimate), warehousing, investment is estimated to be about vessels, for example.
and other necessary resource $800 (rounded) from each planholder Table 1 summarizes the total
equipment. However, we lack annually, most likely in the form of estimated cost of the proposed rule to 28
independent methods to verify these higher retainer fees. However, only U.S. planholders over a 10-year period
estimates. Moreover, the actual costs the about 2 percent, or 13 of the 650 of analysis.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE TO U.S. PLANHOLDERS
[7 percent discount rate, 10-year period of analysis, 2015 dollars]
Update contracts for 15 U.S. OSRO equipment and other Total
planholders capital costs costs
Year
Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 ............................................................... $3,930 $3,673 $10,400 $9,720 $14,330 $13,393
2 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 9,420 10,785 9,420
3 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 8,804 10,785 8,804
4 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 8,228 10,785 8,228
5 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 7,690 10,785 7,690
6 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 7,187 10,785 7,187
7 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 6,716 10,785 6,716
7 Calculated using a capital recovery factor of
0.0944.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_29681/page/4.svg)
![29586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE TO U.S. PLANHOLDERS—Continued
[7 percent discount rate, 10-year period of analysis, 2015 dollars]
Update contracts for 15 U.S. OSRO equipment and other Total
planholders capital costs costs
Year
Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted
8 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 6,277 10,785 6,277
9 ............................................................... 0 0 10,785 5,866 10,785 5,866
10 ............................................................. 0 0 10,785 5,483 10,785 5,483
Total .................................................. ........................ 3,673 ........................ 75,390 ........................ 79,062
Annualized ........................................ ........................ 523 ........................ 10,734 ........................ 11,257
Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
As Table 1 shows, for 15 U.S. action. The Regulatory Analysis section impact on the response resource
planholders who may need to revise further discusses the analysis of the industry, as a whole, would be greater
their contracts, we estimate the 10-year preferred alternative (i.e., express as opposed to a single HVPA.
discounted cost of the proposed rule to adoption of the wording from sec. Furthermore, this option goes beyond
be about $3,673 at a 7 percent discount 710(a)) in comparison with other the requirements of sec. 710 of the Act,
rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we regulatory approaches considered. which specifically requires the Coast
estimate the 10-year discounted cost to Guard to initiate a rulemaking
Analysis of Alternatives
be about $3,816). We estimate the proceeding to modify the definition of
annualized cost to be about $523 for We considered three alternatives the term ‘‘Higher volume port area’’ by
these 15 planholders. (including the preferred alternative) in striking ‘‘Port Angeles, WA’’ and
For the OSRO who may incur capital the development of this proposed rule. inserting ‘‘Cape Flattery, WA.’’
costs as a result of this proposed rule The key factors that we evaluated in Alternative 3: Take no action. This
and pass these costs along to its 13 U.S. considering each alternative included: option was not selected as it would not
planholders, we estimate the 10-year (1) The degree to which the alternative implement the intent of sec. 710 of the
discounted cost to be about $75,400 at comported with the congressional Act, which specifically requires the
a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 mandate in sec. 710 of the Act; (2) What Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to
percent discount rate, we estimate the benefits, if any, would be derived, such modify the definition of the term
10-year discounted cost to be about as enhancement of personal and ‘‘Higher volume port area’’ by striking
$91,624). We estimate the annualized environmental safety and security; and ‘‘Port Angeles, WA’’ and inserting
cost to be about $10,734 at a 7 percent (3) Cost effectiveness. The alternatives ‘‘Cape Flattery, WA.’’ It also precludes
discount rate for these 13 planholders. considered are as follows: the protection intended by Congress for
We estimate the total present Alternative 1: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 the waters at the entrance to and in the
discounted cost of the proposed rule to by striking ‘‘Port Angeles, WA’’ in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
all 28 U.S. planholders to be about definition of ‘‘Higher volume port area’’ We chose Alternative 1, which
$79,062 at a 7 percent discount rate of that section and inserting ‘‘Cape codifies the regulation directly and
(using a 3 percent discount rate, we Flattery, WA.’’ Since 1996, 33 CFR specifically implements sec. 710 of the
estimate the total 10-year discounted 155.1020 has defined the seaward Act as described earlier. We rejected
cost to be about $95,440). We estimate boundary of the Washington HVPA as Alternative 2, because it went beyond
the annualized cost to be about $11,257 an arc 50 nautical miles seaward of the the direction provided by Congress in
at a 7 percent discount rate. entrance to Port Angeles, WA. The sec. 710 and adds burden, both in the
We do not anticipate that this proposed change would relocate the Puget Sound region and in the other
proposed rule would impose new costs arc’s center to Cape Flattery, covering HVPAs throughout the United States.
on the Coast Guard or require the Coast approximately 50 additional nautical We rejected Alternative 3, the ‘‘no
Guard to expend additional resources miles of open ocean. action’’ alternative, because it would not
because we do not expect any changes Alternative 2: Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 implement sec. 710.
would be required to their VRPs. by striking ‘‘50 nautical miles’’ in the
definition of ‘‘Higher volume port area’’ Benefits
Alternatives and inserting ‘‘110 nautical miles.’’ This We do not identify any historic cases
Due to the specific nature of sec. change would affect the other 13 HVPAs that could support the development of
710(a), we are limited in the alternative throughout the United States because of quantifiable benefits associated with
approaches we can use to comply with the level of response resources required this proposed rule. Using the Coast
Congress’ intent. We considered three with the significantly reduced response Guard’s Marine Information for Safety
alternatives (including the preferred times that would be associated with a and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database
alternative) in the development of the 110-mile outward shift of the existing with casualty cases transferred from
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed rule: (1) Revise 33 CFR HVPAs from their entrances. A shift of MISLE’s predecessor, the Marine Safety
155.1020 by striking ‘‘Port Angeles, this distance would require the Management System database, we
WA’’ in the definition of ‘‘Higher purchasing and positioning of heavier examined 283 spill cases from 1995 to
volume port area’’ of that section and and more expensive equipment such as 2013, beginning with the first spills that
inserting ‘‘Cape Flattery, WA’’; (2) oceangoing tugs and barges. In addition, appeared in our database for this
Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking ‘‘50 OSROs would incur considerable costs geographic region. Based on information
nautical miles’’ in the definition of of potentially retrofitting existing from Coast Guard personnel who have
‘‘Higher volume port area’’ and inserting HVPAs with shoreside docks. Since this experience in casualty case
‘‘110 nautical miles’’; and (3) Take no would include all HVPAs, the economic investigations and analysis, we found
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_29681/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29589
Congressionally-mandated regulations three Regulated Navigation Areas to www.regulations.gov and will include
designed to protect the environment, manage vessel traffic in ice-prone any personal information you have
specifically, regulations implementing waterways. Further, the Coast Guard provided.
the requirements of the Act (redefining proposes to redefine (without changing)
1. Submitting Comments
and enlarging the boundaries of the the three existing regulated navigation
existing higher volume port area in the areas in the rule as safety zones. These If you submit a comment, please
Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, proposed amendments provide needed include the docket number for this
in Washington). An environmental updates to the regulations and align the rulemaking (USCG–2015–0084),
analysis checklist is available in the rule with existing waterway regulations. indicate the specific section of this
docket where indicated under The proposed amendments are document to which each comment
ADDRESSES. necessary to protect waterway users, applies, and provide a reason for each
vessels, and mariners from hazards suggestion or recommendation. You
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
associated with winter conditions and may submit your comments and
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil navigation. material online at http://
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or
DATES: Comments and related material
requirements. hand delivery, but please use only one
must be received by the Coast Guard on
For the reasons discussed in the or before July 6, 2015. of these means. If you submit a
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to comment online, it will be considered
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
amend 33 CFR part 155 as follows: received by the Coast Guard when you
identified by docket number USCG–
successfully transmit the comment. If
PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 2015–0084 using any one of the
you fax, hand deliver, or mail your
MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION following methods:
comment, it will be considered as
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
having been received by the Coast
http://www.regulations.gov.
Guard when it is received at the Docket
■ 1. The authority citation for part 155 (2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
Management Facility. We recommend
is revised to read as follows: (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
that you include your name and a
Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 (M–30), U.S. Department of
mailing address, an email address, or a
U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; Transportation, West Building Ground
telephone number in the body of your
E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
document so that we can contact you if
p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also
we have questions regarding your
0001.
issued under section 710 of Pub. L. 111–281. submission.
(4) Delivery: Same as mail address
Section 155.480 also issued under section above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., To submit your comment online, go to
4110(b) of Pub. L. 101.380. Monday through Friday, except Federal http://www.regulations.gov, type the
holidays. The telephone number is 202– docket number [USCG–2015–0084] in
§ 155.1020 [Amended]
366–9329. the ‘‘Search’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’
■ 2. In § 155.1020, amend paragraph Click the ‘‘Comment’’ box on the line
(13) of the definition of ‘‘Higher volume See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the associated with this supplemental
port area’’ by removing the words ‘‘Port notice of proposed rulemaking. If you
Angeles’’ and adding, in their place, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting submit your comments by mail or hand
words ‘‘Cape Flattery’’. delivery, submit them in an unbound
comments. To avoid duplication, please
Dated: May 7, 2015. use only one of these four methods. format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
J.C. Burton, suitable for copying and electronic
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of filing. If you submit comments by mail
you have questions on this rule, call or and would like to know that they
Inspections and Compliance.
email LTJG Matthew Stroebel, Ninth reached the Facility, please enclose a
[FR Doc. 2015–11760 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] Coast Guard District Prevention; stamped, self-addressed postcard or
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P telephone 216–902–6060, email envelope. We will consider all
matthew.k.stroebel@uscg.mil. If you comments and material received during
have questions on viewing or submitting the comment period and may change
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND material to the docket, call Cheryl
SECURITY the rule based on your comments.
Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826 or 2. Viewing Comments and Documents
Coast Guard
1–800–647–5527.
To view comments, as well as
33 CFR Part 165 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: documents mentioned in this preamble
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0084] Table of Acronyms as being available in the docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, type the
RIN 1625–AA00, AA11 DHS Department of Homeland Security docket number USCG–2015–0084 in the
FR Federal Register ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’
Great Lakes—Regulated Navigation NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Areas and Safety Zones RNA Regulated Navigation Area associated with this rulemaking. You
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. may also visit the Docket Management
A. Public Participation and Request for Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments ground floor of the Department of
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to We encourage you to participate in Transportation West Building, 1200
amend its Great Lakes Regulated this rulemaking by submitting New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
Navigation Areas regulations to include comments and related materials. All DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
two safety zones to close designated comments received will be posted Monday through Friday, except Federal
waters for recreational ice users and without change to http:// holidays. We have an agreement with
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_29681/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:45:46
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:45:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before August 20, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. | |
| Contact | If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR John G. Peterson, CG-CVC-1, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1226, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366- 9826. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 29582 | |
| RIN Number | 1625-AB75 | |
| CFR Associated | Alaska; Hazardous Substances; Oil Pollution and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR