1625-0122 CSM Interim Rule

CSM_IR_160509.pdf

Cargo Securing Manuals

1625-0122 CSM Interim Rule

OMB: 1625-0122

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1625-0122 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

27992

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

approved by the Boeing Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) with an
FAA Form 8100–9.
(2) Repairs were installed for damage other
than cracking that have been re-evaluated
and approved by the Boeing ODA with an
FAA Form 8100–9 that includes an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
statement to paragraph (h) of this AD.

modified locations, which support
compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or
129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations,
these inspections are required by
maintenance and operational rules. It is
therefore unnecessary to mandate them in
this AD. Deviations from these inspections
require FAA approval, but do not require an
alternative method of compliance.

(h) Repair
If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking
including doing an open hole high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking
of the holes, in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–53A1339, dated August
12, 2014, except as required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD. Repair of any crack
terminates the initial and repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD for the repaired area only. If any
cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)

(i) Exceptions to Service Information
Specifications
(1) Where Part 3 and Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–53A1339, dated August
12, 2014, specifies contacting Boeing for
repair instructions: Before further flight,
repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737–53A1339, dated August 12, 2014,
specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the
original issue date of this service bulletin,’’
this AD requires compliance within the
specified time after the effective date of this
AD.
(3) Where the Condition column of table 1
of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1339, dated
August 12, 2014, specifies a reference point
‘‘on the original issue date of this service
bulletin,’’ for this AD the corresponding
reference point is on the effective date of this
AD.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

(j) Optional Preventive Modification
Modification of an inspection area
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD,
including open hole and surface HFEC
inspections for cracking of the area to be
modified, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737–53A1339, dated August
12, 2014, except as required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this
AD at the modified location only.
(k) Post-Repair and Post-Modification
Inspections
Tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737–53A1339, dated August 12,
2014, specify post-modification
airworthiness limitation inspections in
compliance to 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in
paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD if it is approved by
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has
been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(1)
of this AD: Where Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1339,
dated August 12, 2014, contains steps that
are labeled as RC, the provisions of
paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD
apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including
substeps under an RC step and any figures
identified in an RC step, must be done to
comply with the AD. An AMOC is required
for any deviations to RC steps, including
substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in
accordance with the operator’s maintenance
or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures, can
still be done as specified, and the airplane
can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(m) Related Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–
5324; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
[email protected].
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–
53A1339, dated August 12, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information
identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data &
Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC
2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone
206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–
5680; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com.
(4) You may view this service information
at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.
gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28,
2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–10524 Filed 5–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 97 and 160
46 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. USCG–2000–7080]
RIN 1625–AA25 [Formerly RIN 2115–AF97]

Cargo Securing Manuals
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule and request for
comment.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard is issuing an
interim rule to require U.S. and foreign
self-propelled cargo vessels of 500 gross
tons or more, traveling on international
voyages and carrying cargo that is other
than solid or liquid bulk cargo, to have
cargo securing manuals (CSMs) on
board. The rule also requires those
vessels to comply with certain
provisions of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974 as amended (SOLAS), authorizes
recognized classification societies or
other approval authorities to review and
approve CSMs on behalf of the Coast
Guard; and prescribes when and how

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the loss or jettisoning of cargo at sea
must be reported.
The Coast Guard requests public
comment on its intention to extend, in
a subsequent final rule, this interim
rule’s requirement for vessel CSMs to
self-propelled cargo vessels under 500
gross tons, if these vessels carry
dangerous goods in packaged form on
international voyages. This interim rule
promotes the Coast Guard’s maritime
safety and stewardship (environmental
protection) missions, helps fulfill U.S.
treaty obligations, and could help
prevent or mitigate the consequences of
vessel cargo loss.
DATES: This interim rule is effective
June 8, 2016. Comments must be
received by August 8, 2016. The
incorporation by reference of certain
documents in this rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of
June 8, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2000–7080 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document, call or
email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager,
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Vessel
and Facility Operating Standards
Division, Commandant (CG–OES–2);
telephone 202–372–1413, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background and Regulatory History
V. Summary of the Rule
VI. Discussion of Comments on SNPRM and
Changes
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. 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 Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

27993

will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using http://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions. Documents
mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at
http://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following that Web site’s
instructions. Additionally, if you go to
the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
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.

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
§ Section Symbol
SANS Ship Arrival Notification System
SBA Small Business Administration
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended
U.S.C. United States Code
WSC World Shipping Council

II. Abbreviations

IV. Background and Regulatory History
This rule aims to help ensure that
maritime cargo is properly secured. A
recent survey by the World Shipping
Council (WSC) estimated that an
average of 1,679 containers are lost
overboard annually.1 The number of
damaged and lost containers has risen
over the years due to the increased
traffic in containerized cargo and the
increasing size of containerships.
Several incidents since the early
1990s demonstrated that improperly
secured cargo can cause serious injury
or death, vessel loss, property damage,
and environmental damage. For
example, a Coast Guard board of inquiry

ABS American Bureau of Shipping
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAP Cargo Safe Access Plan
CSM Cargo Securing Manual
CSS Code Code of Safe Practice for Cargo
Stowage and Securing
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IMO International Maritime Organization
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
MARAD U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Maritime Administration
MBARI Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

III. Basis and Purpose
Sections 2103 and 3306 of Title 46,
United States Code (U.S.C.), provide the
statutory basis for this rulemaking.
Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating general regulatory authority to
implement Subtitle II (Chapters 21
through 147) of Title 46, which includes
statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 33 for inspecting the vessels to
which this rulemaking applies. Section
3306 gives the Secretary authority to
regulate an inspected vessel’s operation,
fittings, equipment, appliances, and
other items in the interest of safety. The
Secretary’s authority under both statutes
has been delegated to the Coast Guard
in DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II
(92.a) and (92.b).
The purpose of this rule is to align
Coast Guard regulations with the
requirements for cargo securing manuals
in the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended
(SOLAS), and apply those requirements
to certain self-propelled U.S. cargo
vessels operating anywhere in the
world, and to certain foreign-flagged
self-propelled cargo vessels operating in
U.S. waters. Another purpose of this
rule is to specify when and how the loss
or jettisoning of cargo at sea must be
reported.

1 Survey report is on WSC Web site: http://www.
worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/
Containers_Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_
Dist.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

27994

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

concluded that the loss of 21
containers—4 of which contained toxic
arsenic trioxide—off the coast of New
Jersey in 1992 was caused by cargosecuring failures, bad weather, and
human error.2 With the support of other
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) member governments, the United
States led a proposal to include new
requirements for cargo securing manuals
(CSMs) in SOLAS. In 1994, the IMO
amended SOLAS 3 to provide that, after
1997, vessels of 500 gross tons or more
engaged in international trade and
carrying cargo other than solid or liquid
bulk material must carry a flag stateapproved CSM; load, stow, and secure
cargo in compliance with the CSM; and
meet strength requirements for securing
devices and arrangements.
The SOLAS CSM requirements are
included as an annex to a Coast Guard
guidance document issued in 1997,4 but
a vessel owner or operator’s compliance
with that guidance is only voluntary.
This interim rule makes compliance
with the SOLAS standards mandatory
for self-propelled vessels over 500 gross
tons on international voyages that are
subject to SOLAS.
Previously in this rulemaking, we
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) 5 in 2000 and a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) 6 in 2013. Although it was not
part of this rulemaking, in 1999 we held
a public meeting on topics related to
cargo securing.7 In the SNPRM, we
discussed the comments we received on
the 2000 NPRM and public input from
the 1999 meeting. We discuss the
comments we received on the 2013
SNPRM later in this preamble.
V. Summary of the Rule

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

This section summarizes the changes
made in this interim rule.
33 CFR part 97—Rules for the Safe
Operation of Vessels, Stowage and
Securing of Cargoes. The interim rule
adds this part, which is structured to
allow for future regulations covering
other aspects of vessel operation and
cargo stowage and securing. At this
2 See NVIC 10–97 (Nov. 7, 1997), ‘‘Guidelines for
Cargo Securing Manual Approval,’’ available at
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1997/n1097.pdf.
3 See SOLAS, Ch. VI/5.6 and Ch. VII/5.
4 NVIC 10–97.
5 65 FR 75201 (Dec. 1, 2000).
6 78 FR 68784 (Nov. 15, 2013). Although not part
of this rulemaking, in 1999 we announced (64 FR
1648; Jan. 11, 1999, docket USCG–1998–4951) and
held a public meeting on related topics. Comments
received at that meeting were discussed in the
SNPRM, 78 FR at 68786, col. 2.
7 64 FR 1648 (Jan. 11, 1999); docket USCG–1998–
4951.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

time, the part contains only subpart A,
which deals with CSMs.
Section 97.100 contains the
applicability provisions of subpart A
and provides for electronic submission
of any documents required by the part.
Subpart A applies to self-propelled
cargo vessels of 500 gross tons or more
traveling on international voyages and
carrying any cargo other than solid or
liquid bulk cargo. We expect very few
vessels to be affected by the new
requirements, as most foreign vessels
operating in U.S. waters are already
subject to their flag state’s SOLAS CSMaligned requirements, and all U.S.
vessels already voluntarily comply with
those requirements in order to obtain
SOLAS certificates that are necessary for
entering foreign ports. Subpart A also
applies to self-propelled vessels less
than 500 gross tons if their owners or
operators choose voluntarily to have it
apply to them and submit CSMs for
approval.
We have revised the text of § 97.100
as it appeared in the SNPRM by
removing seagoing barges and other
non-self propelled vessels from the
applicability of subpart A, which were
inadvertently included in the proposed
regulatory text of the SNPRM. This
interim rule applies only to selfpropelled cargo vessels that are subject
to SOLAS Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter
VII/5.
As we discussed in Part V, Discussion
of Comments, in our SNPRM, a
commenter suggested extending the
applicability of subpart A to selfpropelled cargo vessels below 500 gross
tons carrying dangerous goods in
packaged form on international voyages.
We agree with the commenter’s
assessment that the cargo securing
manual requirements of Chapter VII/5 of
SOLAS apply to all vessels covered by
other SOLAS provisions and to vessels
below 500 gross tons that carry
dangerous goods in packaged form. As
previously stated, one of our intentions
in this rule is to align our regulations
with SOLAS requirements for cargo
securing manuals, and therefore we
propose modifying the final rule to more
accurately align with SOLAS by
applying it to self-propelled cargo
vessels less than 500 gross tons carrying
dangerous goods in packaged form on
international voyages, as well as to
larger vessels. We specifically request
public comment on that proposed
change.
Section 97.105 defines terms used in
subpart A, and § 97.110 provides for the
incorporation in subpart A, by
reference, of pertinent IMO circulars
describing how vessels may comply
with the SOLAS CSM requirements, as

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

well as an IMO resolution providing
guidelines for third parties acting on
behalf of a government agency like the
Coast Guard.
Section 97.115 requires any
accidental loss or deliberate jettisoning
of a container or other cargo at sea to be
reported immediately under 33 CFR
160.215. This is because any such loss
or jettisoning creates a ‘‘hazardous
condition’’ within the meaning of 33
CFR 160.204. The section also requires
the loss or jettisoning of cargo
containing hazardous material to be
reported as soon as possible in
accordance with the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration regulations at 49 CFR
176.48.
Section 97.120 requires each vessel to
which subpart A applies to have a flag
state-approved CSM that complies with
applicable IMO resolutions. Coast Guard
personnel may board any vessel in U.S.
waters to verify compliance with this
section. Note that any container vessel
with a keel laid on or after January 1,
2015, needs to include a cargo safe
access plan. Under the applicable IMO
guidance, such a plan must provide
detailed information on safe access for
persons stowing and securing cargo on
vessels that are specifically designed
and fitted for carrying containers.
Section 97.200 describes how a U.S.flagged vessel owner or operator applies
for Coast Guard approval of the vessel’s
CSM. Third-party approval authorities
review and approve CSMs on the Coast
Guard’s behalf. This section also
describes the contents of approval
statements, the procedure to follow
when a CSM is disapproved, and
document retention requirements.
Section 97.205 describes when a CSM
must be resubmitted for approval, and
§ 97.210 contains provisions for appeal
from a CSM approval authority’s
decision.
Section 97.300 designates the
organizations that are initially
authorized to act as CSM approval
authorities, and §§ 97.305 through
97.315 discuss who may request that
authorization in the future, the criteria
for authorization, and the requirements
for approval authorities. We modified
this section from what we originally
published in the SNPRM by removing
specific reference to the American
Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Lloyd’s
Register, because they are already
included on the list of recognized
classification societies to which the
Coast Guard has delegated authority for
the issuance of a Cargo Ship Safety
Equipment Certificate in accordance
with 46 CFR 8.320(b)(4) and covered

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

under the paragraph recognizing those
classification societies. Section 97.320
provides for the revocation of
authorization if an approval authority
fails to maintain standards acceptable to
the Coast Guard.
33 CFR part 160—Ports and
Waterways Safety—General. The only
change made to part 160 is an
amendment to § 160.215, to prescribe
the information to be reported when a
hazardous condition is created by the
loss or jettisoning of cargo.
46 CFR part 97—[Cargo and
Miscellaneous Vessel] Operations. The
interim rule amends the subpart 97.12
operational rules for vessels carrying
bulk solid cargoes by adding § 97.12–10,
which requires such vessels to have on
board a CSM that complies with 33 CFR
part 97.
VI. Discussion of Comments on SNPRM
and Changes
The SNPRM drew public comments
from 12 sources: 7 Individuals (one of
whom submitted 2 comments, which we
consider together), 2 barge companies, 1
shipping industry organization, 1 trade
association, and 1 environmental
advocacy organization. The docket also
contains 1 comment from another
Federal agency.
General. All three organizations and
six individuals expressed support for
the Coast Guard’s proposal.
The environmental advocacy
organization and two individuals said
that the loss of cargo containers is a
serious problem. The organization said
container loss has an immediate impact
by changing deep sea habitats, and a
long term impact by changing the
natural distribution of species,
including the threat of introducing
invasive species. One individual said
container loss is a major threat to the
environment, to pleasure craft, and to
commercial shipping. This commenter
suggested that the insurance industry
should welcome our proposal because
of the economic impact of container
losses. The other individual said we
should require containers to be weighed
so that weight can be distributed for
safety.
We share these commenters’ concern
for the safety and environmental
hazards that can be caused by the loss
of containers or other cargo at sea, and
we agree with most of their comments.
However, we decline to require
containers to be weighed, because this
information is the subject of several
existing Federal and International
Maritime Organization (IMO)
requirements. The Occupational Safety
and Health Administration requires a
container to be weighed before it can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

handled by U.S. workers, and the
Department of Transportation has
stringent notification and certification
requirements for intermodal
containers.8 With the Coast Guard’s full
participation, the IMO recently
amended an international convention to
require shippers to verify a container’s
gross mass to a vessel’s master before it
is loaded on board.9 The existence of
these requirements makes it
unnecessary for the Coast Guard to issue
separate and potentially overlapping
provisions on the topic.
The shipping organization said that,
whereas the SNPRM based its cost
analysis on an IMO estimate of 4,000
containers lost at sea per year
worldwide, the shipping organization’s
own analysis found that, on average,
only 1,679 containers are lost at sea
each year. We appreciate the shipping
organization’s analysis and are using
their most current estimate in the
regulatory analysis for this interim rule.
Please see Section VIII, Regulatory
Analyses, for details.
The two towing companies expressed
appreciation that we do not propose to
regulate cargo securing on barges in
coastwise trade, but opposed our
SNPRM’s proposed extension 10 of such
regulations to seagoing barges in
international commerce. The companies
said that barges have a strong safety
record and are not subject to cargo
securing requirements under SOLAS.
Therefore, they should not be required
to undertake the work of developing
unique CSMs for each type of cargo.
They also pointed out that, if seagoing
barges are included, the universe of
affected vessels will be far greater than
the 26 U.S.-flagged vessels the Coast
Guard estimates will be impacted in its
regulatory analysis. They specifically
requested that the Coast Guard clarify
that ‘‘barges on international voyages
will also be exempt from this
rulemaking.’’ We agree with the
commenters and the interim rule
amends the applicability provisions of
new 33 CFR 97.100 so that part 97,
subpart A, applies only to self-propelled
vessels that are subject to SOLAS
Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter VII/5. SOLAS
8 See 29 CFR 1918.85 and 49 U.S.C. 5902 for the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
Department of Transportation requirements,
respectively.
9 The International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988. See
Regulation VI/2, which enters into force July 1,
2016. The International Maritime Organization
previously issued guidance to help ensure accurate
pre-loading container weighing; see Maritime Safety
Committee Circular MSC.1/Circ. 1475, Guidelines
Regarding the Verified Gross Mass of a Container
Carrying Cargo.
10 78 FR at 68788, col. 1.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

27995

does not apply to non self-propelled
vessels and the barge industry has
demonstrated a strong safety record in
the past. Therefore, we do not intend to
require non-self-propelled vessels to
have CSMs at this time.
Proposed change for final rule. One of
the individual commenters said that, to
conform to Chapter VII/5 of SOLAS, we
should regulate cargo securing on cargo
vessels below 500 gross tons as well as
on vessels of 500 gross tons and above.
We agree with the commenter’s
assessment that the cargo securing
manual requirements of Chapter VII/5 of
SOLAS apply to all vessels covered by
other SOLAS provisions and to vessels
below 500 gross tons that carry
dangerous goods in packaged form. As
previously stated, one of our intentions
in this rule is to align our regulations
with SOLAS requirements for cargo
securing manuals, and, therefore, we
propose modifying the final rule to more
accurately align with SOLAS by
extending the applicability provisions of
33 CFR 97.100 to self-propelled cargo
vessels less than 500 gross tons carrying
dangerous goods in packaged form on
international voyages. We specifically
request public comment on that
proposal.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
The Director of the Federal Register
has approved the material in 33 CFR
97.110 for incorporation by reference
under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the material are available from
the sources listed in § 97.110. The
following paragraphs summarize the
material incorporated by reference.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.739(18)
(Res.A.739(18)), Guidelines for the
Authorization of Organizations Acting
on Behalf of the Administration,
November 22, 1993: International
guidelines developed to establish a
uniform program for controlling and
assigning authority of organizations to
act on behalf of administrations in
conducting surveys, certifications, and
determination of tonnages.
IMO Maritime Safety Committee
Circular 1352 (MSC.1/Circ.1352),
Amendments to the Code of Safe
Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing
(CSS Code) Annex 14, Guidance on
Providing Safe Working Conditions for
Securing of Containers on Deck, June
30, 2010: International guidance
developed to ensure persons engaged in
carrying out container securing
operations on deck have safe working
conditions including safe access, and
appropriate securing equipment.
IMO Maritime Safety Committee
Circular 1353 (MSC.1/Circ. 1353/Rev.1),
Revised Guidelines for the Preparation

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

27996

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

of the Cargo Securing Manual,
December 15, 2014: International
guidelines providing information on
developing cargo securing manuals,
including required contents and details
for stowing and securing nonstandardized and semi-standardized
cargo.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this interim rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (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
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility.
This rule has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, as supplemented
by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
E.O. Accordingly, the rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). A final Regulatory
Assessment for the interim rule follows.
1. Summary
This interim rule amends the CFR by
adding the following provisions:
• Requirements for the reporting of
lost or jettisoned cargo;
• The CSM requirements of SOLAS,
for vessels of 500 gross tons or more;
• Extending the CSM requirements to
self-propelled cargo vessels that travel
on international voyages and carry cargo
other than solid or liquid bulk cargo that
is designated as a dangerous good
carried in packaged form; and
• Procedures for authorization of
third-party organizations to review and
approve CSMs on the Coast Guard’s
behalf.
Table 1 presents a summary of our
analysis.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE 10-YEAR REGULATORY ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Changes

Description

Costs
(7% discount rate)

Affected population

Annualized
1. Reporting of lost or jettisoned cargo.
2. CSM requirements .......

3. Approval of authorized
organizations.

Total ..........................

Codify lost or jettisoned
cargo as a hazardous
condition and specify
data to be reported.
Codify SOLAS rules and
guidance from NVIC
10–97.

U.S.- and foreign-flagged
vessels engaged in
transport to or from a
U.S. port.
Owners/operators of
6,436 vessels: 83 U.S.flagged, 6,353 foreignflagged.
6 currently approved organizations, others applying for approval status.

Codify guidance from
NVIC 10–97.

.........................................

Benefits

Total

$578

$4,063

Better tracking and response of lost or jettisoned cargo.

212,226

1,490,587

Increased enforcement
authority.

212,804

1,494,649

Note: Due to independent rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of the components.

Table 2 presents a summary of the 10year cost schedule, showing total costs
on an undiscounted basis and

discounted at 7-percent and 3-percent
interest rates.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE 10-YEAR TOTAL COST TO THE INTERNATIONAL CARGO INDUSTRY AND U.S. GOVERNMENT
Undiscounted

Discounted

Year

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Industry

Government

Total

1 ...........................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................
7 ...........................................................................................
8 ...........................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................

$757,015
99,403
99,417
99,430
107,068
107,081
107,108
107,121
114,759
114,786

$90,514
10,013
10,023
10,034
10,044
10,055
10,076
10,086
10,097
10,118

$847,529
109,416
109,440
109,464
117,112
117,136
117,184
117,207
124,856
124,904

$792,083
95,568
89,336
83,510
83,499
78,053
72,976
68,216
67,913
63,495

$822,844
103,135
100,153
97,257
101,022
98,100
95,281
92,524
95,692
92,940

Total ..............................................................................

1,713,188

181,060

1,894,248

1,494,649

1,698,948

Annualized ...........................................................................

........................

212,804

199,169

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

27997

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
2. Changes From SNPRM
Because there are no changes between
the requirements proposed in the
SNPRM and those contained in this
interim rule, and because we received
no public comments that affect the
Regulatory Assessment, we retained the
structure of the economic analyses from
the SNPRM, but updated our analysis
with the most current data. The data
elements that we revised for this
analysis are as follows:
• Affected vessel population, U.S.and foreign-flagged vessels used 2011
through 2013 data.
• Visits to U.S. ports, updated with
data from 2011 through 2013.
• Wage rates for commercial and
Coast Guard employees, updated with
current data.
• Container ship traffic data, updated
with current data.

3. Affected Population
The affected population, those vessels
subject to the regulations in this interim
rule, consists of U.S.- and foreignflagged self-propelled vessels that—
• Are engaged in international trade
as indicated by currently having a
SOLAS Cargo Ship Safety Certificate;
• Are 500 gross tons or more; and
• Carry any cargo other than solid or
liquid bulk commodities.
The United States is a signatory state
to SOLAS, and U.S.-flagged vessels in
international trade must meet SOLAS
requirements, including the CSM rules,
to receive a SOLAS certificate. A 2013
extract from the Coast Guard’s Marine
Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database
identified 83 U.S.-flagged vessels as
meeting the above tonnage and cargo
criteria.

The applicable foreign-flagged vessels
are those that transit U.S. waters. The
source for data on these vessels was the
Coast Guard’s Ship Arrival Notification
System (SANS) database. This database
contains data on notifications of arrival
and departure of vessels to and from
U.S. ports and is supplemented by data
from MISLE. We extracted from SANS
the most recent 3 years of data available,
2011 through 2013. This data produced
a list of 6,353 foreign-flagged vessels
that had one or more visits to a U.S. port
and met the tonnage and cargo-type
criteria. Table 3 presents the affected
population of 6,436 vessels categorized
by flag status, SOLAS status, and
tonnage class (less than 500 gross tons,
500 gross tons or more).

TABLE 3—APPLICABLE POPULATION, NON-BULK CARGO VESSELS
Flag class

SOLAS status

Tonnage class in gross tons

Vessels

U.S. ...................
Foreign ..............

SOLAS ..........................................................
SOLAS ..........................................................
Non-SOLAS ..................................................
Foreign Total .................................................

500 gross tons or more ................................
500 gross tons or more ................................
500 gross tons or more ................................
.......................................................................

........................
6,314
39
6,353

83
........................
........................
........................

Total ...........

.......................................................................

........................

6,436

Notes:
(1) All U.S. vessels are SOLAS and in the 500 GT or more class.
(2) Foreign-flagged vessels will follow SOLAS CSM rules.

4. Economic Analyses
The economic analyses include—
• An analysis of the costs, benefits,
and alternatives for each of the interim
rule’s three provisions: (a) Requirements
for the reporting of lost or jettisoned
cargo, (b) CSM requirements, and (c)
Approval of authorized organizations. A
summary of the costs and benefits for
the entire rule; and
• A preliminary analysis of
expanding the affected population.
a. Requirements for the reporting of
lost or jettisoned cargo.
i. Current practices, applicable
population, and description of changes
and edits. As noted in Section IV,
Background and Regulatory History, of
this preamble, the current regulations
require the Coast Guard to be notified

immediately when a hazardous
condition is caused by a vessel or its
operation. Incidents of lost or jettisoned
cargo 11 are considered hazardous
conditions and must be reported.
However, current industry practice does
not correspond with that interpretation.
According to Captain James J.
McNamara, President of the National
Cargo Bureau in 2000, ‘‘When a
container or containers are lost
overboard, usually there is no news
release and seldom is the fact
publicized. The loss is only revealed to
those in a need-to-know situation, i.e.,
the ship owner, shipper, receiver, and
insurer.’’ 12 As we will discuss in detail,
our research indicates a significant
underreporting of lost or jettisoned
cargo to the Coast Guard. Coast Guard

and other vessels cannot respond to
these unreported incidents, so they
represent a risk to navigation and the
marine environment. The
underreporting also prevents the Coast
Guard and other interested parties from
accurately tracking the extent and
trends of lost cargo incidents.
In this interim rule we include
requirements for the immediate
reporting of lost or jettisoned cargo. We
anticipate that adoption of these
requirements will correct this
underreporting and lead to some
increased costs to industry. Table 4
presents the change matrix for
modifying the reporting of hazardous
conditions and summarizes the specific
edit or change, the affected population,
and the economic impact.

TABLE 4—CHANGE MATRIX FOR REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN 33 CFR

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Reference and description

Affected population

97.100 Applicability:
. . . (a)(1), U.S. vessels .............................

11 All data and industry reports refer only to
containers when describing incidents involving lost
or jettisoned cargo. We will assume that containers
will continue as the only lost cargo in the future

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

Economic impact

U.S. cargo vessels and non-U.S. cargo vessels in U.S. waters.
and refer to containers as the generic description of
the involved cargo for this analysis.
12 McNamara, James J., ‘‘Containers and Cargoes
Lost Overboard,’’ National Cargo Bureau;
conference of the International Union of Marine

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

None, administrative only.

Insurers; September 13, 2000, http://www.iumi.
com/images/stories/IUMI/Pictures/Conferences/
London2000/Wednesday/02%20mcnamara%20
cargo.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

27998

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—CHANGE MATRIX FOR REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN 33 CFR—Continued
Reference and description

Affected population

Economic impact

97.105 Definitions ............................................
97.110 Incorporation by reference, lists IBR
references.
97.115 Situation requiring report, criteria for
reporting lost cargo.
160.215(a), requirement to report hazardous
condition.
160.215(b), data to be reported .........................

All vessels and approval organizations ...........
All affected vessels and approval organizations.
Vessels subject to the rule that lose cargo
overboard.
Operators of vessels involved in incident resulting in hazardous condition.
Operators of vessels involved in incident resulting in hazardous condition.

None, administrative only.
None, administrative only.
Costs for correction of noncompliance with existing requirements.
No change, new label of existing text.
This requirement references 97.115 and all
costs are included there.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Source: Coast Guard analysis.

ii. Affected population. This interim
rule applies to both U.S.- and foreignflagged vessels engaged in transport to
or from U.S. ports. Therefore, the costs
for reporting the lost or jettisoned cargo
must be accounted for throughout the
entire applicable population of 6,436
vessels, as reported in Table 3.
For the years 2009 through 2013,
there were only five incidents of
containers lost or damaged at sea and
reported to the Coast Guard. As
previously noted, industry experts
assert that many incidents of lost or
jettisoned cargo are not reported to the
appropriate authorities. To test this
assertion, we developed an estimate of
lost or jettisoned cargo incidents that are
subject to Coast Guard rules.
As the base of our estimate, we used
the annual estimate of 1,679 containers
lost at sea worldwide, as reported by the
World Shipping Council (WSC) in its
2014 report 13 to the IMO’s SubCommittee on Carriage of Cargoes and
Containers.14 The WSC’s estimate is
based on a survey of their membership.
The survey respondents accounted for
70 percent of the world’s container-ship
capacity. The WSC adjusted the survey
data to account for the 30 percent nonrespondents. They also prepared two
estimates, one without catastrophic
events and the other that included the
less-frequent catastrophic ones with
large numbers of lost containers. We
reviewed the WSC’s methodology and
we are satisfied that it produced a valid
estimate. As we are using a 10-year
forecast for our analysis, we needed to
account for the low frequency-high
consequence events, and used the

higher annual estimate that included the
catastrophic events.
However, the WSC report was not
categorized by route or flag of the vessel.
We derived the U.S. share of global
container traffic using data reported by
the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Maritime Administration (MARAD),
which reported in 2011 that there were
376,389 container ship visits
worldwide,15 and that, out of this total,
22,089 were at U.S. ports.16 Thus, the
U.S. share of global container traffic is
5.9 percent (22,089/376,389).
We used that 5.9 percent share to
estimate that about 99 containers in U.S.
traffic are lost annually (1,679
containers lost world-wide × 5.9 percent
U.S. share of traffic, rounded). The 5
incidents resulted in a loss of a total of
25 containers, so we estimate on average
there were 5 lost containers per
incident. Using those data, we estimate
that there will be 20 reports of lost
containers to the Coast Guard (99
containers lost/5 containers per
incident, rounded to the nearest 10) in
the first year the rule becomes effective.
The Tioga Group, a freight
transportation services consulting
firm,17 in its report 18 on the container
market to the port authorities of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, presents
estimates of 4.9 percent annual
compounded growth rate for the United
States in container traffic from 2010 to
2020. We assume that the number of lost
container incidents will grow
proportionally with the growth in
container trade. We applied the Tioga
Group’s estimate of 4.9 percent growth
rate to the base estimate of 20 lost
containers in Years 2 through 10 in this

cost analysis. This yields an estimate of
31 incidents by Year 10 (the complete
series is shown in the ‘‘Estimated
Incidents’’ column of Table 6).
iii. Costs. When cargo is lost or
jettisoned, the vessel staff already
collects data for company purposes.19
Thus, the only additional cost for
compliance with this rule is the time to
report the data to the Coast Guard and
for the Coast Guard to record the data.
Coast Guard staff who are familiar with
vessel operations and incident reporting
estimated that it will take 0.25 hours for
a Master or other senior ship’s officer to
compile a report and transmit it to the
Coast Guard.
The wage rate for the Master was
obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), using Occupational
Series 53–5021, Captains, Mates, and
Pilots of Water Vessels. The BLS reports
that the hourly rate for a Master is
$36.34 per hour.20 To account for
benefits, the load factor, or ratio
between total compensation and wages
is calculated at 1.44,21 using BLS data.
The fully loaded wage rate for a Master
is estimated at $53 per hour ($36.34
base wages × 1.44 load factor, rounded
up to capture the entire cost). The cost
for the additional time to report an
incident is $13.25 ($53 × 0.25).
Similarly, we estimate that it will take
a quarter of an hour for Coast Guard
personnel at the E–4 level to record the
data. The fully loaded wage rate for an
E–4 rating is $42, per Commandant
Instruction 7310.1N. 22 The unit cost for
the Coast Guard is $10.50 ($42 per hour
× 0.25 hours).

13 The report is on WSC’s Web site: http://www.
worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/
Containers_Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_
Dist.pdf.
14 Report number CCC 1/NF 9, dated June 27,
2014.
15 See http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/
Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf, p. 7,
‘‘Global Vessel Calls by Country, 2011.’’
16 See http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/
Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf, p. 3.

‘‘Containership Calls at U.S. Ports by Size, 2006–
2011.’’
17 For information on The Tioga Group, see
www.tiogagroup.com.
18 The Tioga Group, Inc. and IHS Global Insight,
‘‘San Pedro Bay Container Forecast Update’’,
Exhibit 33: Total U.S. Loaded Total TEU and
CAGRs, p. 33, www.portoflosangeles.org/pdf/spb_
container_forecast_update_073109.pdf.
19 Captain James J. McNamara, ‘‘Containers and
Cargo Lost Overboard’’, p. 2. National Cargo Bureau;
conference of the International Union of Marine

Insurers; September 13, 2000, http://www.iumi.
com/images/stories/IUMI/Pictures/Conferences/
London2000/Wednesday/02%20mcnamara
%20cargo.pdf.
20 Mean wage, http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/
oes535021.htm.
21 Load Factor calculation, source: http://www.
bls.gov/news.releases/archives/ecec_09112013.htm,
all Workers Total compensation, $31,00/Wages and
salaries, $21.44.
22 http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/
CI_7310_1N.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

27999

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
As shown in Table 5, the unit cost for
reporting lost or jettisoned cargo is
$23.75.

TABLE 5—UNIT COST FOR REPORTING LOST OR JETTISONED CARGO
Time
(hours)

Task

Wage rate

Cost

Master to report ...........................................................................................................................
CG data entry (E4) ......................................................................................................................

0.25
0.25

$53
42

$13.25
10.50

Total ......................................................................................................................................

........................

23.75

Sources: BLS, Coast Guard estimates.

The baseline estimate of lost or
jettisoned cargo incidents, the growth
rate, and the unit cost data provide the

inputs into the 10-year cost schedule.
Table 6 displays the input data and the
resulting cost estimates on an

undiscounted basis and discounted at 7percent and 3-percent interest rates.

TABLE 6—COST SCHEDULE FOR REPORTING LOST OR JETTISONED CARGO
Estimated
incidents

Year

Rounded
incidents

Industry
cost

Coast Guard
cost

Discounted

Total
cost

1 ...................................
2 ...................................
3 ...................................
4 ...................................
5 ...................................
6 ...................................
7 ...................................
8 ...................................
9 ...................................
10 .................................

20
20.98
22.01
23.09
24.22
25.41
26.66
27.97
29.34
30.78

20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
31

$265
278
292
305
318
331
358
371
384
411

$210
221
231
242
252
263
284
294
305
326

$475
499
523
547
570
594
642
665
689
737

$444
436
427
417
406
396
400
387
375
375

$461
470
479
486
492
497
522
525
528
548

Total ......................

........................

3,313

2,628

5,941

4,063

5,008

Annualized ...................

........................

578

587

To provide an estimate of costs by flag
status, we extracted from the Coast
Guard’s SANS database the vessels
calling on U.S. ports in 2011.23 We

divided the vessels into U.S.- and
foreign-flagged status. Table 7 presents
the data and shows that in 2013, U.S.flagged vessels accounted for 11.8

percent of the visits by vessels that
would be subject to this interim rule.

TABLE 7—2013 VISITS TO U.S. PORTS BY FLAG-STATUS OF VESSELS NON-BULK TRADE
Flag

Percent

United States ...........................................................................................................................................................
Foreign .....................................................................................................................................................................

2,955
22,001

11.8
88.2

Total ..................................................................................................................................................................

24,956

100.0

We produced an estimate for U.S.
costs of lost or jettisoned cargo by
applying the 11.8 percent of visits by

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Visits

23 2011

U.S.-flagged vessels from Table 7 to the
cost estimates from Table 6. Note that
U.S. costs include both costs to U.S.-

flagged vessels and the Coast Guard.
Table 8 displays the data for the U.S.
costs.

is the most recent year of verified data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28000

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 8—COST SCHEDULE FOR U.S.-FLAGGED VESSELS FOR REPORTING LOST OR JETTISONED CARGO
Rounded
incidents

Year

Industry
cost

CG
cost

Discounted

Total
cost

1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
8 ...............................................................
9 ...............................................................
10 .............................................................

2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4

$27
27
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
53

$21
21
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
42

$48
48
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
95

$45
42
59
55
51
48
45
42
39
48

$47
45
66
64
62
60
59
57
55
71

Total ..................................................

........................

387

308

695

474

586

Annualized ...............................................

........................

We obtained the costs of reporting lost
or jettisoned cargo for non-U.S.-flagged

vessels by subtracting the U.S. costs, as
reported in Table 8, from the costs as

displayed in Table 6. Table 9 presents
the results of these calculations.

TABLE 9—COST SCHEDULE FOR NON-U.S.-FLAGGED VESSELS FOR REPORTING LOST OR JETTISONED CARGO
Rounded
incidents

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Year

Industry
cost

Coast Guard
cost

Discounted

Total
cost

18
19
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27

239
252
252
265
278
292
318
331
345
358

189
200
200
210
221
231
252
263
273
284

428
452
452
475
499
523
570
594
618
642

400
395
369
362
356
348
355
346
336
326

416
426
414
422
430
438
463
469
474
478

Total ..................................................

........................

2,930

2,323

5,253

3,593

4,430

Annualized ...............................................

........................

512

519

iv. Benefits. A 2011 news release from
the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute (MBARI) 24 stated that
containers that fall from ships can ‘‘float
at the surface for months’’ and that
‘‘most eventually sink to the seafloor.’’
While they float they can present a
hazard to navigation. However, sunken
containers may pose immediate and
long-term threats to the marine
environment. The MBARI news release
also stated that ‘‘[N]o one knows what
happens to these containers once they
reach the deep seafloor’’ and that
‘‘[p]erhaps 10 percent of shipping
containers carry household and
industrial chemicals that could be toxic
to marine life.’’ The small number of
MISLE incidents provides additional
information. Of the 25 containers, one
container held 22,500 pounds of used
24 http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/
2011/containers/containers-release.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

batteries and another held an
unspecified hazardous material.
The immediate benefit of the
reporting provisions is that they will
enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to
identify potential problems with
securing equipment, locate and warn
mariners about drifting containers that
endanger safe navigation, and assess
and respond to any potential
environmental hazard created by the
cargo loss. In the longer term, having
complete and accurate data on lost cargo
incidents will enable the Coast Guard
and other parties to identify industry
trends and track potential long-term
threats to the marine environment from
sunken containers.
v. Alternatives. We considered
possible alternatives to this rule. One
possibility, as suggested in the SNPRM,
would be to limit the reporting of lost
containers to only those containing
hazardous materials. However, we
consider any overboard container to be

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

a potential hazard to navigation and, as
noted above, the contents may pose a
long-term threat to the marine
environment. To ensure safety of
navigation and the marine environment,
we believe all lost or jettisoned cargo
should be reported. As one commenter
noted, the containers may not
disintegrate for hundreds of years once
they reach the floor. Thus, the long-term
impacts on the environment are
extremely hard to assess.
Another alternative we considered
was to reduce the amount of
information to be sent to the Coast
Guard in order to minimize
recordkeeping burden. We examined the
data specified in this rule and
determined that all of it would be
needed by the Coast Guard in order to
completely evaluate the situation and
determine the appropriate response.
Therefore, we believe that the reporting
requirements in this rule will provide
the Coast Guard with sufficient

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
information to fulfill its missions of
maritime safety and marine
environmental protection while
minimizing the vessel’s recordkeeping
and reporting burdens.
b. CSM Requirements.
i. Current practices, applicable
population, and description of changes
and edits. As stated in Section IV of this
preamble, Background and Regulatory
History, the Coast Guard has developed
guidance,25 based on IMO Circular
1353, for implementing SOLAS
provisions for cargo securing manuals.
Under the Coast Guard’s safety and
security vessel examinations program,
the Coast Guard checks that the subject

vessels in U.S. ports have CSMs and
that the crews follow them. MISLE data
show that from 2011 through 2013, the
83 U.S.-flagged vessels that are part of
the affected population were subject to
646 inspections. In all of these
inspections there were no citations for
a deficient CSM.
MISLE also recorded that from 2011
through 2013, the Coast Guard
conducted 14,358 vessel inspections of
foreign-flagged vessels and found
problems relating to CSMs in only 9
instances. These data indicate an
ongoing compliance process for both
U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels subject
to CSM rules. Therefore, the Coast

28001

Guard anticipates that the only costs
regarding the CSM requirement, once
the requirements of SOLAS and Coast
Guard guidance are moved into the CFR,
would be those associated with owners
or operators of the few deficient vessels
who are prompted to ensure their CSMs
are fully compliant with SOLAS prior to
entering U.S. waters.
Tables 10 and 11 present the change
matrix for the edits to Titles 33 and 46
of the CFR, respectively, that relate to
the CSM requirements of the interim
rule. Each matrix summarizes the
specific edit or change, the affected
population, and the economic impact.

TABLE 10—CHANGE MATRIX FOR ADDING CSM REQUIREMENTS TO 33 CFR
Reference & description

Affected population

97.100 Applicability:
. . . (a)(1), U.S. vessels .............................
. . . (a)(2), voluntary compliance ...............
. . . (b), exemption for Ready Reserve and
public vessels.
. . . 97.105 Definitions .............................
. . . 97.110 Incorporation by reference
(lists IBR references).
97.120 Cargo Securing Manuals:
. . . (a)(1), CSMs required .........................
. . . (a)(2), CSAP required after 2015 ........
. . . (b), authorizes CG enforcement .........

Economic impact

U.S. cargo vessels, non-U.S. cargo vessels of
500 gross tons or more in U.S. waters.
U.S. vessels requesting coverage ...................
Ready Reserve and public vessels .................

None, administrative only.
No change, codifies guidance currently located in NVIC.
None, these vessels currently are exempted.

All vessels and approval organizations ...........
All affected vessels and approval organizations.

None, administrative only.
None, administrative only.

SOLAS vessels and non-U.S., non-SOLAS
vessels noted with deficient CSMs by Coast
Guard.
Non-SOLAS vessels ........................................

Cost of developing CSM for noncompliant
vessels.

All U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels subject
to the rule.

Edit to close regulatory gap. No costs, no current vessels affected and none expected in
future.
No cost, provides authority for current CG
compliance activities.

Source: Coast Guard analysis.

TABLE 11—CHANGE MATRIX FOR EDITS TO 46 CFR 97 THAT APPLY TO U.S. SOLAS VESSELS
Reference & description

Affected population

Economic impact

97.12–10 Cargo securing manuals, new section to reference new 33 CFR 97.120.

Owners and operators of U.S. SOLAS vessels

Administrative edit, all costs accounted for in
33 CFR 97.120.

additional costs from this rule.
However, to conduct a thorough
regulatory analysis, we included the 83
U.S.-flagged vessels in the analysis and
assumed that they will obtain a SOLAScompliant CSM in the first year the rule
is in effect. A review of the year-built
data for these vessels shows that the
most recently built was in 2009. We
assume that this trend of no new builds
will continue and that the population
will remain stable at 83 vessels per year
throughout the 10-year analysis period.
Additionally, the interim rule requires
that a CSM must be revised if one of
these two criteria are met:

1. The vessel changes its type. As an
example, a former break-bulk carrier is
modified to become a container ship.
2. An existing vessel changes 15
percent of its cargo securing systems or
more than 15 percent of its portable
securing devices.
MISLE data indicates that none of the
subject U.S.-flagged vessels have
changed vessel type from 2001 through
2012. We assume that this trend will
continue and that no vessels will change
type during our analysis period. From
information provided by an approved

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Source: Coast Guard analysis.

ii. Affected population. As stated
earlier, the Coast Guard’s current safety
and security examinations include
checking to see if a subject vessel has a
current CSM and that the crew follows
it. The inspection results indicate that
the 83 U.S.-flagged vessels in
international trade are all in the 500
gross tons or more class and that they
comply with the SOLAS CSM rules.
Under an assumption that they will
continue with those practices, this
establishes a baseline of current
compliance throughout the 10-year
analysis period. In this scenario, the
U.S.-flagged vessels will incur no
25 NVIC

10–97.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:59 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28002

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

organization,26 we estimated that, on an
annual basis, 11.3 percent of the U.S.flagged fleet revises it CSM based on the
second criterion described above. We
applied this rate to the subject 83 U.Sflagged vessels to estimate that 9 vessels
per year will revise their CSMs (83 ×
11.3 percent, rounded) in Years 2
through 10 of the analysis period.
Foreign-flagged vessels that are 500
gross tons or more follow SOLAS rules
and current Coast Guard guidance. We
estimated the costs of compliance for

these vessels based on the following
assumptions:
(1) In the absence of the rule, the
current deficiency rate for subject
foreign-flagged vessels would continue.
(2) Under the rule, the increased
enforceability posture from codifying
the CSM rules will lead all vessels to
comply with the SOLAS standards and
current Coast Guard guidance prior to
entering U.S. waters. That is, the
deficiency rate will be reduced to zero
for foreign-flagged vessels.

We reported above that there were
nine deficiencies related to CSMs from
2011through 2013. These deficiencies
are comprised of five that were missing
approval from an authorized
organization, three that did not have a
CSM on the vessel, and one that had a
CSM with missing sections. Table 12
presents the data from 2011 through
2013 for the calculation of a deficiency
rates by year and an annual average for
the 3 years.

TABLE 12—ANNUAL CSM DEFICIENCY RATE
Vessel
examinations

Year

Deficiency
rate
(percent)

CSM
deficiencies

2011 .............................................................................................................................................
2012 .............................................................................................................................................
2013 .............................................................................................................................................

5,135
4,464
4,759

2
4
3

0.04
0.09
0.06

Total ......................................................................................................................................

14,358

* 0.06

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

* Average deficiency rate.

We used the average deficiency rate of
0.06 percent throughout our 10-year
analysis period. The estimate of the
number of deficient CSMs in any year
equals the estimate of the vessel
population for that year multiplied by
the deficiency rate.
As reported in Table 3 in the ‘‘SOLAS
Class’’ subtotal, there are 6,353 foreignflagged vessels that are currently subject
to the CSM requirements. Applying the
0.06 percent deficiency rate from Table
12 yields an estimate of four vessels that
will need to remedy deficient CSMs in
the first year the rule comes into effect.
In the analysis of the reporting
requirements, we cited the Tioga
Group’s report on the container market
that growth in container shipments to
the United States is expected to
increase,27 so a flat extrapolation of the
seven CSMs in the first year through
Years 2 through 10 of the analysis
period would result in an
underestimate.
We used the Tioga Group’s estimate of
a 4.9 percent rate for our estimate for
growth in our 10-year analysis period.
Currently, we do not have detailed
information on the current and
projected capacity utilization of
container ships visiting U.S. ports, so
we posited that the trips per year of the
affected vessels would remain constant
through the analysis period. With that
assumption, we applied the 4.9 percent

annual growth rate to the fleet of
foreign-flagged vessels serving U.S.
ports.
For Years 2 through 10, the base
population is the base population from
the previous year multiplied by the 4.9
percent growth rate. The resulting
estimates of the base populations are
shown in the ‘‘Base Population’’ column
of Table 14.
iii. Costs. To obtain a current estimate
for the cost of developing a CSM, we
contacted industry cargo securing
subject matter experts in 2013.28 These
experts are familiar with the entire
development of CSMs, including vessel
survey, evaluation of cargo securing
equipment and procedures, preparation
of manuals, and training of crews. From
the information they provided, we
estimate that the cost to develop a CSM
will range between $7,500 and $10,000,
depending on factors such as the size
and type of vessel. We used the
midpoint of this range, $8,750 (($7,500
+ $10,000)/2), as the unit cost of
developing a CSM.
We anticipate that a CSM will be
revised to either remedy a deficiency or
because the vessel met the previously
discussed criterion of new cargo
securing systems. We do not have
detailed descriptions of each deficiency
or changes in cargo securing equipment,
so for the unit cost, we assume that a
vessel will revise the CSM using an

existing survey of the vessel. A 2013
study conducted by ABS Consulting,
Inc. for the Coast Guard provided
estimates on the costs of a suite of
marine engineering and naval
architecture services.29 That study
estimated that the average cost of a
survey for a freight ship is $1,125. We
estimate the unit cost to remedy a
deficiency as the average cost of
developing a CSM [$8,750 = ($7,500 +
$10,000)/2)] less the average cost of a
survey. This yields an estimated unit
cost of $7,625 ($8,750 ¥ $1,125).
The costs to the Federal government
are accounted for by the oversight
actions performed by the authorized
approval organizations. These actions
include reviewing new or revised CSMs,
issuing letters of approval, and, for
CSMs that are not approved, issuing
letters that explain why the CSMs were
not approved. We anticipate that the
reviews of the CSM will be conducted
by a marine engineer or naval architect.
We estimate that each review will take
on average 2 working days and another
hour will be needed to prepare the
appropriate correspondence to the
vessel’s managers. Thus, the attributed
burden to the Federal government for
each review is 17 hours ((2 × 8) + 1 =
17).
We estimate that the average loaded
(including benefits) hourly wage for a
marine architect or naval engineer is

26 To protect proprietary information, we cannot
provide the name of the organization.
27 The Tioga Group, Inc. and IHS Global Insight,
‘‘San Pedro Bay Container Forecast Update’’,
Exhibit 33: Total U.S. Loaded Total TEU and

CAGRs, p. 33, www.portoflosangeles.org/pdf/spb_
container_forecast_update_073109.pdf.
28 The data obtained contain proprietary
information and are not available publicly.

29 ABS Consulting, Inc, ‘‘Study of Marine
Engineering and Naval Architecture Costs for Use
in Regulatory Analyses,’’ Table 5, p. 26. A copy of
this study can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28003

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
$64 per hour.30 The unit cost to review
one CSM is $1,088 (17 hours × $64 per
hour). Table 13 shows the undiscounted
costs to industry and the Federal
government for the 10-year analysis
period.

Costs for Foreign-Flagged Vessels
As foreign-flagged vessels are
obtaining and revising CSMs under the
auspices of their flag states, their only
cost for this interim rule is to remedy

deficiencies. The cost in each year is the
number of deficient vessels times the
unit cost of $7,625. Table 13 presents
the undiscounted cost estimate for
foreign-flagged vessels over the 10-year
period.

TABLE 13—COSTS TO FOREIGN-FLAGGED VESSELS FOR DEVELOPING CSMS
Base
population

Year

Remedied

Total
cost

Unit cost

1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................

6,353
6,664
6,991
7,334
7,693
8,070
8,465
8,880
9,315
9,771

4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6

$7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625

$30,500
30,500
30,500
30,500
38,125
38,125
38,125
38,125
45,750
45,750

Total ..........................................................................................................

........................

366,000

Costs for U.S.-Flagged Vessels
As discussed previously, all 83 U.S.flagged vessels have CSMs and have
operated under them for over a decade.
In addition, current business practices,
particularly the requirements of

insurers, would also indicate the use of
a CSM. For these reasons, and as
presented in the Regulatory Analysis of
the NPRM, the requirements in this
interim rule are not expected to result
in a change in practice or incur a cost
for the 83 U.S.-flagged vessels.

For the purposes of this regulatory
analysis, we also compute costs
assuming a baseline without CSMs for
the 83 U.S.-flagged vessels. The cost for
U.S.-flagged vessels to develop CSMs is
presented in Table 14.

TABLE 14—COSTS OF DEVELOPING CSMS FOR U.S. VESSELS TO INDUSTRY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Industry
CSM
cost

Base
population

Year

Industry
cost

Federal
Government
cost

Total cost

83
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

$8,750
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625
7,625

$726,250
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625
68,625

$90,304
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792
9,792

$816,554
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417

Total ..............................................................................

164

........................

1,343,875

178,432

1,522,307

Table 15 presents the total costs for
foreign-flagged vessels and U.S.-flagged
vessels assuming a pre-CSM baseline on
an undiscounted basis and the total

costs discounted at rates of 7 percent
and 3 percent. As shown in Table 15,
the total 10-year cost for upgrading
CSMs at a 7-percent discount rate is

$1,490,587, or $212,226 on an
annualized basis.

TABLE 15—CSMS—UNDISCOUNTED COMPONENT AND TOTAL COSTS; AND TOTAL COSTS AT DISCOUNT RATES OF 7
PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT
Undiscounted
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Year

U.Sflagged
cost

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

Foreignflagged
cost

$816,554
78,417

$30,500
30,500

Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/
oes172121.htm) multiplied by load factor of 1.44 to

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Discounted
Total cost
$847,054
108,917

$791,639
95,132

$822,383
102,665

account for benefits (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.
requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf).

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28004

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 15—CSMS—UNDISCOUNTED COMPONENT AND TOTAL COSTS; AND TOTAL COSTS AT DISCOUNT RATES OF 7
PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT—Continued
Undiscounted
Year

U.Sflagged
cost

Foreignflagged
cost

Discounted
Total cost

3 ...........................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................
7 ...........................................................................................
8 ...........................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................

78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417

30,500
30,500
38,125
38,125
38,125
38,125
45,750
45,750

108,917
108,917
116,542
116,542
116,542
116,542
124,167
124,167

88,909
83,092
83,093
77,657
72,577
67,829
67,539
63,120

99,674
96,771
100,530
97,602
94,759
91,999
95,164
92,392

Total ..............................................................................

1,522,307

366,000

1,888,307

1,490,587

1,693,939

Annualized ...........................................................................

........................

212,226

198,581

iv. Benefits. The benefit of adding the
SOLAS requirements and current Coast
Guard guidance on CSMs to the CFR is
increased Coast Guard enforcement
authority. We previously cited the
statistics from the Coast Guard’s CSM
inspection activities from 2009 through
2011 for both U.S.- and foreign-flagged
vessels. However, as noted in Section
IV, Background and Regulatory History,
of this preamble, the only current U.S.
implementation of the CSM is via
current Coast Guard guidance, which is

unenforceable. Incorporating these rules
into the CFR elevates the guidelines and
standards to being a Federal regulation.
As described in Section III, Basis and
Purpose, of this preamble, the Coast
Guard has existing authorities to inspect
vessels, regulate an inspected vessel’s
operation, fittings, equipment, and
appliances, and implement SOLAS. The
Coast Guard believes that it can enforce
the provisions of this rule under these
authorities.

v. Alternatives. Alternatives to this
provision of the rule that we considered
include various ways to apply the
requirements to prepare and implement
CSMs to U.S.-flagged vessels in
coastwise trade. The NPRM published
in 2000 presented five options for
applying CSM regulations to U.S.
domestic voyages. Table 16 presents
descriptions of these options and a
summary of the comments.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

TABLE 16—OPTIONS TO EXTEND CSM REQUIREMENTS TO U.S. DOMESTIC VOYAGES
Option No.

Description

1 .........................

Extend SOLAS requirements to domestic voyages ................

2 .........................

Vessel specific standards, Coast Guard approval ...................

3 .........................

Certificate for carrying hazardous materials ............................

4 .........................

Allow each vessel to choose from among Options 1, 2, and 3

5 .........................

Standards developed with industry ..........................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Summary of comments

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

4
•
•
•
•
•

supported, 5 opposed for these reasons:
Preferred compromise of Options 1 & 2;
Not requiring regular reviews;
Too restrictive;
Require too much standardization; and
Would not work for seagoing barges as no two barge cargoes are identical.
1 supported, 5 opposed for these reasons:
• Evaluate against experience with continuous examination
program and noted similarity with Option 5;
• Too many variables causing unneeded burden;
• Would not work, but did not give specific reasons;
• Second choice; and
• Preferred compromise of Options 1 and 2.
One commenter stated its decision would depend on specific
requirements, and 3 commenters opposed for these reasons:
• Surveyors for multiple voyages not feasible for cost and
availability;
• Could not ensure surveyor availability; and
• High costs of surveyors.
One commenter noted that companies supporting domestic
rules would find this attractive, but did not state its own
opinion. Another stated that it combined the strengths and
weaknesses of the other Options. One opposed for
unstated reasons and another was opposed because the
‘‘menu of options’’ would cause confusion.
Three comments supported, 1 for unstated reasons and 2
because of its flexibility; and 1 commenter was opposed
because it would not ensure meeting needs of different
vessel types and operations.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28005

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The options presented in the NPRM
were only outlined and did not have
cost estimates. We developed a cost
estimate for Option 1 that would extend
SOLAS requirements to domestic
vessels. We added these details to
Option 1 to make the calculations:
• The affected population will be
U.S.-flagged vessels in coastwise trade.
The geographic identification was
vessels with coastwise route
certifications. We identified 688 vessels
from MISLE that met these
requirements, comprised of 195 freight
barges, 160 freight ships, and 333
offshore supply vessels.
• In general, the vessels in the U.S.
affected population for this alternative
are smaller than the foreign-flagged
vessels that comprise the affected
population of the regulation. Data

comparisons for the U.S. fleet shows
average gross tons of 8,165 and average
length of 326 feet. The comparable data
for the foreign-flagged vessels is average
gross tonnage of 31,306 and average
length of 619 feet. Therefore, for the unit
cost of the U.S. coastwise vessels, we
assigned the low-end value of $7,500,
which came from the range supplied by
the subject matter experts we contacted.
The recent history of new builds is
projected to continue through the 10year analysis period. MISLE reported 22
new vessels per year from 2009 through
2012, and we used this in our analysis.
• A phase-in period was not in the
NPRM, but we added a 3-year phase-in
period to this interim rule to mitigate
the burden on both vessel owners and
the authorized approval organizations.

We assume that vessel owners will
distribute the certification of the
manuals for their vessels evenly over
the phase-in period. This will enable
vessel owners and authorized approval
organizations to schedule cargo securing
approvals in conjunction with vessel
down-time, such as scheduled
examinations or times of vessel repairs
and upgrades.
With these parameters, we developed
a 10-year cost schedule for Option 1.
Because the costs to foreign-flagged
vessels would be the same for Option 1
as for the preferred alternative, the data
presented show the marginal costs for
Option 1. The annualized cost, using a
7-percent discount rate, would be
$807,605. The cost estimates are
displayed in Table 17.

TABLE 17—COST ESTIMATE FOR OPTION 1, EXTEND CSM REQUIREMENTS TO DOMESTIC VESSELS
Existing
vessels

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Year

New
vessels

Total
vessels

229
229
230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

251
251
252
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

Total ......................

688

220

908

Annualized ...................

........................

The goal of Option 1 is to reduce the
occurrence and impacts of lost
containers in U.S. coastwise trade.
However, the comments to the NPRM
indicate that this is not a significant
problem. One commenter stated that
cargo losses from barges are rare,
another stated that seagoing barges ‘‘are
generally safe from cargo loss,’’ and
another commenter stated that ‘‘most
cargo losses result from container
structural problems that the vessel
owner or operator cannot know about or
prevent.’’ However, as described above,
the reporting of these incidents is
uncertain. We anticipate that, with the
more accurate reporting required by this
interim rule, we will be able to validate
this assertion. Additionally, our initial
cost estimates, as presented in Table 17,
indicate that industry would incur
annualized costs, discounted at 7
percent, of $807,605 beyond what is in
this rule. Therefore, this interim rule
focuses exclusively on vessels in
international trade. However, the Coast

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

$7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500

........................

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

$1,759,346
1,644,248
1,542,803
125,878
117,643
109,946
102,754
96,032
89,749
83,878

$1,827,670
1,774,437
1,729,618
146,600
142,330
138,185
134,160
130,253
126,459
122,775

6,810,000

5,672,277

6,272,487

........................

807,605

735,327

c. Approval of Authorized
Organizations
The Coast Guard authorizes
classification societies and other
organizations to review and approve
CSMs on its behalf. The procedures for
these organizations are currently found
in Coast Guard guidance and cover
selection criteria, information required
by organizations applying for
authorization status, and the Coast
Guard’s application review procedures,
termination of authorization procedures,
and appeals procedures.
Following the procedures in current
Coast Guard guidance, the Coast Guard
has authorized these six classification
societies to review and approve CSMs:
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS),
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Lloyd’s
Register of Shipping (LR), Germanischer

Frm 00021

$1,882,500
1,882,500
1,890,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000

Guard can reevaluate this position and
initiate another rulemaking for the U.S.
coastwise trade if new information
indicates either underreporting or an
upward trend of lost containers.

PO 00000

Discounted

Total
cost

Unit cost

Lloyd (GL), RINA S.p.A, and ClassNK
(NK).31 We anticipate that no other
classification societies will be applying
for CSM approval authority in the near
future.32
However, current Coast Guard
guidance is not legally enforceable. This
interim rule will incorporate these
procedures from guidance into the CFR
with only some minor editorial changes,
such as updating the address of Coast
Guard Headquarters. Therefore, we
believe there will be no additional
regulatory costs associated with the
codification of these application
procedures. Table 18 presents the
change matrix for the codification of the
class society approval guidance into the
CFR and summarizes the specific edit or
31 List of classification societies authorizations:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/acp/docs/ClassSociety
Auths22Dec2013.pdf.
32 For more information see the final rule
‘‘Approval of Classification Societies’’, VII. A,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’, 77 FR 47548,
RIN 1625–AB35).

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28006

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

change, the affected population, and the
economic impact.

TABLE 18—CHANGE MATRIX FOR INCORPORATING CLASS SOCIETY APPROVAL PROCEDURES INTO 46 CFR
Reference & description
97.100 Applicability:
. . . (a)(4), organizations applying for CSM
approval authority.
.
97.115 Situation requiring report, criteria for
reporting lost cargo.
97.200 CSM approval for U.S. vessels on
international voyages:
. . . (a)(1), authorized applicants include
owner, operator, or agent.
. . . (a)(2), CG oversight of approval authority applications.
. . . (a)(3), application procedures .............

Affected population

Economic impact

New applicants .................................................

No impact, incorporates current guidance into
regulations.

Vessels subject to the rule that lose cargo
overboard.

Costs for correction of noncompliance with
existing requirements.

Owners, operators, and agents, of new U.S.
vessels in international trade.
Organizations applying for CSM approval authority.
U.S. vessels in international trade ...................

Administrative change,
erenced owner.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations.
No change, incorporates
regulations

. . . (a)(4), approval authority retains a
copy.
. . . (b), approval letter contents ................

Authorized approval organizations ..................

. . . (c), disapproval procedures ................

Authorized approval organizations ..................

. . . (d), resubmit procedures .....................

Owners or operators resubmitting a CSM .......

. . . (e), documents kept on vessel ............

Owners or operators of U.S. vessels subject
to the rule.
Owners or operators of U.S. vessels subject
to the rule.
Owners or operators of U.S. vessels subject
to the rule and authorized approval organizations.
ABS, DNV, LR, GL, RINA, NK, National
Cargo Bureau.
Organizations seeking to become approved
organizations.
CG and organizations seeking to become approved organizations.
CG and authorized approval organizations .....

97.205 Requirements for amending an approved CSM, amending procedures.
97.210 Appeals, appeals procedures ..............
97.300 Authorized CSM approval authorities,
lists approved organizations.
97.305 Requests for authorization, application
process.
97.310 Criteria for authorization, evaluation
criteria.
97.315 Requirements for authorized approval
organizations, responsibilities of CG and authorized approval organizations.
97.320 Revocation of authorization, procedures for CG revoking an authorization.

Authorized approval organizations ..................

CG and referenced organizations ....................

guidance only refcurrent guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into
current guidance into

No change, incorporates current guidance into
regulations.
No change, incorporates current guidance into
regulations.
No change, incorporates current guidance into
regulations.
No change, substantively incorporates and
rewords current guidance into regulations.
No change, substantively incorporates and
rewords current guidance into regulations.

Source: Coast Guard analysis.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

We considered alternatives to these
changes and edits, and we concluded
that there were no viable alternatives.
The procedures in current Coast Guard
guidance provide a complete
description of all processes needed for
approval and oversight of the subject
organizations. Reducing or eliminating
any of them, such as the one covering
appeals, would leave a gap in the
approval or oversight processes. We did
not identify any weaknesses or gaps in
the current Coast Guard guidance, other
than the editorial changes. We also
concluded that the recordkeeping

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

information in the current Coast Guard
guidance provides complete
documentation for all the involved
parties—vessel owners or operators, and
approved organizations. Reducing or
eliminating any of the recordkeeping
rules would run the risk of producing a
gap in the documentation. Conversely,
adding additional recordkeeping rules
would only increase associated burdens,
but not provide any additional useful
information.
In summary, the rules governing
organizations approved to issue CSMs
will codify current procedures with no

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

associated costs to industry or the
government. The benefit of these rules
is that they will provide a regulatory
basis for the Coast Guard’s oversight of
organizations authorized to approve
CSMs.
d. Review of Costs and Benefits. The
total cost of this interim rule is for the
two cost elements: (1) Reporting of lost
or Jettisoned Cargo; and (2) CSM
Requirements. Table 19 presents the 10year total cost schedule assuming a preCSM baseline for undiscounted costs,
and the discounted costs at 7-percent
and 3-percent interest rates.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

28007

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF THE 10-YEAR TOTAL COST OF INTERIM RULE, UNDISCOUNTED AND DISCOUNTED AT INTEREST
RATES OF 7 PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT
Undiscounted
Year

Lost or
jettisoned
cargo

Discounted

CSM plans

Total

$475
499
523
547
570
594
642
665
689
737

$847,054
108,917
108,917
108,917
116,542
116,542
116,542
116,542
124,167
124,167

$847,529
109,416
109,440
109,464
117,112
117,136
117,184
117,207
124,856
124,904

$792,083
95,568
89,336
83,510
83,499
78,053
72,976
68,216
67,913
63,495

$822,844
103,135
100,153
97,257
101,022
98,100
95,281
92,524
95,692
92,940

Total ..............................................................................

5,941

1,888,307

1,894,248

1,494,649

1,698,948

Annualized ...........................................................................

........................

212,804

199,169

Table 20 summarizes the
undiscounted costs disaggregated by
flag, requirement, and sector.

TABLE 20—10-YEAR UNDISCOUNTED COSTS BY FLAG, REQUIREMENT, AND SECTOR
Requirement

United States ..................................................

Lost Cargo ......................................................
CSM ...............................................................

$387
1,343,875

$308
178,432

$695
1,522,307

U.S. Total ................................................
Lost Cargo ......................................................
CSM ...............................................................

1,344,262
2,930
366,000

178,740
2,323
0

1,523,002
* 5,253
366,000

Foreign Total ...........................................

368,930

2,323

371,253

.........................................................................

1,713,192

181,063

1,894,255

* Foreign ..........................................................

Total .........................................................

Industry

Federal
Government

Flag

Total

Note: Subtotals and Totals do not match with those in other tables due to independent rounding.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

The primary benefit of this interim
rule is that it places into the CFR rules
and procedures for the cargo securing
plans, the approval and oversight of
organizations authorized to approve
CSMs, and the reporting of lost or
jettisoned cargo. Additionally, the
reporting requirements for the lost or
jettisoned cargo will provide the Coast
Guard with additional information to
track and monitor the effects on both
navigation and the environment, and to
take any appropriate enforcement
actions. Overall, the interim rule will
support the Coast Guard’s missions of
maritime safety and stewardship.

e. Preliminary analysis of expanding
the affected population.
In Section V, Summary of the Rule,
and Section VI, Discussion of Comments
on SNPRM and Changes, we requested
comments on our proposal to include
self-propelled vessels less than 500
gross tons in the affected population.
We conducted a preliminary analysis of
the economic impacts of the proposal
and summarize our findings below.
The proposal would add an additional
45 foreign-flagged vessels, resulting in a
new total of 6,398 foreign-flagged
vessels. Combined with the 83 U.S.-

flagged vessels, the total affected
population would be 6,481 vessels.
The only requirement that would be
affected is the one requiring a subject
vessel to have and follow an approved
CSM. Of the 45 new vessels, 42
currently hold SOLAS cargo safety
certificates. For this preliminary
analysis we assumed that the three
vessels without a cargo safety certificate
would need to obtain an approved CSM.
This would add an additional 26,250 (3
vessels × 8,750 per new CSM). A revised
10-year cost estimate for this
requirement based on these assumptions
is presented in Table 21.

TABLE 21—COST OF CSM PLANS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE (ADDING VESSELS UNDER 500 GT TO INTERIM RULE
ESTIMATES), UNDISCOUNTED AND DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT
U.S.-flagged
cost

Year
1 ...........................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Foreignflagged

$816,554
78,417

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

$53,375
30,500

Total cost
$869,929
108,917

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

$813,018
95,132

$844,591
102,665

28008

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 21—COST OF CSM PLANS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE (ADDING VESSELS UNDER 500 GT TO INTERIM RULE
ESTIMATES), UNDISCOUNTED AND DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT—Continued
U.S.-flagged
cost

Year

Foreignflagged

Total cost

78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417
78,417

30,500
30,500
38,125
38,125
38,125
38,125
45,750
45,750

108,917
108,917
116,542
116,542
116,542
116,542
124,167
124,167

88,909
83,092
83,093
77,657
72,577
67,829
67,539
63,120

99,674
96,771
100,530
97,602
94,759
91,999
95,164
92,392

Total ..............................................................................

1,522,307

388,875

1,911,182

1,511,966

1,716,147

Annualized ...........................................................................

........................

215,270

201,185

The 7-percent annualized cost for the
proposed modification to the CSM
requirement is 215,270, compared to
212,226 for the interim rule, as shown

in Table 15. Table 22 presents a revised
10-year schedule. It adds the 26,250 cost
of new CSMs for the 3 vessels under 500
gross tons to the other requirements for

reporting lost or jettisoned cargo and
approval of classification societies.

TABLE 22—SUMMARY OF THE 10-YEAR TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE (ADDING VESSELS UNDER 500 GT TO
INTERIM RULE ESTIMATES) BY SECTOR, UNDISCOUNTED AND DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT AND 3 PERCENT
Year

Industry

Total

$779,890
99,403
99,417
99,430
107,068
107,081
107,108
107,121
114,759
114,786

$90,514
10,013
10,023
10,034
10,044
10,055
10,076
10,086
10,097
10,118

$870,404
109,416
109,440
109,464
117,112
117,136
117,184
117,207
124,856
124,904

$813,462
95,568
89,336
83,510
83,499
78,053
72,976
68,216
67,913
63,495

$845,052
103,135
100,153
97,257
101,022
98,100
95,281
92,524
95,692
92,940

Total ..............................................................................

1,736,063

181,060

1,917,123

1,516,028

1,721,156

Annualized ...........................................................................

........................

215,848

201,772

With the addition of self-propelled
vessels that are less than 500 gross tons,
the annualized cost at a 7-percent
discount rate increases to 215,848,
compared to 212,804 for the interim
rule, as shown in Table 19.
B. Small Entities

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Government

1. Summary of Findings
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) and
Executive Order (E.O.) 13272 require a
review of proposed and final rules to
assess their impacts on small entities.
An agency must prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
unless it determines and certifies that a
rule, if promulgated, would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. During the
SNPRM stage, we published an IRFA to
aid the public in commenting on the
potential small business impacts of the
proposals in the SNPRM. All interested
parties were invited to submit data and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

information regarding the potential
economic impact that would result from
adoption of the proposals in the
SNPRM.
Under the RFA, we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
We determined that this interim rule
affects a variety of large and small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations,
and governments (see the ‘‘Description
of the Potential Number of Small
Entities’’ section below). Based on the
information from this analysis, we
found—
• Using size standards from the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the 83

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

U.S-flagged vessels are controlled by 21
entities, none of which are small. The
6,353 foreign-flagged vessels are
controlled by 1,023 entities. A review of
the entities that control these vessels
found that one foreign-flagged vessel is
controlled by a non-U.S. not-for-profit
entity that is not considered to be small,
7 foreign-flagged vessels are controlled
by government agencies, and the
remaining 6,345 foreign-flagged vessels
are controlled by businesses. An
analysis of a sample of the businesses
controlling these vessels indicates that
48 percent are considered small.
• Compliance actions will consist of
upgrading deficient CSMs and reporting
lost or jettisoned cargo.
• Of the small entities in our sample
with revenue information, 62 percent of
them had an impact of less than 1
percent, and 28 percent had an impact
within the 1 percent to 3 percent range.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act also
requires an agency to conduct a final

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
unless it determines and certifies that a
rule is not expected to have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We are not able to certify that
the interim rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, we have prepared the
following FRFA.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

2. FRFA
The RFA establishes ‘‘as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives
of the rule and of applicable statutes, to
fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’
This FRFA was developed in
accordance with Section 604(a) of the
RFA. An FRFA must provide and/or
address—
a. A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule;
b. A statement of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a statement of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the rule as a result of such comments;
c. The response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA in response to the
rule, and a detailed statement of any
change made to the interim rule as a
result of the comments;
d. A description of and an estimate of
the number of small entities to which
the rule will apply or an explanation of
why no such estimate is available;
e. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record;
f. A description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the interim
rule and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

the impact on small entities was
rejected;
g. For a covered agency, as defined in
section 609(d)(2), a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize
any additional cost of credit for small
entities.
a. A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule. The Coast Guard
undertook this rulemaking to align U.S.
regulations with the CSM requirements
of SOLAS. The provisions of this rule
also authorize recognized classification
societies to review and approve CSMs
on behalf of the Coast Guard, prescribe
how other organizations can become
CSM approval authorities, and prescribe
when and how the loss or jettisoning of
cargo must be reported. Enforcing those
requirements should help prevent or
mitigate the consequences of vessel
cargo loss, and promote the Coast Guard
maritime safety and stewardship
missions.
Sections 2103 and 3306 of 46 U.S.C.
provide the statutory basis for this rule.
Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating general regulatory authority to
implement Subtitle II (Chapters 21
through 147) of Title 46, which includes
statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 33 for inspecting the vessels to
which this rule applies. Section 3306
gives the Secretary authority to regulate
an inspected vessel’s operation, fittings,
equipment, appliances, and other items
in the interest of safety. The Secretary’s
authority under both statutes has been
delegated to the Coast Guard in
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(a) and (b).
Additionally, the United States is a
party to SOLAS. Where SOLAS must be
enforced through U.S. regulations, those
regulations are authorized by E.O.
12234.
b. A statement of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a statement of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments. We received no specific
comments in response to the IRFA.
However, in response to one
commenter’s suggestion, when we
finalize this interim rule we intend to
make 33 CFR part 97, subpart A,
applicable to all self-propelled vessels,
regardless of tonnage, and not just to
vessels of 500 gross tons or more. Also
in response to comments, we have
removed seagoing barges and other nonself-propelled vessels from the
applicability of subpart A; this subpart
now is applicable only to self-propelled
vessels. In all other respects, the interim

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28009

rule is substantively unchanged from
our SNPRM proposals.
c. The response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement
of any change made to the interim rule
as a result of the comments. We
received no comments from the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA after
the publication of the SNPRM.
d. A description of, and an estimate
of, the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply or an
explanation of why no such estimate is
available. The applicable population
consists of self-propelled vessels that
carry any cargo other than solid or
liquid bulk commodities and are—
• U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in
international trade; or
• Foreign-flagged vessels that are in
the U.S. trade.
Section VII.A.3, Affected Population,
of this preamble presents an estimate of
6,436 vessels that will be subject to the
interim rule. As described in Section
VIII, Regulatory Analyses, of this
preamble, we found that 83 vessels in
the affected population were U.S.flagged. For the cost analysis, we found
that these vessels were currently in
compliance with the CSM requirements.
Also for the cost analysis, we assumed
that compliance would continue
throughout the 10-year forecast period
and we continue with that assumption
in this FRFA. The focus of this FRFA is
on the 4,353 foreign-flagged vessels,
which may be under the control of U.S.
entities or foreign entities. Table 23
displays a break-out of this population
by the type of entity that owns or
operates these vessels.

TABLE 23—NON-U.S. VESSELS BY
TYPE OF ENTITY
Entity type

Count

Percent

Business ...............
Government ..........
Not-for-Profit .........

6,345
7
1

99.87
0.11
0.02

Total ..................

6,353

100.00

All the government entities exceed
the threshold for being classified as a
small entity, as they are either agencies
of a foreign government or exceed the
50,000 population threshold. We
excluded these government entities
from the revenue impact analysis. The
single not-for-profit entity is also
deemed not small, as it is part of an
international organization.
To analyze the potential impact on
these businesses, we produced a

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28010

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

random sample with a 95-percent
confidence level and a confidence
interval of 5 percent.33 The resulting
sample consisted of 288 businesses. We
researched public and proprietary
databases and company Web sites for
the location of the company, entity type
(subsidiary or parent company), primary
line of business, employee size,
revenue, and other information.34
During the initial research, we found 1
entity that is now out of business and
excluded it from the analysis. We found
that 142 of the companies in our sample
are based in countries other than the
United States. There are another 78
entities for which we could not locate
address information. Since they operate
foreign-flagged vessels and we could not
find location information in the Coast
Guard databases and other sources, we
inferred that they are operated by firms

outside of the United States. Combining
this information, we identified a total of
221 non-U.S. companies and excluded
them from this revenue impact analysis.
The population for the revenue impact
analysis consists of the remaining 67
businesses from the working sample,
and we found address information that
locates all 67 of them in the United
States.
We researched and compiled the
employee size and revenue data for the
67 U.S. businesses and we compared
this information to the SBA ‘‘Table of
Small Business Size Standards’’ to
determine if an entity is small in its
primary line of business as classified in
the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).35 We
determined that 35 businesses exceeded
the SBA small business size standards,
and 32 businesses, or 48 percent of the

sample, are small by the SBA standards.
The information on location and size
determination is summarized in Table
24.

TABLE 24—U.S. BUSINESS BY SIZE
DETERMINATION
Entity type

Entities

Percent

Exceed the threshold ..
Below the threshold ....

35
32

52.2
47.8

Total ........................

100.0

These 32 businesses that are below
the SBA size thresholds are distributed
among 16 NAICS classified industries.
Table 25 lists the frequency, percentage,
size standard, and size threshold of
NAICS codes for the 32 small businesses
found in the sample.

TABLE 25—NAICS CODES OF IDENTIFIED SMALL BUSINESSES
NAICS code
483111
488510
487210
423310
423860

Industry

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

Percent

Size standard

Size threshold

12
5
2
1
1

37.5
15.6
6.3
3.1
3.1

Number of employees ...
Revenue .........................
Revenue .........................
Number of employees ...
Number of employees ...

500
$14,000,000
$7,000,000
100
100

1
1
1

3.1
3.1
3.1

Number of employees ...
Number of employees ...
Number of employees ...

100
100
100

1
1

3.1
3.1

Revenue .........................
Number of employees ...

$25,500,000
500

1
1
1
1
1

3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1

Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue

.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................

$14,000,000
500
$25,500,000
$14,000,000
$32,500,000

541618 ..............

Deep Sea Freight Transportation .....................
Freight Transportation Arrangement ................
Scenic & Sightseeing Transportation, Water ...
Lumber & Wood Merchant Whls ......................
Transportation Equipment and Supplies, Except Motor Vehicles.
Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
Farm Supplies Merchant Whls .........................
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers.
Boat Dealers .....................................................
Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation.
Specialized Freight Tracking Long Distance ...
Support Activities for Rail Transportation ........
Marine Cargo Handling ....................................
Farm Product Warehousing & Storage ............
Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing.
Other Management Consulting Services .........

3.1

Revenue .........................

$15,000,000

Total ..........

...........................................................................

99.7

........................................

........................

424420 ..............
424910 ..............
424990 ..............
441222 ..............
483113 ..............
484230
488210
488320
493130
532411

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Count

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

We selected the two industries that
appeared most frequently in the random
sample of entities. Businesses from
these two industries accounted for 17
entities, or 53 percent of the entities in
the random sample. Therefore, we
assume that approximately 53 percent of
all entities affected by this regulation
will be in one of these industries. A
brief description of the two industries
affected most by this rule follows.
• Deep Water Freight Transportation
(483111): This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in

providing deep sea transportation of
cargo to or from foreign ports.
• Freight Transportation
Arrangement (488510): This industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in arranging transportation of
freight between shippers and carriers.
These establishments are usually known
as freight forwarders, marine shipping
agents, or customs brokers, and offer a
combination of services spanning
transportation modes.
e. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other

compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record. The compliance
requirements of the rule consist of
upgrading deficient CSMs and reporting
lost or jettisoned cargo. Therefore, this
rule calls for a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). Details on
the burden estimate associated with this

33 We selected a statistical sample so we would
not need to research and collect employee size and
revenue information for the entire affected operator
population. We selected the operators in the sample

through a random number generator process
available in most statistical or spreadsheet software.
34 We used information and data from Cortera
(www.cortera.com), Manta (http://Manta.com), and
ReferenceUSA (http://www.referenceusa.com).

35 The SBA lists small business size standards for
industries described in the North American
Industry Classification System. See http://www.sba.
gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28011

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
collection are available in Section VIII.D
of this preamble.
As discussed in Section VIII.A,
Regulatory Planning and Review, from
2011 through 2013, the Coast Guard
conducted 14,358 vessel inspections
and found problems relating to CSMs in
only 9 instances, which amounts to
approximately 0.1 percent of the
foreign-flagged vessels whose CSMs
were deficient. We anticipate that the
owners or operators of these vessels will
upgrade their CSMs to meet standards
and comply with this rule. We do not
have detailed descriptions on each of
the deficiency cases. To estimate a cost
for this compliance action, we apply the
estimate of $7,625 to remedy a CSM, as
used in the Regulatory Analysis.
For reporting lost or jettisoned cargo,
we noted in Section VIII.A, Cost
Discussions, that when one of these

incidents occurs, the vessel staff already
collects the needed information for
company purposes. Thus, the only
additional cost to the vessel is to report
this information to the Coast Guard. We
estimate the additional reporting will
take 0.25 hours for the vessel’s Master
or other senior officer to compile and
transmit the report to the Coast Guard.
We estimate that the loaded wage rate
for the Master or senior officer is $53.00
per hour. The cost of reporting is $13.25
(0.25 hours × $53 per hour).
As discussed in Section VIII.A,
Regulatory Planning and Review, we
adjusted the affected population to
account for anticipated growth in
container traffic. In our 10-year analysis,
we estimate that the number of vessels
that will need to upgrade their CSMs
will be 4 in Years 1 through 5, and will

increase to 6 in Year 10. We also
accounted for this growth in container
traffic in our estimate of lost or
jettisoned cargoes. In Section VIII.A,
Cost Discussions, we estimate that in
the first year the rule becomes effective,
20 incidents of lost or jettisoned cargo
will occur. We estimate that the affected
population in that year consists of 6,436
U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels,
yielding an incident rate of 0.3 percent
(20 incidents/6,436 vessels). To execute
a revenue impact analysis, we posited
that in any given year, each business
would have one vessel that will need to
upgrade its CSM and one vessel that
will experienc an incident of lost or
jettisoned cargo. Given these
assumptions, the total annual
compliance cost for any company is
$7,638.25, as shown in Table 26.

TABLE 26—ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COST FOR REVENUE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Cost

Loaded wage

Total cost

Upgrading 1 CSM ........................................................................................................................
Reporting 1 hazardous condition .................................................................................................

N/A
$53

N/A
0.25

$7,625
13.25

Total ......................................................................................................................................

........................

7,638.25

population will have an impact of less
than 1 percent and the other 28 percent
will have an impact between 1 percent
and 3 percent.
f. A description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the interim
rule. Also, include a description
explaining why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect
the impact on small entities was
TABLE 27—ESTIMATED REVENUE
rejected. Our cost estimate for the
reporting of the lost or jettisoned cargo
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
was based on information indicating
Percentage that the vessel’s crew already collects
Revenue impact
Count
of
the needed information for business
class
companies
reasons. The only additional step
Less than 1% ........
20
62.5 required by this interim rule is to
1% to 3% ..............
9
28.1 prepare the message to the Coast Guard,
3% to 5% ..............
1
3.1 and that message can be delivered by a
Less than 5% ........
2
6.3 variety of electronic media. Thus, this
interim rule minimizes the burden to a
Total ..................
32
100.0 vessel’s crew in order to provide
additional information to the Coast
As shown in Table 22, the highest
Guard to enhance its execution of its
cost to industry in any one year on an
maritime environmental protection
undiscounted basis is $114,786, which
mission.
occurs in Year 10.
For CSMs, this interim rule is based
The revenue impact analysis indicates solely on current requirements
that 62 percent of the affected
contained in SOLAS and current Coast
For each business in our sample with
revenue data, we calculated the impact
as the assumed cost of $7,638.25 as a
percentage of that business’s annual
revenue. This produced a range of
potential revenue impacts across the
sample. Table 27 presents the impact
data in ranges of less than 1 percent, 1
to 3 percent, 3 to 5 percent, and greater
than 5 percent. As shown in this table,
for approximately 62 percent of the
companies, the revenue impact is less
than 1 percent of annual revenue, and
for approximately 28 percent of the
companies, the revenue impact is
between 1 percent and 3 percent.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Hours

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Guard guidance. Our regulatory analysis
indicates that 99 percent of the subject
vessels currently comply with these
requirements. This rule enhances the
Coast Guard’s maritime safety mission
without adding any new requirements
to vessel owners and operators.
Alternatives were considered in this
interim rule and are discussed in
section VIII.A, Cost Discussions, of this
preamble. Alternatives include various
ways to apply the requirements to
prepare and implement CSMs to U.S.flagged vessels in coastwise trade.
However, we concluded that standards
developed for international trade cannot
be economically justified for vessels
operating only domestically at this time.
Therefore, the focus of this interim rule
is exclusively on vessels in international
trade.
g. For a covered agency, as defined in
section 609(d)(2), a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize
any additional cost of credit for small
entities. The Coast Guard is not a
covered agency.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we offered to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking. The

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28012

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 rule calls for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
‘‘collection of information’’ comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring,
posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The title and description of the
information collection, a description of
those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual
burden follow. The estimate covers the
time for preparing and reporting for the
development of a CSM, revising a CSM,
notification of other hazardous
conditions, and notification of lost or
jettisoned cargo.
This collection of information applies
to rulemaking procedures regarding
CSMs. Specific areas covered in this
information collection include 33 CFR
part 97, ‘‘Cargo Securing Manuals;’’ 33
CFR part 160, ‘‘Ports and Waterways

Safety-General;’’ and 46 CFR part 97,
‘‘Operations.’’ This rule will align the
CFR with SOLAS.
TITLE: Cargo Securing Manuals.
OMB CONTROL NUMBER: 1625–
0122.
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION OF
INFORMATION: The rule will add a
new part 97, ‘‘Cargo Securing Manuals’’
to chapter 33 of the CFR. The collection
of information burden for CSMs derives
from one of these three events:
• A SOLAS container vessel built
after the rule becomes effective will
need to develop and implement a CSM.
The new vessel will need an approved
CSM.
• If a vessel changes its type, the CSM
must be revised. An example of a type
change is when a general break-bulk
carrier is modified to become a
containership.
• If an existing vessel either changes
15 percent of its cargo securing systems
or more than 15 percent of its portable
securing devices, the CSM must be
revised.
Additionally, this interim rule will
impose burdens for the notification of
hazardous conditions. Currently, these
notifications are made via VHS radio,
satellite radio, cell phones, and other
forms of electronic communication. The
rule specifically allows for electronic
communications, and we anticipate this
will continue to be how the
notifications are transmitted.
Need for Information: Vessel owners
or operators need to develop and
implement CSMs to fulfill international
safety standards established by SOLAS.
The Coast Guard needs timely
information on hazardous conditions to

carry out its missions relating to
protecting vessels, their crews and
passengers, and the environment.
Proposed use of Information: For new
and modified CSMs, Coast Guardauthorized third-party organizations
will review these CSMs and, if they are
found to be acceptable, approve them.
The Coast Guard will use the
information from the notification of
hazardous conditions to inform other
vessel operators or waterway users of
the situation and initiate any needed
measures to reduce or eliminate the
hazard. These actions will lead to a
reduction of vessel casualties and
pollution.
Description of Respondents: There are
three groups of respondents impacted
by this interim rule:
• Owners or operators of U.S.-flagged
vessels that will need to submit new or
revised CSMs to the recognized
classification societies.
• Recognized classification societies
and other approved third-party
organizations that will review the CSMs
on behalf of the Coast Guard.
• The operators of vessels that will be
required to report hazardous conditions.
Number of Respondents: We estimate
that there will be 276 respondents
affected annually by the CSM
requirements. The total is divided into
these three classes: (1) 83 for new CSMs;
(2) 9 for revisions to existing CSMs; and
(3) 184 notifications of hazardous
conditions, which include lost or
jettisoned cargo and other incidents.
Table 28 describes the calculations for
developing the estimates of each
requirement relating to the CSM plans.

TABLE 28—ESTIMATES OF NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Class

Requirement

Description

CSM ..................................

Develop CSM, new vessel
Revise CSM, change in
vessel type.
Revise CSM, replace
CSM systems or equipment.

83 in Year 1 ................................................................
MISLE data shows none of the affected vessels
have changed vessel type from 2001–2012.
Annual rate of 11.3% from information supplied by
an approved organization. Applied to U.S. population (see Table 3), (83 × 11.3%).

83
0

........................
........................

........................

..........................................
Notifications of hazardous
condition.
Notifications of lost or jettisoned cargo.

.....................................................................................
From MISLE, average of 2009–2011 notifications ....

........................
180

92
........................

U.S. notifications, Table 8, year 10 ............................

........................

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

CSM Total .................
Notifications ......................

Count

Total

Notifications Total ......

..........................................

.....................................................................................

........................

184

Grand Total ........

..........................................

.....................................................................................

........................

276

Frequency of Response: A CSM is
valid indefinitely, provided it does not
meet any of the conditions for a
revision. The reporting of hazardous

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

conditions occurs as needed. In the
subsequent ‘‘Number of Respondents’’
section, we present annual estimates of
the reports.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Burden of Response: The burden
hours per requirement is estimated and
shown below in Table 29.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

28013

TABLE 29—ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS PER REQUEST
Requirement

Hours

Develop new CSM ......................................................................
Revise CSM—change in vessel type .........................................
Revise CSM—change in cargo securing systems or equipment
Notification of hazardous condition ............................................
Notification of lost of jettisoned cargo ........................................

Estimated Total Annual Burden: We
estimate that the total annual burden to
industry will be 4,210 hours. Table 30
displays the total burden hours for each
request:

TABLE 30—TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN
HOURS
Requirement

Hours

Develop new CSM ........................
Revise CSM, change in vessel
type ...........................................
Revise CSM, change in cargo securing systems or equipment ....
Notification of hazardous condition ............................................
Notification of lost or jettisoned
cargo .........................................

3,984

Total ..........................................

4,210

0
180
45
1

Note: Total does not exactly sum due to
independent rounding.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Reason For Change: This interim rule
will require collections of information
regarding these two activities: (1)
Development or revision of a CSM; and
(2) notification of hazardous conditions,
including lost or jettisoned cargo.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that we
consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. According to the
1995 amendments to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi),
an agency may not collect or sponsor
the collection of information, nor may it
impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This interim rule will impose new
information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we will
submit these new information collection
requirements to OMB for its review.
Notice of OMB information collection
will be published in a future Federal
Register notice.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

Notes
48
48
20
0.25
0.25

8 hours to survey the vessel and 40 hours to draft the CSM.
8 hours to survey the vessel and 40 hours to draft the CSM.
20 hours to revise the existing CSM.
0.25 hours for vessel crew to prepare and transmit the notice.
0.25 hours for vessel crew to prepare and transmit the notice.

responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this rule under E.O. 13132 and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism. Our
analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled, now, that all of the
categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306,
3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of
vessels), as well as the reporting of
casualties and any other category in
which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s
obligations, are within the field
foreclosed from regulation by the States.
(See the decision of the Supreme Court
in the consolidated cases of United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v.
Locke.) 36
This rule on cargo securing falls into
the category of vessel operation.
Because the States may not regulate
within this category, the rule is
consistent with the principles of
federalism and preemption
requirements in E.O. 13132.
Additionally, 33 CFR 160.215 is
promulgated under the authority of the
Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Title I,
and therefore, under the principles of
Locke, preempts any conflicting or
similar State regulations.37 The Locke
court also held that Congress preempted
the field of marine casualty reporting.
The Coast Guard does not believe that
this proposed amendment to an existing
reporting requirement would be
preemptive of any existing State or local
regulations or requirements. However,
any prospective State requirement for
information reporting that conflicts with
or is similar to the one proposed in this
interim rule would be inconsistent with
the federalism principles enunciated in
Locke and therefore would be
preempted.
The Coast Guard recognizes the key
role that State and local governments
36 529

U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).
our statement to this effect, 68 FR 9537 at
9543 (Feb. 28, 2003).
37 See

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 interim rule has implications for
federalism under E.O. 13132, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4, 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 rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 rule under E.O.
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28014

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

will not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this 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.
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 E.O.
13211.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in their regulatory
activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through the 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.
This rule uses technical standards
other than voluntary consensus
standards. It incorporates two circulars
and one resolution adopted by arms of
the International Maritime Organization,
an international organization under
United Nations auspices, of which the
United States is a member state. The
two circulars describe in detail how a
vessel’s owner or operator may comply
with CSM requirements contained in
the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea. The resolution
provides guidelines for third parties
acting on behalf of a government agency
like the Coast Guard.
All three documents may be obtained
from the IMO using the address given in
the regulatory text for new 33 CFR
97.110.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This rule is
categorically excluded under section
2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(d) and
under section 6(a) of the ‘‘Appendix to
National Environmental Policy Act:
Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency
Policy’’ (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002).
This rule involves regulations which
concern documentation and equipping
of vessels, as well as regulations
concerning vessel operation safety
standards. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion are
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
Cargo stowage and securing, Cargo
vessels, Hazardous materials,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
33 CFR Part 160
Administrative practice and
procedure, Harbors, Hazardous
materials transportation, Marine safety,
Navigation (water), Personally
identifiable information, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen,
Vessels, Waterways.
46 CFR Part 97
Cargo vessels, Marine safety,
Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR chapter I and 46 CFR part 97 as
follows:
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable
Waters
1. Add part 97 to subchapter F to read
as follows:

■

PART 97—RULES FOR THE SAFE
OPERATION OF VESSELS, STOWAGE
AND SECURING OF CARGOES
Subpart A—Cargo Securing Manuals
Sec.
97.100 Applicability—Electronic
documentation.
97.105 Definitions.
97.110 Incorporation by reference.
97.115 Reporting lost or jettisoned cargo.
97.120 Cargo securing manuals.
97.121–97.199 [Reserved]

Frm 00030

Fmt 4700

Subpart B—[Reserved]
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O.
12234; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(a) and (b).

PART 97—RULES FOR THE SAFE
OPERATION OF VESSELS, STOWAGE
AND SECURING OF CARGOES
Subpart A—Cargo Securing Manuals
§ 97.100 Applicability—Electronic
documentation.

33 CFR Part 97

PO 00000

97.200 Cargo securing manual (CSM)
approval for U.S.-flagged vessels on
international voyages.
97.205 Requirements for amending an
approved cargo securing manual (CSM).
97.210 Appeals.
97.211–97.299 [Reserved]
97.300 Authorized cargo securing manual
(CSM) approval authorities.
97.305 Requests for authorization to act as
cargo securing manual (CSM) approval
authority.
97.310 Criteria for authorization.
97.315 Requirements for authorized
approval organizations.
97.320 Revocation of authorization.

Sfmt 4700

(a) This subpart applies to—
(1) A self-propelled cargo vessel of
500 gross tons or more, on an
international voyage, that must comply
with Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter VII/5 of
the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended
(SOLAS), that does not solely carry
liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, and that
is either a U.S.-flagged self-propelled
cargo vessel, or a foreign-flagged selfpropelled cargo vessel that is operating
in waters subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States;
(2) A U.S.-flagged self-propelled cargo
vessel that chooses to have this subpart
applied to it by submitting a cargo
securing manual for approval in
accordance with § 97.200(a)(3);
(3) A foreign-flagged self-propelled
cargo vessel of 500 gross tons or more
on an international voyage from a
country that is not a signatory to
SOLAS, that would otherwise be
required to comply with Chapter VI/5.6
or Chapter VII/5 of SOLAS, that does
not solely carry liquid or solid cargoes
in bulk, and that is operating in waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States; and
(4) Any organization applying to be
selected as a cargo securing manual
approval authority.
(b) This subpart does not apply to a
vessel owned by the Maritime
Administration that is part of the Ready
Reserve Force or the title of which is
vested in the United States and which
is used for public purposes only.
(c) Any manual, letter, request,
appeal, or ruling required by this

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
§ 97.110

subpart may be provided or submitted
in electronic form or in printed form.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

§ 97.105

Definitions.

As used in this subpart—
Approval authority means a CSM
approval authority, as that term is
defined in this section.
Cargo means the goods or
merchandise conveyed in a vessel, and
includes, but is not limited to, cargo that
can be measured as a ‘‘cargo unit’’ as
that term is used in the International
Maritime Organization’s Code of Safe
Practice for Cargo Stowage and
Securing, 2003 edition: ‘‘a vehicle,
container, flat, pallet, portable tank,
packaged unit, or any other entity, etc.,
and loading equipment, or any part
thereof, which belongs to the ship but
is not fixed to the ship . . .’’; but it does
not include other vessel equipment or
the incidental personal possessions of
persons on board the vessel.
Cargo safe access plan (CSAP) means
a plan included in the cargo securing
manual that provides detailed
information on safe access for persons
engaged in work connected with cargo
stowage and securing on ships that are
specifically designed and fitted for the
purpose of carrying containers.
Cargo securing manual (CSM) means
an electronic or printed manual
developed to meet the requirements of
SOLAS and this subpart and that is used
by the master of a vessel to properly
stow and secure cargoes on the vessel
for which it is developed.
Cargo securing manual approval
authority or CSM approval authority
means an organization that meets the
requirements of this subpart, and that
the Commandant has authorized to
conduct certain actions and issue
electronic or printed approval letters on
behalf of the United States.
Captain of the Port (COTP) means the
U.S. Coast Guard officer as described in
33 CFR 6.01–3.
Commandant, except as otherwise
specified, means the Chief, Office of
Operating and Environmental
Standards, whose address is
Commandant (CG–OES), 2703 Martin
Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509,
Washington, DC 20593–7509 and whose
telephone number is 202–372–1404.
Container means an article of
transport equipment described in 49
CFR 450.3.
Container vessel means a vessel
specifically designed and fitted for the
purpose of carrying containers.
International voyage means a voyage
between a port or place in one country
(or its possessions) and a port or place
in another country.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. All approved material is
available for inspection by contacting
Mr. Ken Smith of the Coast Guard’s
Vessel and Facility Operating Standards
Division, Commandant (CG–OES–2);
telephone 202–372–1413, email
[email protected], and is available
from the sources listed below. It is also
available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030 or go to http://www.
archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) International Maritime
Organization (IMO), Publications
Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London,
SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44(0)20
7735 7611, http://www.imo.org.
(1) MSC.1/Circ.1352, Amendments to
the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo
Stowage and Securing (CSS Code), June
30, 2010 (Maritime Safety Committee
Circular), IBR approved for § 97.120(b).
(2) MSC.1/Circ. 1353/Rev.1, Revised
Guidelines for the Preparation of the
Cargo Securing Manual, December 15,
2014 (Maritime Safety Committee
Circular), IBR approved for § 97.120(a).
(3) Resolution A.739(18)
(Res.A.739(18)), Guidelines for the
Authorization of Organizations Acting
on Behalf of the Administration,
November 22, 1993 (Assembly
Resolution), IBR approved for
§ 97.310(a).
§ 97.115
cargo.

Reporting lost or jettisoned

(a) In the event a vessel loses or
jettisons at sea any cargo described in
paragraph (b) of this section, it must
comply with the immediate notification
requirements of 33 CFR 160.215, and if
the cargo contains hazardous material as
defined in paragraph (c) of this section,
the vessel must also report it as soon as
possible in accordance with 49 CFR
176.48.
(b) The cargo to which this section
applies includes any container and any
other cargo the loss or jettisoning of
which could adversely affect the safety
of any vessel, bridge, structure, or shore
area or the environmental quality of any
port, harbor, or navigable waterway of
the United States.
(c) As used in this section,
‘‘hazardous material’’ means a substance
or material designated by the Secretary
of Transportation as capable of posing
an unreasonable risk to health, safety,
and property when transported in

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28015

commerce. The term includes hazardous
substances, hazardous wastes, marine
pollutants, and elevated temperature
materials as defined in 49 CFR 171.8,
materials designated as hazardous under
the provisions of 49 CFR 172.101, and
materials that meet the defining criteria
for hazard classes and divisions in 49
CFR part 173.
§ 97.120

Cargo securing manuals.

(a) Any vessel to which this subpart
applies must have a cargo securing
manual (CSM) on board that has been
approved by the government of the
country whose flag the vessel is entitled
to fly; and a CSM approved after June
30, 2010, must, at a minimum, meet the
guidelines in MSC.1/Circ. 1353/Rev.1,
(incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR
97.110).
(b) A container vessel with a keel laid
on or after January 1, 2015, must
include a cargo safe access plan that, at
a minimum, meets the guidelines in
MSC.1/Circ.1352, Annex 14, Guidance
on Providing Safe Working Conditions
for Securing of Containers on Deck
(incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR
97.110).
(c) While operating in waters under
the jurisdiction of the United States, the
Coast Guard may board any vessel to
which this subpart applies to determine
that the vessel has the document(s)
required by paragraph (a) of this section
on board. Any foreign-flagged vessel
found not to be in compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section may be
detained by order of the Captain of the
Port at the port or terminal where the
noncompliance is found until the COTP
determines that the vessel can go to sea
without presenting an unreasonable
threat of harm to the port, the marine
environment, the vessel, or its crew.
§§ 97.121–97.199

[Reserved]

§ 97.200 Cargo securing manual (CSM)
approval for U.S.-flagged vessels on
international voyages.

(a) Owners of U.S.-flagged vessels on
international voyages must have Cargo
Securing Manuals (CSMs) approved in
accordance with this part.
(1) An applicant for CSM approval
may be the owner or operator of the
vessel, or a person acting on the owner
or operator’s behalf.
(2) The Commandant is responsible
for overseeing and managing the review
and approval of CSM approval authority
applications and providing an up-todate list of organizations authorized to
act under this subpart, which is
available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/
cg5/cg522/cg5222, or by requesting it in
writing from the Commandant and

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

28016

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

enclosing a self-addressed, stamped
envelope.
(3) The applicant must submit two
dated copies of a CSM that meets the
requirements of this subpart to a CSM
approval authority for review and
approval. If any amendments are
submitted, they must be dated. The
CSM must include a ‘‘change page’’
document to ensure continuous
documentation of amendments made
and the dates they were completed.
(4) The approval authority will retain
one copy of the CSM for its records.
(b) If the approval authority completes
the review process and approves the
CSM, the approval authority will
provide a CSM approval letter on its
letterhead, containing—
(1) Date of CSM approval;
(2) A subject line reading:
‘‘APPROVAL OF CARGO SECURING
MANUAL (AMENDMENT—if
applicable) FOR THE M/V ____,
OFFICIAL NUMBER ____’’;
(3) The following statement: ‘‘This is
to certify that the Cargo Securing
Manual (Amendment—if applicable)
dated ____ for the M/V ____, Official
Number ____, has been approved on
behalf of the United States. The Cargo
Securing Manual (Amendment—if
applicable) was reviewed for
compliance with Maritime Safety
Committee Circular 1353 (MSC.1/Circ.
1353/Rev.1) for content, and correctness
of the calculations on which the
approval is based. This approval letter
is to be kept with the Cargo Securing
Manual, as proof of compliance with
regulations VI/5.6 and VII5 of the 2004
amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) 1974.’’;
(4) Signature of the approval authority
official responsible for review and
approval of the CSM; and
(5) The approval authority’s seal or
stamp.
(c) If the approval authority completes
the review process and disapproves the
CSM, the approval authority will
provide a letter on its letterhead,
containing—
(1) Date of CSM disapproval; and
(2) Explanation of why the CSM was
disapproved and what the submitter
must do to correct deficiencies.
(d) The submitter of a disapproved
CSM may resubmit the CSM with
amendments for further review, either to
correct deficiencies noted by the
approval authority or to expand the
CSM to fully meet the requirements of
this part.
(e) The original copy of the CSM
approval letter must be kept with the
approved CSM and its amendments,
together with supporting documents

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

and calculations used in granting the
approval, on board the vessel for review
by Coast Guard personnel upon request.
§ 97.205 Requirements for amending an
approved cargo securing manual (CSM).

Resubmission and re-approval by a
CSM approval authority are required
after any of the following events occurs:
(a) Reconfiguration of a vessel from
one type of cargo carriage to another
(e.g., a general break-bulk cargo vessel
reconfigured to a container or a roll-on/
roll-off vessel).
(b) Reconfiguration or replacement of
15 percent or more of the vessel’s fixed
cargo securing or tie-down systems with
different types of devices or systems.
(c) Replacement of 15 percent or more
of the vessel’s portable cargo securing
devices, with different types of devices
for securing the cargo not already used
aboard the vessel (e.g., wire lashings
replaced with turnbuckles or chains).
§ 97.210

Appeals.

(a) A vessel owner or operator, or
person acting on their behalf, who
disagrees with a decision of a CSM
approval authority may submit a written
appeal to the approval authority
requesting reconsideration of
information in dispute. Within 30 days
of receiving the appeal, the approval
authority must provide the submitter
with a final written ruling on the
request, with a copy to the
Commandant.
(b) A submitter who is dissatisfied
with the approval authority’s final
written ruling may appeal directly to the
Commandant. The appeal must be made
in writing and include the
documentation and supporting evidence
the submitter wants to be considered,
and may ask the Commandant to stay
the effect of the appealed decision while
it is under review by the Commandant.
(c) The Commandant will make a
decision on the appeal and send a
formal response to the submitter and a
copy to the approval authority. The
Commandant’s decision will constitute
final agency action on the appeal
request.
§§ 97.211–97.299

[Reserved]

§ 97.300 Authorized cargo securing
manual (CSM) approval authorities.

The following organizations are
authorized to act on behalf of the United
States for the review and approval of
CSMs:
(a) Any recognized classification
society to which the Coast Guard has
delegated issuance of a Cargo Ship
Safety Equipment Certificate in
accordance with 46 CFR 8.320(b)(4). A
list of these organizations can be found

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

at www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5222
in the ‘‘Summary of Authorizations’’
link.
(b) The National Cargo Bureau, Inc.,
17 Battery Place, Suite 1232, New York,
NY 10004–1110, 212–785–8300, http://
www.natcargo.org.
§ 97.305 Requests for authorization to act
as cargo securing manual (CSM) approval
authority.

An organization seeking authorization
as a CSM approval authority must make
a request to the Commandant for
authorization. The request must
include, in writing, the items listed in
this section or as otherwise specified by
the Commandant.
(a) A certified copy of the
organization’s certificate of
incorporation or partnership on file
with a U.S. State, including the name
and address of the organization, with
written statements or documents which
show that—
(1) The organization’s owners,
managers, and employees are free from
influence or control by vessel
shipbuilders, owners, operators, lessors,
or other related commercial interests as
evidenced by past and present business
practices;
(2) The organization has
demonstrated, through other related
work, the capability to competently
evaluate CSMs for completeness and
sufficiency according to the
requirements of SOLAS and this part;
(3) The organization has an acceptable
degree of financial security, based on
recent audits by certified public
accountants over the last 5 years; and
(4) The organization maintains a
corporate office in the United States that
has adequate resources and staff to
support all aspects of CSM review,
approval, and recordkeeping.
(b) A listing of the names of the
organization’s principal executives,
with titles, telephone, and telefax
numbers.
(c) A written general description of
the organization, covering the
ownership, managerial structure, and
organization components, including any
directly affiliated organizations, and
their functions utilized for supporting
technical services.
(d) A written list of technical services
the organization offers.
(e) A written general description of
the geographical area the organization
serves.
(f) A written general description of the
clients the organization is serving, or
intends to serve.
(g) A written general description of
similar work performed by the
organization in the past, noting the

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
amount and extent of such work
performed within the previous 3 years.
(h) A written listing of the names of
full-time professional staff employed by
the organization and available for
technical review and approval of CSMs
including—
(1) Naval architects and naval
engineers, with copies of their
professional credentials, college
degrees, and specialized training
certificates;
(2) Merchant mariners with Coast
Guard-issued credentials, with a
summary of their working experience on
board cargo vessels (including vessel
tonnage and types of cargo); and
(3) Written proof of staff competence
to perform CSM review and approval,
evidenced by detailed summaries of
each individual’s experience (measured
in months) during the past 5 years of
evaluating maritime cargo securing
systems. Experience summaries must be
documented on company letterhead and
endorsed by a company executive who
has had direct observation of the
individual and quality of his or her
work product.
(j) A complete description of the
organization’s internal quality control
processes, including written standards
used by the organization to ensure
consistency in CSM review and
approval procedures by qualified
professionals.
(k) A description of the organization’s
training program for assuring continued
competency of professional employees
performing CSM review and approval
who are identified in the application.
(l) Evidence of financial stability over
the past 5-year period, such as financial
reports completed independently by
certified public accountants.
(m) A list of five or more business
references, including names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of principal
executives, who can attest to the
organization’s competence within the
past 2 years.
(n) A statement to the Coast Guard
that gives its officials permission to
inspect the organization’s facilities and
records of CSM review and approval on
behalf of the United States at any time
with reasonable advance notice.
(o) Any additional information the
organization deems to be pertinent.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

§ 97.310

Criteria for authorization.

(a) The Commandant will evaluate the
organization’s request for authorization
and supporting written materials,
looking for evidence of—
(1) The organization’s clear
assignment of management duties;
(2) Ethical standards for managers and
cargo securing manual (CSM) reviewers;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

(3) Procedures for personnel training,
qualification, certification, and requalification that are consistent with
recognized industry standards;
(4) Acceptable standards available for
the organization’s internal auditing and
management review;
(5) Recordkeeping standards for CSM
review and approval;
(6) Methods used to review and
certify CSMs;
(7) Experience and knowledge
demonstrating competency to evaluate
CSMs for completeness and sufficiency
according to the requirements of
SOLAS;
(8) Methods for handling appeals; and
(9) Overall procedures consistent with
Res.A.739(18), (incorporated by
reference, see § 97.110).
(b) After a favorable evaluation of the
organization’s request, the Commandant
may arrange to visit the organization’s
corporate and port offices for an on-site
evaluation of operations.
(c) When a request is approved, the
organization and the Coast Guard will
enter into the written agreement
provided for by 33 CFR 97.315. If the
request is not approved, the
Commandant will give the organization
a written explanation, and the
organization may resubmit its request if
it corrects any noted deficiencies.
§ 97.315 Requirements for authorized
approval organizations.

Approved organizations will enter
into a written agreement with the Coast
Guard that specifies—
(a) The period the authorization is
valid;
(b) Which duties and responsibilities
the organization may perform and what
approval letters it may issue on behalf
of the U.S.;
(c) Reports and information the
organization must send to the
Commandant;
(d) Actions the organization must take
to renew the agreement when it expires;
and
(e) Actions the organization must take
if the Commandant revokes
authorization pursuant to 33 CFR
97.320.
§ 97.320

Revocation of authorization.

The Commandant may revoke a cargo
securing manual (CSM) approval
authority’s authorization and remove it
from the list of CSM approval
authorities if it fails to maintain
acceptable standards. For the purposes
of 46 CFR subpart 1.03, such a
revocation would be treated as
involving the recognition of a
classification society and could be
appealed pursuant to 46 CFR 1.03–

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28017

15(h)(4). Upon revocation, the former
approval authority must send written
notice to each vessel owner whose CSM
it approved. The notice must include
the current list of CSM approval
authorities and state—
(a) That its authorization as a CSM
approval authority has been revoked;
(b) The Coast Guard’s explanation for
the revocation; and
(c) That the vessel’s CSM remains
valid as long as amendments have not
been completed which require it to be
re-approved pursuant to 33 CFR 97.200
or 97.205.
Subpart B—[Reserved]
PART 160—PORTS AND WATERWAYS
SAFETY—GENERAL
2. The authority citation for part 160
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is
also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
1225 and 46 U.S.C. 3715.
■

3. Revise § 160.215 to read as follows:

§ 160.215

Notice of hazardous conditions.

(a) Whenever there is a hazardous
condition either on board a vessel or
caused by a vessel or its operation, the
owner, agent, master, operator, or
person in charge must immediately
notify the nearest Coast Guard Sector
Office or Group Office, and in addition
submit any report required by 46 CFR
4.05–10.
(b) When the hazardous condition
involves cargo loss or jettisoning as
described in 33 CFR 97.115, the
notification required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include—
(1) What was lost, including a
description of cargo, substances
involved, and types of packages;
(2) How many were lost, including the
number of packages and quantity of
substances they represent;
(3) When the incident occurred,
including the time of the incident or
period of time over which the incident
occurred;
(4) Where the incident occurred,
including the exact or estimated
location of the incident, the route the
ship was taking, and the weather (wind
and sea) conditions at the time or
approximate time of the incident; and
(5) How the incident occurred,
including the circumstances of the
incident, the type of securing equipment
that was used, and any other material
failures that may have contributed to the
incident.

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

28018

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Title 46—Shipping
PART 97—OPERATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 97
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C.
2103, 3306, 6101; 49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
■

4. Add § 97.12–10 to read as follows:

§ 97.12–10

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

Cargo securing manuals.

Each U.S.-flagged vessel that must
comply with Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter
VII/5 of the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as
amended must have on board a cargo
securing manual that meets the
requirements of 33 CFR part 97.
Dated: April 28, 2016.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0090]
RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.

AGENCY:

The Coast Guard is
temporarily changing the operating
schedule that governs the Oregon State
(Old Youngs Bay) highway bridge, mile
2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth
Street at Astoria, OR. The Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT)
requested to change the operating
schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge
for work on both bascule lifts. This
change will allow ODOT to operate the
double bascule draw in single leaf
mode, one lift at a time, which will
reduce the vertical clearance of the nonoperable half of the span by five feet.
DATES: This temporary final rule is
effective from 12 a.m. on June 16, 2016
through 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2016–
0090 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 May 06, 2016

Jkt 238001

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§ Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
ODOT Oregon State Department of
Transportation
TFR Temporary Final Rule

II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis

[FR Doc. 2016–10725 Filed 5–6–16; 8:45 am]

ACTION:

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
final rule, call or email Steven M.
Fischer, Bridge Administrator,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge
Program Office, telephone 206–220–
7282; email d13-pf-d13bridges@
uscg.mil.

The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary final rule (TFR) without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because to do so
would be unnecessary. This deviation is
already in place and waterway users are
already acting in accordance with the
schedule with no actual or anticipated
impacts. Additionally, in response to
the initial request from the ODOT, the
Coast Guard published a notice of
deviation on February 3, 2016, 81 FR
6758, which temporarily changed the
operating schedule of the Old Youngs
Bay Bridge through June 15, 2016. The
Coast Guard contacted known waterway
users who indicated such a deviation
would have no significant impact.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to provide
an opportunity for notice and comment.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The
ODOT owns and operates the Old
Youngs Bay Bridge in accordance with
33 CFR 117.899(b). This bridge provides
a vertical clearance approximately 19
feet above mean high water when in the

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

closed-to-navigation position. ODOT is
conducting bridge repairs, which are
scheduled to be complete on October
31, 2016. In order to facilitate bridge
repairs, one half of the double bascule
bridge will have a containment system
installed on the non-opening half of the
span. This containment system will
reduce the vertical clearance of the
bridge by 5 feet, or 14 feet above mean
high water. Both the previous notice of
temporary deviation and this TFR allow
the drawtender to open only half the
draw span in single leaf mode.
Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists
of vessels ranging from small pleasure
craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing
boats, and commercial tug and tow, and
mega yachts.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
We are amending 33 CFR 117.899 to
indicate that half of the double bascule
span of the Youngs Bay Bridge will be
opened instead of both spans once
notice has been provided to the
drawtender at the Lewis and Clark River
Bridge. The draw span will be operable
from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends. This
amendment will be in effect from 12
a.m. on June 16, 2016 through 11:59
p.m. on October 31, 2016, after which
the bridge will be able to open both
spans as before. The TFR is necessary to
accommodate extensive maintenance
and restoration efforts on the Old
Youngs Bay Bridge. The TFR will allow
construction workers to complete bridge
and highway upgrades before winter,
while having minimal impact on
maritime navigation.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.(s)) related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and
E.O.(s), and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
it has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget. This
regulatory action determination is based

E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM

09MYR1

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	2016-05-07
File Created	2016-05-07