1625-0072 PIC Fuel Transfers NPRM 20190814

PIC_FuelTransfers_NPRM_190814.pdf

Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue Recordkeeping

1625-0072 PIC Fuel Transfers NPRM 20190814

OMB: 1625-0072

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1625-0072 can be found here:

2020-11-10 - Revision of a currently approved collection

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Analysis. (A) The relevant factors for
classifying the transaction between Corp A
and Data Center Operator are analyzed in the
same manner as the computing capacity and
data storage transactions in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (8) of this section (Example 1 and
Example 8), respectively, such that the
transaction between Corp A and Data Center
Operator is classified as a provision of
services by Data Center Operator to Corp A
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(B) A transaction between Corp A and an
end-user is a cloud transaction described in
paragraph (b) of this section because the enduser obtains a non-de minimis right to ondemand network access to digital content of
Corp A.
(C) An end-user has neither physical
possession of nor control of the digital
content. Additionally, Corp A has the right
to determine the digital content used in the
cloud transaction and retains the right to
modify its selection of digital content. Digital
content accessed by end-users is a
component of an integrated operation in
which Corp A’s other responsibilities include
maintaining and updating its content catalog.
Corp A’s end-users do not obtain a significant
economic or possessory interest in any of the
digital content in Corp A’s catalog. The
digital content provided by Corp A may be
accessed concurrently by multiple unrelated
end-users. Although, as a general matter,
compensation based on the passage of time
is more indicative of a lease than a service
transaction, that factor is outweighed by the
other factors, which support a services
classification. Taking into account all of the
factors, a transaction between an end-user
and Corp A is classified as a provision of
services under paragraph (c) of this section.
(10) Example 10: Downloaded digital
content subject to § 1.861–18—(i) Facts. Corp
A offers digital content in the form of videos
and music solely for download onto endusers’ computers or other electronic devices
for a fee. Once downloaded, the end-user
accesses the videos and songs from the enduser’s computer or other electronic device,
which does not need to be connected to the
internet in order to play the content. The
end-user owes no additional payment to Corp
A for the ability to play the content in the
future.
(ii) Analysis. Under paragraph (b) of this
section, the download of digital content onto
an end-user’s computer for storage and use
on that computer does not constitute ondemand network access by the end-user to
the digital content of Corp A. Accordingly,
the transaction between the end-user and
Corp A is not a cloud transaction described
in paragraph (b) of this section, and this
section does not apply to the transaction.
Because the transaction involves the transfer
of digital content as defined in § 1.861–
18(a)(3), it will be classified under § 1.861–
18. See § 1.861–18(h)(21).
(11) Example 11: Access to online
database—(i) Facts. Corp A offers an online
database of industry-specific materials. Endusers access the materials through Corp A’s
website, which aggregates and organizes
information topically and hosts a proprietary
search engine. Corp A hosts the website and
database on its own servers and provides

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

multiple end-users access to the website and
database concurrently. Corp A is solely
responsible for maintaining and replacing the
servers, website, and database (including
adding or updating materials in the
database). End-users have no ability to alter
the servers, website, or database. Most
materials in Corp A’s database are publicly
available by other means, but Corp A’s
website offers an efficient way to locate and
obtain the information on demand. Certain
materials in Corp A’s database constitute
digital content within the meaning of
§ 1.861–18(a)(3), and Corp A pays the
copyright owners a license fee for using
them. Each end-user may download any of
the materials to its own computer and keep
such materials without further payment. The
end-user pays Corp A a fee based on the
number of searches or the amount of time
spent on the website, and such fee is not
dependent on the amount of materials the
end-user downloads. The fee that the enduser pays is substantially higher than the
stand-alone charge for accessing the same
digital content outside of Corp A’s system.
(ii) Analysis. (A) Corp A’s provision to an
end-user of access to Corp A’s website and
online database is a cloud transaction
described in paragraph (b) of this section
because the end-user obtains a non-de
minimis right to on-demand access to Corp
A’s computer hardware and software
resources.
(B) An end-user’s downloading of the
digital content would be classified as a sale
of copyrighted articles under § 1.861–18.
Nonetheless, taking into account the entire
arrangement, including that the primary
benefit to the end-user is access to Corp A’s
database and its proprietary search engine,
and that the stand-alone charge for accessing
the digital content would be substantially
less than the fee Corp A charges, the
downloads are de minimis. Accordingly,
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, there
is no separate classification of the
downloads.
(C) The end-user has neither physical
possession of nor control of the database,
software, or the servers that host the database
or software. Corp A retains the right to
replace its servers and update its software
and database. The database, software, and
servers are part of an integrated operation in
which Corp A is responsible for curating the
database, updating the software, and
maintaining the servers. Corp A provides
each end-user on-demand network access to
its software and online database concurrently
with other end-users. Certain end-users pay
Corp A a fee based on time spent on Corp
A’s website, which could be construed as
compensation based on the passage of time
and thus be more indicative of a lease than
a service transaction. However, the fee that
the end-user pays is substantially higher than
the stand-alone charge for accessing the same
digital content outside of Corp A’s system.
Accordingly, on balance, the fee arrangement
supports the classification of the transaction
as a service transaction. Taking into account
all of these factors, the arrangement between
end-users and Corp A is treated as the
provision of services under paragraph (c) of
this section.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40329

(e) Effective/applicability date. This
section applies to cloud transactions
occurring pursuant to contracts entered
into in taxable years beginning on or
after the date of publication of a
Treasury decision adopting these rules
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
(f) Change in method of accounting
required by this section. In order to
comply with this section, a taxpayer
engaging in a cloud transaction
pursuant to a contract entered into on or
after the date described in paragraph (e)
of this section may be required to
change its method of accounting. If so
required, the taxpayer must secure the
consent of the Commissioner in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 1.446–1(e) and the applicable
administrative procedures for obtaining
the Commissioner’s consent under
section 446(e) for voluntary changes in
methods of accounting.
§ 1.937–3

[Amended]

Par. 5. Section 1.937–3 is amended by
removing Examples 4 and 5 from
paragraph (e).

■

Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019–17425 Filed 8–9–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[Docket No. USCG–2018–0493]
RIN 1625–AC50

Person in Charge of Fuel Transfers
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comments.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard is proposing
to amend the requirements regulating
personnel permitted to serve as a person
in charge (PIC) of fuel oil transfers on an
inspected vessel by adding the option of
using a letter of designation (LOD) in
lieu of a Merchant Mariner Credential
(MMC) with a Tankerman-PIC
endorsement. Thousands of towing
vessels are currently transitioning from
being uninspected vessels to becoming
inspected vessels. This proposal would
allow a PIC currently using the LOD
option on one of those uninspected
vessels to continue to use that option to
perform the same fuel oil transfers once
the vessel receives its initial Certificate

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40330

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

of Inspection. Under this proposal,
obtaining a MMC with a Tankerman-PIC
endorsement would become optional for
PICs of fuel oil transfers on inspected
vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before October 15, 2019. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on collection of
information must reach OMB on or
before October 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2018–0493 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
Collection of information. Submit
comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VI. D
of this preamble both to the Coast
Guard’s online docket and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the White House Office of
Management and Budget using one of
the following two methods:
• Email: dhsdeskofficer@
omb.eop.gov.
• Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document call or
email Cathleen Mauro, Office of
Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG–
MMC–1), Coast Guard; telephone 202–
372–1449, email Cathleen.B.Mauro@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
A. Requirements in 33 CFR Part 155 for
Person in Charge of Fuel Oil Transfers
B. Cargo-Based Origins of Requirements To
Obtain MMC Tankerman-PIC
Endorsement
C. Different Standards Are Appropriate for
Fuel Oil Transfers
D. Federal Advisory Committee
Recommendations
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Amendments to § 155.710(e)
B. Proposed Amendments to § 155.715
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
The Coast Guard views public
participation as essential to effective
rulemaking and 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 https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, call or email the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents
this proposal mentions as being
available in the docket, and all public
comments, will be available in our
online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed
by following that website’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 if a final rule is published.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting but you may submit a request
for one using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking we will issue a Federal
Register notice to announce the date,
time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Certificate of Inspection
CPI–U Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOI Declaration of inspection
FR Federal Register
GSA General Services Administration
LOD Letter of designation

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

MERPAC Merchant Marine Personnel
Advisory Committee
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MPH Miles per hour
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person in charge
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
§ Section
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard’s authority under
Subtitle II and Chapter 700 of Title 46
United States Code, specifically 46
U.S.C 3306 and 70034,1 allows us to
establish and amend regulations for a
person in charge (PIC) of fuel oil
transfers. This proposed rule is
authorized by Subtitle II provisions to
regulate lightering (46 U.S.C. 3715) and
personnel qualifications for all
inspected vessels, including nontank
vessels (46 U.S.C. 3703), and by 46
U.S.C. chapter 700 provisions regarding
waterfront safety, including protection
of navigable waters and the resources
therein (46 U.S.C. 70011).
This proposed rule would allow an
alternative method of meeting
requirements for personnel allowed to
serve as the PIC of a fuel oil transfer on
an inspected vessel. In 1998, the Coast
Guard established the option of using a
letter of designation (LOD) for
uninspected vessels in 33 CFR
155.710(e)(2).2 The LOD designates the
holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil
and states that the holder has received
sufficient formal instruction from the
operator or agent of the vessel to ensure
his or her ability to safely and
adequately carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the PIC.3 The same
year we created the LOD option, we
stated that the formal instruction
required by this option should ensure
that personnel acting as PICs of fuel oil
transfers have the ability to safely and
adequately carry out their duties and
1 Authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 was formerly
reflected in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On December 4, 2018,
the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2018, Public Law 115–282, was enacted. Its
section 401 titled ‘‘Codification of Ports and
Waterways Safety Act,’’ restated the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) authorities in an
enacted title of the U.S. Code. Specifically, it added
chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, to Title
46. Also, its section 402 repealed the PWSA (Pub.
L. 92–340), as amended, which had been reflected
in 33 U.S.C. 1221–1231, 1232–1232b.
2 See Qualifications for Tankermen and for
Persons in Charge of Transfers of Dangerous Liquids
and Liquefied Gases final rule (63 FR 35822, July
1, 1998).
3 33 CFR 155.715.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
responsibilities while minimizing the
risks of pollution from fuel oil spills.4
Thousands of towing vessels are
currently transitioning from being
uninspected vessels to becoming
inspected vessels.5 While this proposed
rule is not limited to towing vessels, it
would allow a PIC currently using the
LOD option on one of those uninspected
towing vessels to continue to use that
option to perform the same fuel oil
transfers once the vessel becomes an
inspected vessel. Both Executive Orders
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) and 13777 (Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda) direct us to
eliminate unnecessary regulatory
burdens.6 We believe that the LOD
option provides a level of safety and
protection for fuel oil transfers
equivalent to the Tankerman-PIC
option, while eliminating the burden of
obtaining and maintaining a Merchant
Mariner Credential (MMC). As a result,
the Coast Guard is proposing to add this
LOD alternative so that individuals on
inspected vessels would have an option
that is currently only available to
individuals on uninspected vessels.
This option would be available only
for transfers of fuel oil. The PIC
requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(a), (b)
and (f) for vessels transferring cargo
would remain unchanged.
IV. Background
The need to issue this proposed rule
to eliminate an unnecessary burden
became more evident after we published
the ‘‘Inspection of Towing Vessels’’ final
rule. As towing vessels transition from
an uninspected to inspected status, fuel
transfer operations on thousands of
towing vessels will now require PICs to
have MMCs instead of LODs even
though fueling operations remain
unchanged.7 The change in the PIC
requirement was triggered by the
transition to inspected vessels.
The requirements for a Tankerman
PIC endorsement described in 46 CFR
13.210 include the completion of Coast
Guard approved training in firefighting
and in Tankship Dangerous Liquids or
Liquefied Gas as appropriate. Training
is approved under the requirements in
4 63

FR 35822, 35825, July 1, 1998.
46 CFR 136.202, and discussion in
Regulatory Analysis regarding the number of towing
vessel making this transition.
6 See Section 1(b)(11) and Section 1, respectively.
7 The ‘‘Inspection of Towing Vessels’’ final rule
established 46 CFR subchapter M, which requires
towing vessels described in 46 CFR 136.105 to
obtain a Certificate of Inspection. When towing
vessels obtain their COI, their status changes from
being an uninspected vessel to an inspected vessel,
affecting which requirements in § 155.710(e) must
be met for someone to serve as the PIC of a fuel oil
transfer. (81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016)

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

5 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

46 CFR part 10, subpart D. Formal
instruction provided by the owner or
operator of a vessel does not require
review or approval by the Coast Guard
prior to delivery.
The Coast Guard compared the
requirement to complete approved
training in order to obtain an MMC with
a Tankerman PIC endorsement for PICs
on inspected vessels and the formal
instruction provided on uninspected
vessels, as a requirement for issuing an
LOD on uninspected vessels. The Coast
Guard could not discern a meaningful
difference in fueling operations on
uninspected towing vessels and
inspected vessels that require
Tankerman-PIC endorsements. As
uninspected vessels move to becoming
inspected vessels their fuel oil transfer
operations do not change, but the
change in the requirement to hold an
MMC means the individuals conducting
the fuel oil transfer must obtain
substantially more costly training and
demonstrate experience with cargo
transfers. While fuel oil transfers are
similar in nature to cargo transfers, they
cannot be used to demonstrate the
service requirements for a Tankerman
PIC endorsement described in 46 CFR
13.203(b). As a result, the Coast Guard
is proposing to allow the use of LODs
on all inspected vessels. The existing
§ 155.710(e)(1) requirement is overly
burdensome on personnel engaged in
fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels
that require a Declaration of Inspection
(DOI),8 and we have no evidence that it
increases the level of safety of life,
environmental protection, or protection
of property at sea beyond that provided
by the LOD option.
A. Requirements in 33 CFR Part 155 for
Person in Charge of Fuel Oil Transfers
The regulations in § 155.700 require
the designation of a PIC for any transfer
of fuel oil to, from, or within a vessel
with a capacity of 250 or more barrels,
and § 155.710(e) specifically refers to
PICs engaged in the transfer of fuel oil
requiring a DOI. Personnel designated as
a PIC through the LOD option described
in 33 CFR 155.715 must receive formal
instruction from the operator or agent of
the vessel to ensure their ability to
safely and adequately carry out the
duties and responsibilities of the PIC.
The Coast Guard believes this formal
instruction, which has been adequate
8 Section 156.150(a) requires a DOI before
commencing any transfer of fuel oil and applies to
vessels with a capacity of 250 barrels or more that
engage in the transfer of oil or hazardous material
on the navigable waters or contiguous zone of the
United States. This requirement does not apply to
public vessels. For source of applicability, see
§ 156.100.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40331

for uninspected vessels, is also adequate
for inspected vessels. Section 155.710(e)
specifies the qualifications of a PIC for
any fuel oil transfer requiring a DOI on
inspected and uninspected vessels. On
inspected vessels, the PIC of a fuel oil
transfer requiring a DOI must hold a
valid MMC with either an officer
endorsement authorizing service 9 on
board the vessel, or a Tankerman-PIC
endorsement.
Under § 155.710(e)(2), on uninspected
vessels, the PIC of a fuel oil transfer has
the option of either meeting PIC
requirements for inspected vessels, or
being designated as a PIC through an
LOD as described in 33 CFR 155.715.
The LOD must not only designate the
person as a PIC, but it must also state
that the person has received sufficient
formal instruction from the operator or
agent of the vessel to ensure his or her
ability to safely and adequately carry
out the duties and responsibilities of the
PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and
156.150.
B. Cargo-Based Origins of Requirements
To Obtain MMC Tankerman-PIC
Endorsement
In 1995, the Coast Guard established
the requirements for Tankerman-PIC
endorsements in 46 CFR part 13, which
were developed primarily for the
transfer of cargo.10 These requirements
were specifically intended to improve
the handling of liquid cargoes and
reduce the risk and severity of spills
from tankships. The provisions were not
necessarily designed for transfers of oil
solely used to fuel the propulsion or
auxiliary machinery of the vessel, but
fuel oil transfers are subject to these part
13 requirements. The part 13 training
and certification requirements, which
include service on tankships and
completion of an approved course for
Tankship Dangerous Liquids,11 are
extensive and appropriate for complex
tankship operations.
9 In our references to an officer endorsement
required under § 155.710(e), we are referring to an
officer endorsement authorizing service as a master,
mate, pilot engineer, or operator on the vessel
where the office seeks to serve as a PIC for a fuel
oil transfer.
10 A 1995 interim rule set out the handling,
transfer, and transport of oil and certain hazardous
liquid cargoes in bulk aboard vessels, and at that
time the Coast Guard concluded, ‘‘this rule will
improve the handling, transfer, and transport of
these cargoes and reduce the risk and severity of
spillage from tank vessels.’’ (60 FR 17134, April 4,
1995). When describing approval of tankerman
endorsement courses, we noted that the Coast
Guard would evaluate courses—including
simulated transfer of cargo—to determine the credit
allowed toward meeting the proposed service
requirements (60 FR at 17139).
11 Section 13.201(b)(2) and (4).

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

40332

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

C. Different Standards Are Appropriate
for Fuel Oil Transfers
Since 1998, when the Coast Guard
established the LOD option, it has
recognized that not all of the training
and service requirements for a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement were
necessary for fuel oil transfers. The
Coast Guard’s successful use of LODs
for uninspected vessels reflects that
service on a tankship, and completing
approved training oriented toward
tankships, are not necessary for nontankship inspected vessels when
transferring fuel oil. As a result, in
March 2017, the Coast Guard issued
CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01–17 titled,
‘‘Guidelines for Issuing Endorsements
for Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel
Transfers on Towing Vessels.’’
Under CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01–
17, personnel on towing vessels have
been relieved of some approved training
costs, including travel to and from
training facilities, and applicable tuition
to comply with the full Tankerman-PIC
requirements in 46 CFR part 13. In
addition, CG–MMC Policy Letter No.
01–17 relieves the requirement for
service experience on a tankship.
However, under CG–MMC Policy Letter
No. 01–17, personnel who do not hold
an officer endorsement but who seek to
be a PIC on an inspected towing vessel
still need to obtain an MMC with a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement restricted
to fuel transfers on towing vessels to
comply with § 155.710(e). This policy
eased some of the requirements for
obtaining an MMC with a qualifying
endorsement for inspected towing
vessels, but it did not completely relieve
the burden of obtaining the credential or
maintaining the endorsement through
the renewal process every 5 years and
it only addresses inspected towing
vessels—not other inspected vessels.
The review of the requirements to
obtain an MMC with a Tankerman PIC
endorsement leading to the
development of CG–MMC Policy Letter
No. 01–17 also applies to other
categories of inspected vessels
transferring fuel oil. The requirements
in 46 CFR part 13 were developed
primarily for the transfer of cargo, and
the approved training and service
requirements are not necessary when
transferring fuel oil. Although our
existing requirements for inspected
vessels that receive oil solely to fuel the
propulsion or auxiliary machinery of
the vessel offer some flexibility by
allowing a credentialed officer to act as
the PIC, in practice this is of limited
value because it is a common practice
for towing vessels to engage in
operations such as midstreaming—

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

fueling while underway and holding the
vessel midstream—where it is not
possible for the officers holding an
MMC to serve as PIC for the fuel
transfer.
D. Federal Advisory Committee
Recommendations
The Coast Guard tasked the Towing
Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) 12
and Merchant Marine Personnel
Advisory Committee (MERPAC) 13 to
review CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01–
17 and the existing PIC requirements for
vessel fuel transfers and make
recommendations for amendments.
In December 2017, after reviewing
CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01–17 and
existing regulations, TSAC
recommended that the Coast Guard
amend § 155.710(e) so that an LOD can
be used by an individual on a towing
vessel inspected under subchapter M to
satisfy the requirements for the transfer
of fuel oil described in 33 CFR 155.710.
MERPAC also reviewed CG–MMC
Policy Letter No. 01–17 and the existing
regulations. In October 2017, MERPAC
issued a report and recommendation
that viewed the policy as an appropriate
interim solution. However, MERPAC
did not endorse requiring MMCs for
PICs for the long term. Instead,
MERPAC recommended a regulatory
change in which all inspected vessels
would have the option to satisfy the PIC
requirement for fuel transfers through
either an LOD, as described in 33 CFR
155.715, or through holding an MMC
with an officer or Tankerman-PIC
endorsement.
The Coast Guard reviewed the
recommendations from both TSAC and
MERPAC, and agreed with MERPAC’s
broader recommendation that all
inspected vessels should have the
option of using an LOD to satisfy the
requirement for designating the PIC of
fuel transfers.
Under the LOD option, a PIC’s formal
instruction is tailored to the vessel
identified in the LOD and must meet the
requirements in § 155.715. This
12 Issued in June 2016, TSAC Task 16-01,
Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of
46 Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter M–
Inspection of Towing Vessels, directed TSAC to
provide ‘‘comments on the implementation of
Subchapter M that the Committee feels are
necessary.’’ In its third report in response to this
task, in December 2017, TSAC issued Report No. 3
that addressed the subject of Persons-In-Charge of
Towing Vessel Fuel Transfers. A copy of this report
is available in the docket.
13 Issued in May 2017, MERPAC Task 99, Towing
Vessel Restricted Tankerman PIC Endorsement,
requested MERPAC to review and comment on CG–
MMC Policy Letter 01–17 and the applicable
regulations and provide recommendations for
amendments, if needed. In October 2017, MERPAC
issued its report, which is available in the docket.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

provides an equivalent level of safety of
life, environmental protection, or
protection of property at sea as the
current requirement for a PIC on an
inspected vessel. Therefore, we are
proposing to allow the LOD to be used
by PICs of fuel oil transfers on any
inspected vessel. The TSAC and
MERPAC recommendations are
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 155.710(e), which sets forth the
provisions for the qualifications of the
PIC of any fuel oil transfer requiring a
DOI. The proposal would not change the
existing requirements for the PIC on
uninspected vessels, and the
requirements for vessels transferring
cargo would also remain unchanged.
The change would provide inspected
vessels two options for meeting
requirements to serve as the PIC of a
fuel oil transfer. Vessel operators could
comply with the current inspected
vessel requirement of having a PIC with
a valid MMC with either an officer or
Tankerman-PIC endorsement, or use the
new option for inspected vessels of
designating a PIC with an LOD as
described in 33 CFR 155.715.
A. Proposed Amendments to
§ 155.710(e)
We propose to revise the text of
current paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) and
redesignate them as paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
and (e)(1)(ii). We would then
redesignate the remaining paragraphs in
that section and amend a reference in
the redesignated paragraph regarding
tank barges to reflect our removal of
paragraph (e)(2).
With respect to MMCs, we would also
remove obsolete terminology such as
merchant mariner ‘‘licenses’’ and
‘‘Merchant Mariner Documents.’’ The
Coast Guard ceased issuing those types
of documents in 2009 when we
transitioned to the streamlined MMC.
Also, we would clarify the first sentence
of § 155.710(e) by changing ‘‘shall
verify’’ to ‘‘must verify.’’
B. Proposed Amendments to § 155.715
In § 155.715, we would change the
reference to § 155.710(e)(2) so that it
refers to § 155.710(e)(1) instead. This
change would reflect our amendments
to § 155.710(e). Also, to remove a longstanding conflict of referring to the same
letter as both ‘‘letter of instruction’’ and
‘‘letter of designation,’’ we would
amend the reference to a letter of
instruction by simply referring to it as
‘‘the letter referenced in
§ 155.710(e)(1).’’

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
This letter has become known by the
title we gave it in the § 155.715 heading,
‘‘letter of designation.’’ Section 155.715
requires the letter to designate the
holder as a PIC of the transfer of fuel oil
and to state that the holder has received
sufficient formal instruction from the
operator or agent of the vessel to ensure
his or her ability to safely and
adequately carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the PIC described in
33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150. Changing
our reference to it as ‘‘the letter
referenced in § 155.710(e)(1)’’ would not
change any of those requirements, but it
would make it clear that ‘‘letter of
designation’’ is the correct way to refer
to the letter referenced in § 155.710(e)
that must satisfy the requirements of
§ 155.715.
C. Proposed Rule Only Addresses Fuel
Oil Transfers, Not LNG Fuel Transfers
This proposed rule would not apply
to liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuel
transfers. Both §§ 155.710(e) and
155.715 apply solely to the transfer of
‘‘fuel oil.’’ Fuel oil means any oil used
to fuel the propulsion and auxiliary
machinery of the ship carrying the
fuel.14

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) and
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that ‘‘for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.’’
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not designated this rule a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
14 As provided in § 155.110, this 33 CFR 151.05
definition of ‘‘fuel oil’’ applies to §§ 155.710 and
155.715.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

DHS considers this rule to be an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. See the OMB Memorandum
titled ‘‘Guidance Implementing
Executive Order 13771, titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). Details on the
estimated cost savings of this proposed
rule can be found in the rule’s economic
analysis below.
On June 20, 2016, the Coast Guard
published an Inspection of Towing
Vessels final rule.15 The Coast Guard
estimated the rule would apply to more
than 5,500 towing vessels that had
previously been uninspected vessels.
That rule established 46 CFR subchapter
M, Towing Vessels (parts 136 through
144), which requires vessels subject to
it to obtain a certificate of inspection
(COI). The phase-in period for obtaining
a COI under subchapter M runs from
July 20, 2018, to July 20, 2022.16
As uninspected vessels subject to the
requirements of 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2),
these towing vessels had the flexibility
of designating a PIC of a fuel oil transfer
through an LOD rather than meeting the
requirement to have a mariner aboard
with a valid MMC with an officer or
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.17 When a
towing vessel covered by the 2016 rule
(81 FR 40003) obtains a COI, it will
become an inspected vessel subject to
the requirements of 33 CFR
155.710(e)(1) under which individuals
designated as PIC of a fuel oil transfer
must hold an MMC with either an
officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
When exercising the option to designate
a PIC through an LOD, the cost of
providing formal instruction as
described in 33 CFR 155.715 is borne by
vessel operating companies; whereas,
we are assuming the cost of obtaining
the approved training for an MMC with
a Tankerman-PIC endorsement is borne
by the individual obtaining the
credential, making the MMC
requirement relatively more expensive
for individuals who perform the same
function in either case. Further, because
a Tankerman-PIC endorsement is
available as a minimum qualification,
15 See

81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.
46 CFR 136.202, which calls for 25 percent
of the vessels to have COIs by July 22, 2019. It also
calls for an additional 25 percent to obtain COIs for
each of the remaining 3 years of the phase-in
period. The final rule was made effective July 20,
2016, but it delayed implementation of most of its
part 140 operations requirements, part 141
lifesaving requirements, part 142 fire protection
requirements, part 143 machinery and electrical
systems and equipment requirements, and part 144
construction and arrangement requirements until
July 20, 2018. See §§ 140.105, 141.105, 142.105,
143.200, and 144.105.
17 In previous information collections letters of
designation, LODs are referred to as letters of
instruction (LOIs).
16 See

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40333

we do not assume that an individual
would choose to obtain an officer
endorsement as their qualification for
PIC because a less burdensome option is
available. The option of obtaining an
MMC with endorsements other than a
Tankerman-PIC, which is the minimum
qualification necessary to comply with
existing regulations, is the choice of the
individual. In cases where an officer
endorsement is used to satisfy the PIC
requirement, we assume that it is
because the individual already holds an
MMC with other endorsements. The
Coast Guard assumes the MMC was
obtained in order to seek employment as
an officer on vessels and serves as a PIC
as part of their routine duties, rather
than obtaining an officer endorsement to
serve explicitly as PIC. The Coast Guard
seeks input on the validity of this
assumption.
In March 2017, the Coast Guard
issued CG–MMC Policy Letter No. 01–
17 titled ‘‘Guidelines for Issuing
Endorsements for Tankerman-PIC
Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing
Vessels.’’ This policy minimized the
burden of obtaining an MMC with the
Tankerman-PIC endorsement necessary
to serve as a PIC of a fuel oil transfer on
an inspected towing vessel by allowing
persons to obtain an MMC with a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement restricted
to fuel transfers on towing vessels. This
policy allows those with an existing
LOD to use the LOD to satisfy service
requirements. This proposed rule would
allow for an alternative method of
designating who may serve as the PIC of
a fuel oil transfer on an inspected vessel
by providing the LOD option to
inspected vessels that was previously
only available to uninspected vessels.
This would ease the economic burden
on individuals who would otherwise
bear the cost to obtain an MMC with a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
Section 155.715 of title 33 of the CFR
describes the requirements for an LOD,
including proof that the holder ‘‘has
received sufficient formal instruction
from the operator or agent of the vessel
to ensure his or her ability to safely and
adequately carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the PIC.’’ This formal
instruction is less burdensome than the
approved training required to obtain the
Tankerman-PIC endorsement, including
a Coast Guard-approved firefighting
course and a Coast Guard-approved
tankship dangerous liquids course.18
This deregulatory action relieves
individuals of the cost of obtaining and
renewing an MMC while allowing
continued operation of vessels during
18 46 CFR 13.201—Original application for
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40334

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

fuel oil transfers. The individuals
expected to take advantage of this
deregulatory action are the same
individuals currently serving as a PIC
through the use of an LOD on an
uninspected towing vessel. While the
inspection status of the vessels in the
baseline population changes, we do not

expect the fuel oil transfer operations on
those vessels to change. Therefore we
assume that the baseline risk of fuel oil
transfers on towing vessels remains the
same.
This deregulatory action would
modify the text of 33 CFR 155.710 to
specify that inspected vessels would

also have the flexibility of designating a
PIC of a fuel oil transfer through an LOD
rather than meeting the requirement to
have a mariner aboard with a valid
MMC with an officer or Tankerman-PIC
endorsement. This is the only change to
§ 155.710, as the requirements for an
LOD remain the same.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Category

Summary

Applicability .........................................................

Extend the LOD option described in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2) to inspected vessels for fuel oil
transfers. This would allow PIC designation to be fulfilled by an LOD rather than an MMC
with an officer or Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
The 11,480 individuals on 5,740 vessels that transfer fuel oil and that have a capacity to carry
at least 250 barrels or that receive fuel oil from a vessel with a capacity to carry at least 250
barrels.
10-year period of analysis: $250,384,488, Annualized: $35,649,118.

Affected Population .............................................
Cost Savings (2018 $ Discounted at 7%) ..........

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Affected Population
(1) Vessel Population.
Section 155.700 of 33 CFR requires
each owner or operator of a vessel with
a capacity of 250 barrels or more that
engages in the transfer of fuel oil on the
navigable waters or contiguous zone of
the United States to designate the PIC of
each transfer of fuel oil to or from the
vessel. The affected population for this
deregulatory action is a subset of all
inspected vessels subject to the PIC
requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1).
The recent change from uninspected to
inspected status makes subchapter M
vessels uniquely impacted by the MMC
requirement. The Coast Guard is not
aware of other inspected vessel
populations that would likely make use
of this rule.
The vessel types identified as the
affected population in the subchapter M
rule are the same types identified under
this rule. Since inspections started in
2018, more vessels have been identified,
with a current population of 5,740.
There are still difficulties identifying a
steady population since inspections are
ongoing through year 2022, during
which Coast Guard is able to identify
previously unencountered vessels and
vessels not subject to subchapter M that
were previously thought to be.19
Not all of the 5,740 affected vessels
will become inspected vessels (obtain
their COI) at the same time. As of June
2019, there are 766 inspected towing
vessels under subchapter M.20 That
19 Several vessel types are currently incorrectly
marked as Subchapter M in the Marine Information
for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database,
including harbor assist, emergency assist, passenger
barges, and non-self-propelled towing vessels. For
a list of vessels that are not included in subchapter
M applicability, see 46 CFR 136.105.
20 Monthly numbers of inspections completed
from July 2018 through June 2019 provided on June

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

number will continue to increase but is
subject to change as inspections are
completed. Table 2 below lists the
number of inspections completed or
expected to be completed in each year
of the phase-in period.21 For the
purpose of this analysis, the first
effective year will be 2020. We will not
count cost savings for vessels that
already obtained their COI in 2018 and
2019 because we assume they would
already need individuals with MMCs to
continue operations.

TABLE 2—PROJECTION OF SUBCHAPTER M VESSELS OBTAINING A
COI
Year

New
COIs

Total
subchapter M
inspected
vessels

2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

253
983
2,031
1,236
1,237

253
1,236
3,267
4,503
5,740

In the case of towing vessels,
excluding a vessel from the population
based on fuel capacity is unreliable
because a vessel with a smaller (under
250 barrels) capacity may obtain fuel oil
from a larger (250 or more barrels)
27, 2019 by the National Towing Vessel Coordinator
of the Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance.
21 Projected inspections provided by the Office of
Commercial Vessel Compliance, June 27, 2019. A
total of 1,236 inspections are expected to be
completed by the end of 2019, with 253 already
completed in 2018, and 513 already completed as
of June 2019. Another 470 are projected before the
end of 2019 for a total of 983 to be completed in
2019. The office expects a surge of inspections in
2020 because all single vessel companies will have
to obtain a COI for their vessel by July 2020. In
addition the inspections originally scheduled
during the government shutdown of early 2019
were rescheduled as soon as possible.

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

vessel causing both to need a PIC to
initiate a fuel oil transfer between the
vessels. Section 156.120(s) requires a
PIC at the transferring and receiving
ends, and § 156.115 states that no
person may serve as PIC on both ends
unless authorized by the captain of the
port.
The Coast Guard does not know if a
given vessel with a capacity of less than
250 barrels will receive fuel from a
vessel with a capacity of 250 or more
barrels of fuel oil. Therefore, we assume
that vessels with a capacity under 250
barrels may sometimes be required to
have a designated PIC when transferring
fuel oil with vessels with a larger
capacity based on the requirements in
§ 156.120(s). The number of fuel oil
transfers between large- (250 or more
barrels) and small- (under 250 barrels)
capacity vessels is unknown, but the
Coast Guard assumes it to be a
significant amount.
(2) Affected Individuals.
To estimate the impact of this
deregulatory action, we must first
establish a baseline of what the world
would look like if no deregulatory
action was taken. In this case, the
baseline assumes that all newly
inspected subchapter M vessels would
use individuals with MMCs to serve as
the PIC for fuel oil transfers. Any cost
savings from this rule stem from the
utilization of an LOD to qualify as PIC
for fuel transfers and thus the avoided
costs of obtaining MMCs strictly for the
purpose of being qualified as PIC of a
fuel oil transfer.
Each vessel from the affected
population is assumed to have at least
two individuals able to serve as a PIC
to ensure that at least one of them is
available for duty at any point in a 24-

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
hour period.22 Because a PIC cannot
serve on more than one vessel at a time
(unless authorized by the captain of the
port), the vessel population can be used
as an accurate basis for the number of
PICs needed. From the population of
5,740 vessels, each carrying two PICs,
we achieve an affected population of
individuals equal to 11,480. The
population of 5,740 becomes constant in
Year 3 of the analysis period or in 2022
and thereafter, once all affected vessels
are inspected.
The Coast Guard assumes that as
vessels obtain their COI, individuals
will get original MMCs to serve as the
PIC of fuel oil transfers on those vessels.
The Coast Guard uses a turnover rate of

30 percent each year, and assumes that
any mariner lost to turnover in a given
year is replaced by a mariner with an
original MMC in order to maintain a
stable population of mariners able to
serve the total population of active
vessels.23 Further, it is necessary to
track the length of service to determine
when mariners would be required to
renew their MMC at 5 years of service
as the cost of renewal is significantly
less than the cost of obtaining an
original MMC.24 We request comment
on our assumption of a 30 percent
turnover rate.
Two estimates are central to
estimating cost savings: First, the
number of individuals expected to

40335

obtain an original MMC in each year;
and second, the number of individuals
expected to renew their MMC in each
year beginning in Year 4. An original
MMC must be renewed every 5 years,
such that an MMC originally obtained in
2018 would be renewed in 2023. While
we do not count cost savings for original
MMCs obtained before 2020, we do
count cost savings for avoided renewals
of those MMCs since the renewal would
occur after the affective year of 2020.
The total numbers for these two
estimates are listed below in table 3 in
the columns labeled ‘‘Total new MMCs’’
and ‘‘Renewals.’’

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Calendar year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Total
affected
vessels

Effective
year
....................
....................
Year 1 ........
Year 2 ........
Year 3 ........
Year 4 ........
Year 5 ........
Year 6 ........
Year 7 ........
Year 8 ........
Year 9 ........
Year 10 ......

MMCs
needed

253
1,236
3,267
4,503
5,740
5,740
5,740
5,740
5,740
5,740
5,740
5,740

506
2,472
6,534
9,006
11,480
11,480
11,480
11,480
11,480
11,480
11,480
11,480

New COIs

Original
MMCs from
new COIs

Original
MMCs from
turnover

506
1,966
4,062
2,472
2,474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
152
742
1,960
2,702
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444

253
983
2,031
1,236
1,237
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total new
MMCS
506
2,118
4,804
4,432
5,176
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444

Renewals
0
0
0
0
0
121
508
1,153
1,064
1,243
827
827

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Note: This table does not contain totals because the values in the columns are not additive. The columns merely show the affected population
annually and should not be used for summation.

The ‘‘Total new MMCs’’ column
equals the number of individuals who
are newly credentialed each year due to
vessels obtaining COIs and individuals
who are newly credentialed to replace
those who left in the previous year. This
is the sum of the columns ‘‘Original
MMCs from new COIs’’ and ‘‘Original
MMCs from turnover.’’ In Year 1 (2020),
there are 4,062 original MMCs from new
COIs and 742 original MMCs from
turnover in 2019, for a total of 4,804
original MMCs. The 742 original MMCs
from turnover account for 30 percent of
the total number of 2,472 MMCs needed
in 2019. In Year 2 (2021), there are 4,432
total new MMCs—2,472 are due to new
COIs and 1,960 are from turnover in the
first year. The 1,960 new MMCs due to
turnover in the first year account for 30
percent of the 6,534 total MMCs needed
for that year.
We calculate renewals by multiplying
the total number of original MMCs in a

given starting year by the probability
that an individual would still be
employed as a PIC after five years.
Where ((1¥0.30)∧(5¥1) = (0.7∧4) is the
probability of remaining, (0.7) given a
turnover rate of 0.3, compounded for
each year after the first year of having
the MMC in the 5 years before renewal.
For Year 4, this is equivalent to 121 =
[506 × (0.7∧4)]. For Year 5, this is
equivalent to 508 = [2,118 × (0.7∧4)]. For
Year 6, this is equivalent to 1,153 =
[4,804 × (0.7∧4)]. For Year 7, this is
equivalent to 1,064 = [4,432 × (0.7∧4)].
For Year 8, this is equivalent to 1,243
= [5,176 × (0.7∧4)]. For Year 9 and all
subsequent years, renewals become 827
= [3,444 × (0.7∧4)].

22 Information collection request (ICR), ‘‘Waste
Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and
Letters of Instruction for Certain Persons-in-Charge
(PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo Residue
Recordkeeping’’ OMB control number 1625–0072.

23 We obtained the 30 percent turnover rate from
an OMB-approved ICR (OMB Control Number
1625–0072), which we updated as part of a periodic
renewal in 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

Cost Savings
Cost savings come from the forgone
cost to individuals of obtaining and
renewing an MMC. For towing vessels
that only recently became inspected

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

vessels, the cost of an MMC for the sole
purpose of serving as PIC of a fuel oil
transfer is a new burden. Not all of the
individuals impacted by the 2016
towing vessel final rule have obtained
an MMC yet.25 The cost savings for this
deregulatory analysis assumes that the
cost PICs would save for an MMC is
comprised of two elements: (1) PICs
who obtained an MMC but would no
longer need to renew it; and (2) PICs
who avoid getting an MMC altogether.
The avoided cost includes the
evaluation and issuance fees for an
MMC, the tuition and travel expenses
associated with the required approved
training, and the expense of meeting the
MMC renewal requirements every 5
years.
Based on the requirement in 33 CFR
155.715 for the operator or agent of a
vessel to ensure the holder of an LOD
has received formal instruction to
ensure their ability to carry out the
24 An MMC is valid for a term of 5 years from the
date of issuance. Per 46 CFR 10.205(a).
25 81 FR 40003.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40336

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

duties of a PIC, the Coast Guard assumes
that companies utilizing an LOD would
provide the formal instruction. All those
companies already utilizing an LOD
while their vessels are uninspected
would already have the capacity to
provide the formal instruction required
for the holder of an LOD on an
inspected vessel after this rule;
therefore, we estimate companies who
employ PICs would not incur additional
costs (and subsequently cost savings) as
a result of the requirements of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard requests
comments from the public on whether
or not your company, who provides
formal instruction for the purpose of a

PIC obtaining an LOD, would incur
costs from this proposed rule.
The costs to individuals stem from the
requirements to obtain an MMC with a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement as
described in 46 CFR 13.201. These
requirements include completion of
Coast Guard-approved courses in both
firefighting and tankship Dangerous
Liquids. As of May 2019, the average
cost of a Basic Fire Fighting course is
$731.31 and ranges in length of 2 to 5
days depending on whether it is offered
as a separate module or as part of the
International Convention on Standards
of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers Basic
Training. We assume an average course
length of 27 hours, which would require

4 days of training. Similarly, the average
cost of a Dangerous Liquids course is
$985.62 with almost all offerings being
5 days in duration with an average of 38
hours of training. The length of the
training in days assumes an 8-hour day,
and that any part of an additional day
would be considered a full day’s
opportunity cost in order to account for
travel (that is, a mariner would not be
able to leave training at noon and return
to work). Because very few of the
training facilities offer both courses—
and none of the training facilities offer
the courses concurrently—mariners
would need to schedule each training
course separately. See table 4 below for
the summary of course costs.

TABLE 4—AVERAGE COURSE COSTS
Course

Tuition

Length
(days
rounded)

Length
(days)

Length
(hours)

Basic Fire Fighting ...........................................................................................
Dangerous Liquids ...........................................................................................

$731.31
985.62

3.27
4.80

4
5

27
38

Summary ..................................................................................................

1,716.93

8.07

In addition, 46 CFR 10.219 prescribes
the fees for obtaining an MMC with a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement. This
includes an evaluation fee of $95 and an
issuance fee of $45. Every 5 years there
is a cost to renew the credential with the
endorsement, which includes a $50
evaluation fee and a $45 issuance fee.26
For the original issuance and renewal,

there is a security screening expense of
$125.25.27
The Coast Guard assumes varying
modes of travel for mariners getting to
and from approved training based on
the distribution of travel modes derived
in the Vessel Security Officer (VSO)
Interim Rule.28 The percentages below
in table 5 reflect the same percentages

from this rule.29 In further analysis, we
use the average cost per mariner,
weighted by the distribution of travel
type.30 We estimate the total travel cost
of the for mariners to be about
$102,837,070, undiscounted. We
estimate the average travel cost for a
mariner to be about $8,958,
undiscounted.

TABLE 5—DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL COSTS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Distribution
(%)

Mode of transport

Affected
mariner
population

Cost
(2018 USD)

Commute .....................................................................................................................................
Drive/Lodge ..................................................................................................................................
Fly/Lodge .....................................................................................................................................

26.50
16.70
56.80

3,042
1,917
6,521

$27,072,685
15,590,931
60,173,453

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

100

11,480

102,837,070

Average Cost per Mariner .............................................................................................

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

8,958

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

In table 6, we show the unit costs that
comprise the total costs to individuals
in table 9. Each method of travel has a

different cost, while the costs of training
courses and MMC applications are the
same for all travel types. The total cost

per mariner includes the fixed costs of
the two approved training courses and
travel costs. As travel costs are highly

26 From 46 CFR 10.219(a), Table 1—Fees. Using
column ‘‘Evaluation then the fee is . . .’’ and rows
‘‘Original endorsement for ratings other than
qualified ratings’’ and ‘‘Renewal endorsement for
ratings other than qualified ratings.’’
27 Transportation Security Administration 30-Day
notice. [Docket No. TSA–2006–24191] Revision of
Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB
Review: Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC®) Program (82 FR 14521, March
21, 2017).

28 73 FR 29060, May 20, 2008, ‘‘Implementation
of Vessel Security Officer Training and Certification
Requirements-International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended’’
rule corrected June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34190).
29 See Table 4.—TOTAL NATIONAL SHARE OR
PERCENTAGE OF—Total National Share of
Percentage of VSOs THAT WILL COMMUTE,
DRIVE/LODGE, AND FLY/LODGE That Will

Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge in 73 FR
29060, 29065.
30 We use the average cost because the
distribution in travel does not change in any given
year. If the actual locations of individuals used to
develop the baseline was known, then we could
base the distribution on actual travel. However, this
information is not known and could not be known
for every individual in each year.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

40337

described in the source reference
column.

variable, we obtained the most recent
cost figures for travel and lodging,
available from either 2017 or 2018, as

TABLE 6—UNIT TRAVEL COST ESTIMATES

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

[Adjusted to 2018 USD]
Item

Unit cost

Source reference

Opportunity cost of applicant
time.

$60.66 ................................

Driving Mileage (rate per
mile).

$0.58 ..................................

Non-Commuting Driving
Time.

100 mile/27.08 mph commuting speed.

Round-trip Air-Fare ..............

$346 ...................................

Round-trip Airport Transfer ..

$61.28 ................................

Flying Excursion Time .........

16 hours .............................

Incidentals and Meals (per
diem).

$64.57 ................................

Lodging (per night) ...............

$142.16 ..............................

The total opportunity cost of time is the base wage multiplied by the loaded wage
factor to obtain total compensation including non-wage benefits. $39.61 is the
mean wage estimate from the 2019 National Occupation Employment and Wage
Statistics for Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels (53–5021). https://
www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes535021.htm.
The loaded wage factor of (33.11/21.62) is obtained by dividing the total compensation by wages and salaries for full-time transportation workers. These are
annual averages of quarterly data series CMU2010000520610D and
CMU2020000520610D respectively, obtained from BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation. https://www.bls.gov/data/.
‘‘Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement Rates’’ from GSA tables published on January 1, 2019. https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportationairfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates.
For a mariner who would drive/lodge to the school 100 miles round trip, we divide
100 miles by the average commuting speed of 27.08 miles per hour (mph). We
obtained 27.08 mph from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) Summary
of Travel Trends, 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/
2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf. pg 79.
From the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Average price of a round-trip airfare for 2018 in unadjusted dollars.
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/Annual%20Fares%201995-2018.xlsx.
We used the cost of a round-trip airport transfer from a Coast Guard interim rule,
‘‘Validation of Merchant Mariners’ Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard
Merchant Mariner’s Licenses and Certificates of Registry’’, published on January
13, 2006 (71 FR 2154). Figure found in table 4, page 2160. A later figure could
not be found so this figure was adjusted for inflation using the GDP deflator factor of 1.23 times the original cost of $50. The round-trip airport transfer cost is
based on research of the average private and public transfer costs, including taxi
or car rental costs associated with U.S. airports and regional destinations. It is
not a mathematical or rigorous estimate, but an average transfer cost based on
information available from associations and trade groups, airports, transit authorities, and governments.
A mariner that would fly/lodge in order to attend a training course or school would
incur an opportunity cost of flying. We assume the total air excursion time of 16
hours, equivalent to two days of travel.
Obtained from the Composite of General Services Administration (GSA) domestic
per diem rates for meals/incidentals (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/perdiem-rates) in training site and REC cities for January 2018. Taxes ARE included
in the M&IE rate per FAQ #12. https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diemrates/frequently-asked-questions-per-diem#12.
Obtained from the Composite of General Services Administration (GSA) domestic
per diem rates for lodging (https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates)
training site, and REC cities for January 2018. Taxes are not automatically included, so lodging taxes and state sales taxes were added to the lodging per
diem.

Table 7, ‘‘MMC Costs for Mariners,’’
shows how the above unit costs for
travel and tuition contribute to the total
average cost per mariner. The average
cost of $8,957.93 is for each mariner
expected to obtain an original MMC.
Tuition costs and travel costs do not
apply for renewal if a mariner served at
least 90 days of service during the

preceding 5 years.31 If a mariner cannot
fulfill that service requirement, we
assume that they turnover and must
complete the requirements for an
original MMC. The Coast Guard
estimates the average travel cost for a
mariner that commutes to approved
training is about $8,899.05. The average
travel cost for a mariner that drives and

stays overnight for approved training is
about $8,132.31. Finally, we estimate
the average travel cost for a mariner that
flies and stays overnight for approved
training to be about $9,228.15. This cost
analysis uses an average because the
distribution of travel is constant year to
year.

31 See 46 CFR 13.120 Renewal of tankerman
endorsement.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:55 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40338

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—MMC COSTS FOR MARINERS
Training cost by travel mode
Category

Derivation

Amount
Commuting

Tuition ...............................................
MMC Fees ........................................
Security Screening Fee ....................
Round-trip Airfare ..............................
Round-trip Airport transfer ................
Lodging .............................................
Commuting Meals & Incidental Expenses.
Non-Commuting Meals & Incidental
Expenses.
Commuting Motor Vehicle Costs ......
Non-Commuting
Motor
Vehicle
Costs.
Training Time (Opportunity Cost) .....
Commuting Driving Time (Opportunity Cost).
One Non-Commuting Driving Time
(Opportunity Cost).
One Flying Time (Opportunity Cost)
Total Cost per Mariner ...............

Drive/Lodge

Fly/Lodge

Average price of $731.31 for Basic
Firefighting, and $985.62 for Dangerous Liquids.
$95 evaluation fee, $45 issuance
fee.
$125.25 ............................................
$346.00 ............................................
$61.28 ..............................................
$142.16 per lodging night × 9 lodging nights.
$48.43 per diem × 9 training days
(equivalent to 75% of full per
diem).
$64.57 per diem × (7 training days)
+ $48.43 × (4 first and last days
of travel 75% of total).
100-mile commute × $0.58 per mile
× 9 training days.
100-mile round-trip × $0.58 per mile

$1,716.93

140.00

125.25
346.00
61.28
1,279.45

125.25
NA
NA
NA

125.25
NA
NA
1,279.45

125.25
346.00
61.28
1,279.45

435.86

645.71

522.00

58.00

65 hrs. training × loaded hourly
wage.
(100-mile round trip ÷ 27 mph commuting speed) × loaded hourly
wage × 9 days.
(100-mile round trip ÷ 27 mph commuting speed) × loaded hourly
wage.
16 hours × loaded hourly wage .......

3,942.95

2,016.05

224.01

970.57

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

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

8,899.05

8,132.31

9,228.15

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Table 8, ‘‘Cost Savings to
Individuals,’’ shows how the
introduction of newly inspected vessels,
and turnover from subsequent years,
impact costs over a 10-year period of
analysis. It should be noted that the
renewal costs only enter in Year 6,
when the first cohort of original MMCs

from Year 1 would be eligible to renew,
given turnover in the first 5 years. The
affected population in this analysis are
reflected in the columns ‘‘Original
MMCs’’ and ‘‘Renewals’’ in table 10. We
showed this population previously in
table 3. As shown in table 8, the Coast
Guard estimates the total discounted

costs savings to mariners of this
deregulatory savings analysis over a 10year period of analysis to be about
$249.2 million using a 7-percent
discount rate. We estimate the
annualized cost savings over 10 years to
be about $35.5 million using a 7-percent
discount rate.

TABLE 8—COST SAVINGS TO INDIVIDUALS
Calendar year

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Effective
year

Original
MMCs

Total cost
of original
MMC *

Renewals

Renewal
fee +
security
screening

Total annual
cost of new
MMCs

Total
annual
cost of
renewals

Grand total
annual cost

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 7%

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 3%

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

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

506
2,118
4,804
4,432
5,176
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444

..................
..................
$8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958
8,958

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
121
508
1,153
1,064
1,243
827
827

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
220
220
220
220
220
220
220

........................
........................
$43,030,327
39,703,350
46,364,469
30,851,121
30,851,121
30,851,121
30,851,121
30,851,121
30,851,121
30,851,121

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
26,758
111,994
254,024
234,384
273,707
182,126
182,126

........................
........................
$43,030,327
39,703,350
46,364,469
30,877,879
30,963,114
31,105,145
31,085,505
31,124,828
31,033,247
31,033,247

........................
........................
$40,215,258
34,678,444
37,847,218
23,556,586
22,076,273
20,726,672
19,358,490
18,114,933
16,880,030
15,775,729

........................
........................
$41,777,016
37,424,216
42,430,057
27,434,596
26,709,055
26,050,069
25,275,360
24,570,226
23,784,399
23,091,650

Total ...................................................
Annualized ..................................

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

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

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

346,321,110
........................

249,229,632
35,484,693

298,546,644
34,998,774

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This column includes the cost for courses plus travel costs and fees.

We do not estimate cost savings to
owners and operators of vessels because
we assume that companies operating
towing vessels already have the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

capability of providing necessary formal
instruction to those individuals being
issued an LOD since they offered this
formal instruction prior to their vessels

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

becoming inspected under the 2016 rule
(81 FR 40003). Turnover in owners and
operators is expected to be stable for the
near future, so we do not expect there

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
to be new companies that would have
to establish new formal instruction
capabilities.32
Without this deregulatory action, the
Coast Guard would need to evaluate the
MMC applications that would be
submitted if an MMC with a Tankerman
PIC endorsement were still required to
serve as a PIC for fuel oil transfers. This

deregulatory savings analysis accounts
for the cost savings to the Coast Guard
as MMC applications for TankermanPIC endorsements would no longer
require evaluation or issuance. Each
application takes approximately 55
minutes to process, at a GS–8 loaded
mean hourly wage rate of $49, for a cost
of $44.92 per application.33 As shown in

40339

table 9, over a 10-year period of
analysis, the Coast Guard would save
about $1,402,143 in 2018 dollars,
discounted at a 7-percent discount rate,
from the lower volume of MMC
applications. We estimate annualized
cost savings to the government to be
$199,634 using a 7-percent discount
rate.

TABLE—9 COST SAVINGS TO THE COAST GUARD
Effective year

Original MMCs

Cost of
reviewing
original MMC

Renewals

Cost of
reviewing
renewed MMC

Grand total
annual cost

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 7%

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 3%

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

4,804
4,432
5,176
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444

$44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92

........................
........................
........................
121
508
1,153
1,064
1,243
827
827

$
........................
........................
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92
44.92

$215,762
199,080
232,480
160,150
177,532
206,497
202,492
210,511
191,835
191,835

$201,646
173,884
189,773
122,178
126,578
137,598
126,102
122,520
104,345
97,519

$209,477
187,652
212,752
142,291
153,141
172,938
164,645
166,180
147,025
142,743

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

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

1,988,174

1,402,143

1,698,844

Annualized .....

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

199,634

199,156

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Costs Incurred To Prepare Letter of
Designation
While the use of an LOD saves the
individual approved training costs, the
actual letter of designation still takes
time to prepare. Using the time estimate
from the existing collection of
information for PICs, we assume the
preparation of a letter takes
approximately 10 minutes.34

The projected number of LODs used
is based on the number of vessels
becoming inspected and otherwise
requiring a credentialed mariner to
serve as PIC of a fuel oil transfer. The
opportunity cost of the time to prepare
an LOD uses the wage of a compliance
officer, with a loaded mean hourly wage
rate of $53.39, multiplied by the time to
prepare the LOD ($53.39 × 10 minutes

or 0.167 hours), which is approximately
$8.92.35 The opportunity cost for new
individuals using an LOD over the 10year analysis period is about $247,287
in 2018 dollars, discounted, using a 7percent discount rate. See table 10
below. We estimate the annualized cost
to be about $35,208 using a 7-percent
discount rate.

TABLE 10—COSTS OF PREPARING AN LOD
Individuals
needing a new
LOD

Cost of
preparing LOD
per mariner

Total annual
cost of
preparing LOD

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 7%

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 3%

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

4,804
4,432
5,176
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444
3,444

$8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92
8.92

$42,827
39,515
46,145
30,705
30,705
30,705
30,705
30,705
30,705
30,705

$40,025
34,514
37,668
23,425
21,892
20,460
19,122
17,871
16,702
15,609

$41,579
37,247
42,229
27,281
26,486
25,715
24,966
24,239
23,533
22,847

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

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

343,423

247,287

296,124

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Year

32 Analysis from the 2016 towing vessel final rule
found entry of 91 vessels and exit of 88 vessels. A
subject matter expert confirmed that these numbers
are similar and that it matches with firms’
ownership.
33 Information provided by subject matter expert
in the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing,
and corroborated by NMC officials. GS–8 mean
hourly wage rate is $49 Outside Government Rate

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

per Commandant Instruction 7310.1T November
2018.
34 From OMB Control Number 1625–0072 (ICR
201803–1625–007)—0.167 hours equals
approximately 10 minutes from Table 12.3 in
Appendix A of ICR 201803–1625–007 (OMB
Control Number 1625–0072) last updated in 2018.
35 $34.86 is the mean hourly wage estimate from
the 2018 National Occupation Employment and

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Wage Statistics for Compliance Officers (13–1041)
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes131041.htm.
The loaded wage factor of ($33.11/$21.62) is
obtained by dividing the total compensation by
wages and salaries for full-time transportation
workers. These are annual averages of quarterly
data series CMU2010000520610D and
CMU2020000520610D respectively, obtained from
BLS Employer Cost for Employee Compensation
(https://www.bls.gov/data/).

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40340

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—COSTS OF PREPARING AN LOD—Continued
Year
Annualized .............................................................

Individuals
needing a new
LOD

Cost of
preparing LOD
per mariner

Total annual
cost of
preparing LOD

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 7%

Grand total
annual cost
discounted 3%

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

35,208

34,715

Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Costs Incurred by the Coast Guard
The cost incurred by the Coast Guard
only includes the time for inspectors in
the field to review the documentation
designating a PIC of a fuel oil transfer
on board, which takes the same amount
of time whether an LOD or an MMC is
being reviewed since any method used
to designate a PIC must be immediately
available for inspection. We assume no
cost change to the Coast Guard. Since

the LOD is not a credential issued by the
Coast Guard, and is only verified on
board a vessel, there is no additional
time cost to reviewing LODs.
Net Cost Savings
Using a perpetual period of analysis,
the Coast Guard estimates the total
annualized cost savings of the proposed
rule to be $24,442,840 in 2016 dollars,
using a 7-percent discount rate. The
total cost savings is the sum of the cost

savings to individuals no longer
obtaining MMCs, shown in table 8, and
the time cost savings to the Coast Guard,
shown in table 9, of no longer reviewing
MMCs. Net cost savings are the total
cost savings minus the costs incurred,
shown in table 11. We estimate the net
cost savings of this proposed rule over
a 10-year period of analysis to be about
$250,384,488 discounted at 7-percent in
2018 dollars.

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF NET COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 2018$
Cost savings
Grand Total ......................................................................................................
Discounted 7% .................................................................................................
Discounted 3% .................................................................................................

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Alternatives Considered
(1) MMC with officer or TankermanPIC endorsement (No Limited
Endorsement).
Continue to require inspected vessels
with a fuel oil capacity of 250 barrels or
more—or that obtain fuel oil from a
vessel with a fuel oil capacity of 250
barrels or more—to have an individual
holding an MMC with either an officer
or Tankerman-PIC endorsement
designated as the PIC of any fuel oil
transfer. Under this alternative, any
designated PIC of a fuel oil transfer
would be required to hold an MMC with
an officer or Tankerman-PIC
endorsement, without a limited
endorsement for fuel oil transfers.
The Coast Guard rejected this
alternative because there are no cost
savings associated with it and therefore
it would not meet the Coast Guard’s goal
of reducing regulations under E.O.
13771. Individuals would still bear the
cost of obtaining an MMC, and after a
vessel receives its COI, individuals
previously qualified as PIC through the
LOD options would not be able to be
designated as a PIC until they obtain
their MMC.
(2) Continue to Issue Limited
Endorsement MMCs with TankermanPIC Restricted to Fuel Oil Transfers on
Towing Vessels.
No regulatory change would be
associated with this alternative. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

$348,309,284
250,631,775
300,245,488

Coast Guard would continue to utilize
the CG–MMC Policy Letter 01–17 to
issue MMC endorsements for
Tankerman-PIC Restricted to Fuel
Transfers on Towing Vessels. Under this
continued action alternative, the
existing policy letter would continue to
provide a means for individuals on
towing vessels previously designated as
PIC of a fuel oil transfer using an LOD
to be issued a limited endorsement
Tankerman-PIC restricted to Fuel
Transfers.
While limited endorsements save
individuals the cost of approved
training courses, such that they only pay
the cost of applying for an MMC, the
Coast Guard must still evaluate the
MMC application and issue the
credentials. These applications take 45
minutes to evaluate at a loaded GS–8
wage rate of $49 per hour for a labor
cost of about $36.75. Over a 10-year
period of analysis, we estimate the cost
to the Government to review these
applications to be about $861,027 in
2018 dollars. In total, the net costs of
continuing the letter over a 10-year
period of analysis are about $
$8,984,618 in 2018 dollars using a 7percent discount rate. We estimate
annualized cost savings to be about
$1,279,208 using a 7-percent discount
rate.
The Coast Guard rejected this
alternative because it provides neither a
full solution nor long-term alternatives

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Costs
incurred
$343,423
247,287
296,124

Net cost
savings
$347,965,861
250,384,488
299,949,365

Annualized
cost savings
........................
35,649,118
35,163,216

for designating the PIC of a fuel oil
transfer and it is more costly than the
preferred alternative. The policy letter
only applies to one industry segment,
and individuals who obtain an MMC
according to the policy letter would still
incur the cost of renewing their
credential every 5 years.
(3) Preferred Alternative—new
regulatory action allowing use of LODs
for inspected vessels.
Under this alternative, the regulations
would be modified to provide the
option for inspected vessels to designate
the PIC of a fuel oil transfer utilizing an
LOD. Under a new regulatory action, the
Coast Guard would provide flexibility to
all inspected vessels in how they
designate the PIC of a fuel oil transfer.
This is the preferred alternative as it
relieves individuals who would
otherwise not be required to have an
MMC to obtain and renew a credential,
and provides flexibility to industries
equally.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard is interested in the
potential impacts from this rule and we
request public comment on these
potential impacts. If you think that this
rule would have a significant economic
impact on you, your business, or your
organization, please submit a comment
to the docket at the address under
ADDRESSES in the rule. In your
comment, explain why, how, and to

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40341

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
what degree you think this rule would
have an economic impact on you. We
are especially interested in information
on interactions of small and large
vessels for fuel oil transfers.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Below
is a threshold analysis of the small
entity impacts.
In lieu of current revenue figures
which may be distorted by ongoing
inspections, for this analysis we use the
small entity impact analysis of the 2016

Subchapter M rule, which we assume
will be closely representative of
revenues after the inspection period is
over. The 2016 rule’s small entity
impact analysis used a sample of 304
vessels from the population of 5,509.36
Of the 304 vessels, about 59 percent
were owned or operated by a small
entity. We assume the same number of
small entities would be impacted going
forward, but will know better once
inspections are completed and all fleets
resume active status. As this is a
deregulatory action, the majority of
impact is cost savings to individuals,
who do not qualify as small entities.
The only impact to small entities is the
cost imposed to industry as the time
cost of preparing the letter of
designation.
The Coast Guard finds the average
annual cost to be $75.91 based on the
known fleet sizes of all towing vessel
entities. Ideally, we would use the same

population used in the cost model to
account for turnover, but accounting for
turnover within each entity is complex.
Instead, we make the most conservative
assumption, which is that entities
would need to prepare LODs for their
entire fleet every year and compare to
the revenue of the lowest earning fleet.
There is no additional initial cost, only
this annual cost.
Average annual cost takes the number
of vessels in a fleet, times the cost of
preparing a letter, $8.92, times 2 to
account for each of the two PICs needed
per vessel. This average varies by the
number of vessels in an entity’s fleet,
see the distribution below. Note that the
number of vessels in a fleet does not
correlate with company size; a small
business may have a large fleet or a large
business may have a small fleet. On
average, the cost incurred per entity is
$75.91, which is on average 0.0152
percent of revenues.37

TABLE 14— AVERAGE COST BY FLEET SIZE CATEGORY
Fleet size category

Description

Number of
entities

Small_1 ...........................................................
Small_2–5 .......................................................
Medium ...........................................................
Large ...............................................................
Avg ..................................................................

Entity with only one vessel ............................
Entity with 2 to 5 vessels ...............................
Entity with 6 to 25 vessels .............................
Entity with >25 vessels ..................................
All fleet sizes ..................................................

611
472
179
32
........................

In the most conservative case, a
medium-sized fleet owned by the entity
with the lowest revenue in the sample,
which would have the highest possible
cost as percentage of total revenue for

the affected population, the cost
imposed by this rule is still less than
one percent of total revenues. In this
conservative example, the entity’s
estimated annual cost would be

Average cost

Average of
cost as % of
total revenue

$17.83
52.25
194.05
873.17
75.91

0.0011
0.0037
0.0292
0.0072
0.0152

approximately $321 for a fleet of 18
vessels, 0.76 percent of their $42,000
revenue.38 On average, the cost incurred
is less than a quarter of one percent of
revenues.

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

TABLE 15—DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IMPACTS
% Revenue impact

Average annual impact

Small entities with known revenue
impact

Portion of small entities with
known revenue data

<1
1–3
>3

$75.91
75.91
75.91

183
0
0

100
0
0

Since the most conservative case
shows that the impact of this rule would
be less than 1 percent of revenues for a
small entity, no small entity would have
an impact greater than 1 percent of
revenues. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
36 See

81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.
fleet size is known for all 1,295 entities
covering the entire affected population of vessels,
revenues are known only for a sample of 183
37 While

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the docket
at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section. In your comment, explain why
you think it qualifies and how and to

what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

vessels of the original 5,509 vessels, data from the
original FRFA of Inspection of Towing Vessels final
rule (81 FR 40003). In Table 14, ‘‘Average cost’’ is
based on the entire population of entities, ‘‘average

of cost as a % of total revenue’’ is based only on
entities for whom revenue is known.
38 The value of $42,000 comes from the original
FRFA of 81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40342

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or
email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed 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).

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501–3520. As defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’
comprises reporting, recordkeeping,
monitoring, posting, labeling, and other
similar actions. The title and
description of the information
collections, a description of those who
must collect the information, and an
estimate of the total annual burden
follow below. The estimate covers the
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing sources of data,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection.
The collection of information under
this proposed rule falls under the same
collection of information already
required for letters of designation
described in OMB Control Number
1625–0072. This proposed rule does not
change the content of responses, nor the
estimated burden of each response, but
does increase the number of annual
respondents and responses from 190 to
3,111.
Title: Waste Management Plans,
Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of
Instruction 39 for Certain Persons-inCharge (PIC) and Great Lakes Dry Cargo
Residue Recordkeeping.
39 As stated in the Discussion of Proposed rule
section, this proposed rule would provide for a
consistent name of this letter by referring to it as
a ‘‘Letter of Designation,’’ and we would
accordingly amend the title of this collection of
information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

OMB Control Number: 1625–
0072.Summary of the Collection of
Information: The Letter of Instruction’s
contents should verify the PIC’s
credentials, stating that the holder has
received sufficient formal instruction
from the owner, operator, or agent of the
vessel, as required by 33 CFR 155.715
and the current CFR 155.710(e)(2) and
proposed 155.710(e)(1).
Need for Information: This
information is needed to ensure that: (1)
Certain U.S. vessels develop and
maintain a waste plan; (2) certain U.S.
vessels maintain refuse discharge
records; (3) certain individuals that act
as fuel transfer PIC receive a letter of
instruction for prevention of pollution;
and (4) certain Great Lakes vessels
conduct dry cargo residue
recordkeeping.
Use of Information: To ensure that
fuel transfer competency standards are
met, all PICs on uninspected vessels
must carry a Letter of Instruction if they
do not hold a Coast Guard issued
credential.
Description of Respondents:
Compliance officers for entities
conducting transfers of fuel oil and
needing to designate a PIC of such
transfers.
Number of Respondents: Increase of
3,254 respondents from 190 to 3,444.
Burden of Response: 0.167 hours.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden:
Increase of 611 hours from 32 hours to
643 hours.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we
will submit a copy of this proposed rule
to OMB for its review of the collection
of information.
We ask for public comment on the
proposed collection of information to
help us determine, among other
things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help
us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information;
• Whether the information is readily
available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the
burden of collection;
• How valid our methods are for
determining the burden of collection;
and
• How we can minimize the burden
of collection.
If you submit comments on the
collection of information, submit them
by the date listed in the DATES section
of this preamble to both the OMB and
to the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

currently valid control number from
OMB. Before the Coast Guard could
enforce the collection of information
requirements in this proposed rule,
OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this
information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is
explained below.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled 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
Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000).) This
proposed rule, as promulgated under 46
U.S.C. 3306 and 3703, concerns
personnel qualifications because it
would amend requirements for who
may serve as the PIC of fuel oil transfers
on inspected vessels. Therefore, because
the States may not regulate within these
categories, this rule is consistent with
the fundamental federalism principles
and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may
not regulate in categories in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be
the sole source of a vessel’s obligations,
the Coast Guard recognizes the key role
that State and local governments may
have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules
with federalism implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order
13132 specifically directs agencies to
consult with State and local
governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please call or

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules
email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Although this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice
Reform), to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and would
not create an environmental risk to
health or a risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the
agency provides Congress, through
OMB, with an explanation of why using
these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (for
example, specifications of materials,
performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and
related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which
guides the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section of this
preamble. This proposed rule would be
categorically excluded under paragraph
L56 in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. Paragraph L56
pertains to the training, qualifying,
licensing, and disciplining of maritime
personnel. This proposed rule involves
letters of designation to assign PIC of
fuel oil transfers on inspected vessels.
We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40343

For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend part 155 as follows:
PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for part 155
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33
U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; 46 U.S.C 3306,
3703, 70011, 70034; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Section 155.1020 also issued under section
316 of Pub. L. 114–120. Section 155.480 also
issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101–
380.
Note: Additional requirements for vessels
carrying oil or hazardous materials are
contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40,
150, 151, and 153.

2. Amend § 155.710(e) as follows:
a. In the introductory text, remove the
word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the
word ‘‘must’’;
■ b. Revise paragraph (e)(1);
■ c. Remove paragraph (e)(2);
■ d. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3) and
(e)(4) as paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3),
respectively; and
■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph
(e)(2), remove the text ‘‘or (2)’’.
The revision reads as follows:
■
■

§ 155.710
charge.

Qualifications of person in

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) On each inspected vessel required
by 46 CFR chapter I to have an officer
aboard, and on each uninspected vessel,
either:
(i) Holds a valid merchant mariner
credential issued under 46 CFR chapter
I, subchapter B, with an endorsement as
master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator
aboard that vessel, or holds a valid
merchant mariner credential endorsed
as Tankerman-PIC; or
(ii) Carries a letter satisfying the
requirements of § 155.715 and
designating him or her as a PIC, unless
equivalent evidence is immediately
available aboard the vessel or at his or
her place of employment.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 155.715

[Amended]

3. In § 155.715, remove the text ‘‘letter
of instruction required in
§ 155.710(e)(2)’’ and add, in its place,
the text ‘‘letter referenced in
§ 155.710(e)(1)’’.

■

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

40344

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Dated: August 9, 2019.
David C. Barata,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019–17457 Filed 8–13–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0108; FRL–9998–00–
Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts;
Transport State Implementation Plans
for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 Ozone
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Massachusetts that address the
interstate transport of air pollution
requirements for Infrastructure SIPs for
the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
(i.e., Transport SIPs). The intended
effect of this action is to propose
approval of the Transport SIPs as
revisions to the Massachusetts SIP. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 13,
2019.
SUMMARY:

Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2008–0108 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:38 Aug 13, 2019

Jkt 247001

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square–Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square–
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. The term ‘‘the Commonwealth’’
refers to the State of Massachusetts.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s Submittals
A. Background and Evaluation of the
Transport SIP for the 1997 Ozone
Standard
B. Background and Evaluation of the
Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone
Standard
C. Background and Evaluation of the
Transport SIP for the 2015 Ozone
Standard
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background
On January 31, 2008, February 9,
2018, and September 27, 2018, the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of
interstate transport SIPs for the 1997,
2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
interstate transport SIPs we are
proposing to approve were submitted to
address the infrastructure requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
Over the past two decades, EPA has
revised the primary ozone standard
three times. On July 18, 1997, EPA

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

revised the ozone standard from 0.120
parts per million (ppm), based on a onehour average, to 0.08 ppm, based on a
three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average.
See 62 FR 38856. On March 12, 2008,
EPA revised the level of the primary
ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075
ppm and maintained the form of the
standard. See 73 FR 16436. Most
recently, on October 1, 2015, EPA
revised the primary ozone standard by
lowering the level to 0.070 ppm while
maintaining the form of the standard.
See 80 FR 65292.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to address a new
or revised NAAQS within three years
after promulgation of a standard, or
within a shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the
elements that new SIPs must address, as
applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions.
The interstate transport SIP
provisions require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that have
certain adverse effects in another state
due to interstate transport of air
pollution. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
identifies four elements related to the
evaluation of impacts of interstate
transport of air pollutants; in this
rulemaking, we are addressing the first
two elements; the remaining two
elements will be acted on under
separate rulemaking actions.
Specifically, the portions that we are
proposing to approve pertain to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) Significant
contribution to nonattainment of the
ozone NAAQS in any other state
(commonly called ‘‘prong 1’’); and (2)
interference with maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS (commonly called
‘‘prong 2’’) by any other state. These two
provisions (or ‘‘prongs’’) are commonly
referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions of the CAA. The first
provision requires that a state’s SIP for
a new or revised NAAQS contain
adequate measures to prohibit any
source or other type of emissions
activity in the state from emitting
pollutants in amounts that ‘‘contribute
significantly’’ to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state. The second
provision requires that a state’s SIP
prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in the state from
emitting pollutants in amounts that will
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the
applicable NAAQS in any other state.

E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM

14AUP1

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	2019-08-14
File Created	2019-08-14