[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79241-79252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29714]



[[Page 79241]]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 249

December 27, 2013

Part V





Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Coast Guard





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





33 CFR Part 1





Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding 
Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 79242]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1259]
RIN 1625-AB32


Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding 
Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to issue a rule containing its 
assessment framework for, and restating its position regarding, the 
federalism implications of regulations issued under the authority of 
various statutes within Titles 33 and 46 of the United States Code. 
This notice requests comments on the proposal and, pursuant to 
Executive Order 13132, invites State and local governments to consult 
during its development.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our 
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before March 27, 
2014, or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2008-1259, using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For 
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and 
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Lineka Quijano, Office of Maritime and 
International Law, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-3865. If you have 
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. 
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background and Purpose
    A. Background
    B. General Preemption Principles
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Preemption Analysis for the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 
1972 (PWSA)
    B. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title I
    C. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title II
    D. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title I/Title II ``Overlap'' 
Regulations
    E. Listing of Current Regulations With Preemptive Impact 
Pursuant to the PWSA
    F. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for 
Regulations Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32
    G. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32
    H. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for 
Regulations Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33
    I. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33
    J. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for 
Regulations Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101
    K. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101
    L. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for 
Regulations Issued Under the Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, 33 
U.S.C. 1901-1912
    M. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912
    N. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for 
Regulations Issued Under Authorities Not Described Above
    O. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Certain 
Coast Guard Determinations That No Regulations Should Issue
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2008-1259), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide the reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-1259'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter, 
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you 
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' insert the docket number for 
this rulemaking (USCG-2008-1259) in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and 
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. If you do not have 
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to 
use the Docket Management Facility.

[[Page 79243]]

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may 
submit a request for a public meeting to the Docket Management Facility 
at the address under ADDRESSES, explaining why one would be beneficial. 
If we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we 
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PTSA Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972
SMS Safety Management System
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background and Purpose

A. Background

    Courts have consistently upheld and reinforced the preemptive 
effect of Federal regulations for maritime vessels. See, e.g., Gibbons 
v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824); Sinnot v. Davenport, 63 U.S. (22 
How.) 227 (1859); Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U.S. 69 (1884); Kelly v. 
Washington ex rel Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 (1937); Ray v. Atlantic 
Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978); U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000). 
As the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained, the ``authority of 
Congress to regulate interstate navigation, without embarrassment from 
intervention of the separate States and resulting difficulties with 
foreign nations, was cited in the Federalist Papers as one of the 
reasons for adopting the Constitution. E.g., The Federalist Nos. 44, 
12, 64. In 1789, the First Congress enacted a law by which vessels with 
a federal certificate were entitled to `the benefits granted by any law 
of the United States.' Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, Sec.  1, 1 Stat. 
55.'' Locke, 529 U.S. at 99.
    The Coast Guard is one of the primary Federal agencies responsible 
for the promulgation, implementation, and enforcement of Federal 
maritime regulations, including the implementation of international 
shipping treaties to which the United States is a party. The Coast 
Guard has asserted in the past and believes today that consistent 
standards of universal application and enforcement, coupled with 
Federal initiatives to meet unique regional concerns, best meet local 
and national safety and environmental goals with the least disruption 
to maritime commerce. To that end, the Coast Guard in the past has 
relied on development of case law and compliance with Congressional 
intent to ensure that, where appropriate, the preemptive impact of 
Federal vessel regulations is preserved.
    In light of recent Federal cases and the Presidential Memorandum on 
Preemption issued on May 20, 2009, the Coast Guard believes that a 
clear agency statement of the preemptive impact of our regulations, 
particularly those regulations issued prior to the promulgation of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, can be of great benefit to State and 
local governments, the public, and regulated entities. Therefore, the 
Coast Guard intends to revise its assessment framework and issue a 
general restatement of preemption, coupled with specific statements 
regarding regulations issued under the authority of statutes with 
preemptive effect, including, among others, the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1223 et. seq.). The 
Coast Guard proposes to add subpart 1.06 to Title 33 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to allow easy access to this assessment framework 
and organizational restatement by interested persons and parties.

B. General Preemption Principles

    Preemption of State law has its basis in the Supremacy Clause of 
the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
determined that three general theories of preemption apply in the 
context of the regulation of vessels. First, express preemption applies 
when Congress, by an express statement, specifically precludes State 
regulation in a given area. The prohibition against State pilotage 
regulations for coastwise vessels found at 46 U.S.C. 8501 is an example 
of express preemption, as is the prohibition against State regulation 
of Great Lakes pilotage found at 46 U.S.C. 9306.
    Second, field preemption applies when the Federal regulatory regime 
pervades a specific area of regulation to the extent that courts 
conclude that Congress has left no room for State regulation. Even in 
the absence of an express statement by the Coast Guard or the 
promulgation of regulations, State rules are preempted where Congress 
has intended to occupy the field. Thus, a State may not regulate in 
areas found to be field preemptive. For example, 46 U.S.C. 3703 lists 
several fields of regulation, including the design, construction, 
alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel 
qualification, and manning of tank vessels, for which State action is 
preempted, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued particular 
regulations in that field.
    Third, conflict preemption, which in the maritime regulation 
context is somewhat different from traditional conflict analysis 
jurisprudence, applies in cases where the Coast Guard has regulated, or 
affirmatively decided not to regulate, on a particular subject and a 
State attempts to regulate on the same subject. Factors to consider in 
determining whether the regulations are within the same subject include 
whether the State regulation conflicts with Federal law, whether 
compliance with both the State law and Federal law is impossible, and 
whether State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the 
full purpose of the Federal law. The Coast Guard believes that nearly 
all regulations currently issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231 
have preemptive effect under a conflict preemption analysis.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, the Coast Guard must, to the 
extent practicable, publish federalism summary impact statements 
regarding any regulation that has federalism implications and that 
preempts State law. In the past, the Coast Guard issued federalism 
statements indicating that certain preemptive regulations had no 
federalism implications. Although these regulations were based on 
authorities that clearly expressed Congress' preemptive intent, the 
Coast Guard did not describe as clearly as it could have the full 
nature of the preemption. This practice was consistent with the Coast 
Guard's view that the regulations did not have any new federalism 
implications; rather they simply reflected a long standing federalism 
position in regard to maritime regulation. This proposed regulation 
seeks to make the Coast Guard's view of the preemptive impact of 
certain regulations more obvious. The Coast Guard's view is that the 
intent of Congress to preempt is so clear in express preemption and 
numerous PWSA situations that the Coast Guard has no discretion in the 
matter; the

[[Page 79244]]

agency was merely fulfilling the direction of Congress consistent with 
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore did not 
believe that more particular federalism statements were required. 
However, in light of recent Federal cases signaling that more explicit 
preemption statements are instructive and helpful, and in accordance 
with the Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 20, 2009, 
the Coast Guard proposes to clarify and restate the preemptive impact 
of its regulations. We welcome comments from the public on this 
proposal.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Preemption Analysis for the PWSA

    As amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (PTSA), the 
PWSA contains two Titles. Title I authorizes the Coast Guard to 
promulgate regulations to implement measures for controlling vessel 
traffic or for protecting navigation and the marine environment. 33 
U.S.C. 1223(a)(1). Title II requires the Coast Guard to promulgate 
regulations addressing the design, construction, alteration, repair, 
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification and manning 
of vessels. 46 U.S.C. 3703(a). With the enactment of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 
37 into positive law (Pub. L. 98-89, 97 Stat. 521 (1983)), the 
distinction between the two titles has legally disappeared. However, 
reference to Title I and II makes a convenient analytical tool still 
used by both the courts and the Coast Guard to conduct preemption 
analyses of regulations issued under these authorities. The Coast Guard 
will continue to refer to both Titles I and II in this rulemaking and 
future federalism statements implicating the PWSA.

B. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title I

    In the Ray and Locke cases cited in section III.A. of this 
preamble, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the relevant inquiry under 
Title I of the PWSA, with respect to a State's power to impose 
navigational operating rules, is whether the Coast Guard has 
promulgated its own requirement on the subject or has decided that no 
such requirement should be imposed at all. Ray, 431 U.S. 171-172; 
Locke, 529 U.S. 108-110. In such cases, the Coast Guard's regulation, 
or decision that no regulation should be promulgated, must be given 
preemptive effect over State laws addressing the same or similar 
subject matter, even when those State laws are not otherwise 
inconsistent with Federal law. Where the Coast Guard has neither 
promulgated its own regulation nor made a determination that no 
regulation should be promulgated, a State may regulate, so long as the 
regulation is based on the peculiarities of local waters that call for 
special precautionary measures.
    With these conflict preemption principles in mind, the Coast Guard 
reiterates its position that any regulations issued under the authority 
of PWSA Title I are intended to have preemptive impact over State law 
covering the same subject matter in the same geographic area (as 
delimited in the Federal regulation), unless the Coast Guard states 
otherwise in the preamble to the final rule in question.
    One exception to the general preemption restatement articulated 
above is for the enforcement of Coast Guard safety and security zones 
promulgated under the authority of PWSA Title I by State or local 
officers. In 46 U.S.C. 70118, Congress specifically authorized State 
law enforcement officers to enforce Coast Guard safety and security 
zones. This statute is implemented by the Coast Guard through memoranda 
of agreement with State and local law enforcement agencies. As such, 
the Coast Guard's view is that enforcement by State or local officers 
operating in accordance with a memorandum of agreement between the 
Coast Guard and the officer's parent agency of safety and security 
zones promulgated pursuant to PWSA Title I is not preempted.
    Another exception to the general preemption restatement articulated 
above is for State maritime facility regulations that are more 
stringent than the Coast Guard maritime facility regulations in 33 CFR 
part 105. State maritime facility regulations will not be preempted so 
long as these State laws or regulations are more stringent than what is 
required by 33 CFR part 105 and no actual conflict or frustration of an 
overriding need for national uniformity exists.
    For currently existing rules issued under the authority of PWSA 
Title I, a listing of Coast Guard determinations regarding preemptive 
impact is contained in section E, below, and in proposed section 2.1 of 
the appendix to subpart 1.06. For rules issued after publication of 
this restatement and assessment framework, the general intentions, 
presumptions, and policies described above apply, and this rulemaking 
will be referred to in the Federalism section of the preamble to each 
final rule published in the Federal Register, along with the federalism 
analysis required pursuant to Executive Order 13132. A statement that 
the Coast Guard intends to preempt State law (if applicable) will also 
be included in the codified regulation in accordance with the 
Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 20, 2009.

C. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title II

    The Locke case reaffirmed the ruling announced in Ray. It held that 
regulations issued pursuant to PWSA Title II concern subjects that are 
reserved exclusively to the Federal government, as implemented by the 
Coast Guard. Thus State regulation in the field described in 46 U.S.C. 
3703(a) is preempted at all times. This field contains categories 
regarding the design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, 
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of tank 
vessels. In accordance with these rulings, and to meet the intent of 
Congress, the Coast Guard's view is that State regulation relating to 
the aforementioned aspects of tank vessels is field preempted, 
regardless of whether the Coast Guard has made any regulatory 
determinations on the subject in question. A listing of regulations 
already issued under the authority of PWSA Title II, including the 
applicable Title II category, is provided in section E, below, and in 
proposed section 2.2 of the appendix to subpart 1.06. For regulations 
issued under this authority in the future, the preemption restatement 
and assessment framework described in this paragraph will apply, and 
this policy will be referred to in the Federalism section of the 
preamble to each final rule issued under this authority, along with the 
federalism analysis required pursuant to Executive Order 13132. A 
statement that the Coast Guard intends to preempt State law will also 
be included in the codified regulation in accordance with the 
Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 20, 2009.

D. Preemption Restatement for PWSA Title I/Title II ``Overlap'' 
Regulations

    Both the Locke and Ray Courts recognized that some regulations may 
not fit cleanly into either Title I or Title II of the PWSA. Locke, 529 
U.S. at 111-12. For example, a State prohibition on the transit of 
large tankers through State waters might be subject to a Title I 
analysis if the prohibition were based on local peculiarities, or a 
Title II analysis if it were based on a State judgment that large 
tankers are generally unsafe. In Locke, several factors were developed 
to aid in determining the title in which a particular State regulation 
should be categorized. Id. The Coast Guard also recognizes this 
potential

[[Page 79245]]

ambiguity as to its own regulations and will conduct what the Locke 
Court described as an ``overlap analysis'' in the promulgation and 
application of its regulations. While the Locke Court used the overlap 
analysis as a means of categorizing a particular State regulation as 
either falling under a Title I (generally controlled by conflict 
preemption principles) or a Title II category (controlled by field 
preemption principles), the Coast Guard believes the overlap analysis 
factors described by the Locke Court are equally useful in categorizing 
a particular Federal regulation. In conducting an overlap analysis the 
following factors, derived from Locke, are considered: (1) The type of 
regulations the Coast Guard has actually promulgated under the 
applicable Title II specific category, as this may aid in determining 
the scope of the Title II field, and indicates that State regulation of 
this specific category is field preempted; (2) whether an identical 
State regulation would be based on conditions unique to a particular 
port or waterway (e.g., a Title I regulation is one based on water 
depth or other local peculiarities); (3) whether an identical State 
regulation would be of limited extraterritorial effect, not requiring 
the tank vessel to modify its primary conduct outside the specific body 
of water purported to justify the local rule; and (4) whether an 
identical State regulation would pose a minimal risk of innocent 
noncompliance, would not affect vessel operations outside the 
jurisdiction, would not require adjustment of systemic aspects of the 
vessel, and would not impose a substantial burden on the vessel's 
operation within the local jurisdiction itself. Factors 2 through 4 are 
indicators that, in the absence of a Federal determination on the 
subject, an identical State regulation might not be field preempted by 
Title II, and therefore appropriate for conflict preemption analysis 
under Title I.
    After considering all these factors, the Coast Guard will determine 
whether the regulation is categorized under Title I or Title II. The 
Coast Guard determinations as to its existing regulations which may be 
subject to an ``overlap analysis,'' are listed in section E, below, and 
in proposed section 2.3 of the appendix to subpart 1.06. Where the 
Coast Guard has determined that the regulation falls under PWSA Title 
II, the applicable category is also listed. For regulations issued in 
the future, this section will apply, and the determinations will be 
stated in the preamble to the final rule, along with the federalism 
analysis required pursuant to Executive Order 13132. A statement that 
the Coast Guard intends to preempt State law will also be included in 
the codified regulation in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum 
on Preemption issued on May 20, 2009.

E. Listing of Current Regulations With Preemptive Impact Pursuant to 
the PWSA

    After applying the principles described above, the Coast Guard has 
determined that by operation of the PWSA, current and future State law 
is preempted with respect to the following Coast Guard regulations 
issued under the authorities of Titles I and II of the PWSA:
    Title I--33 CFR parts 64, 101, 103, 104, 105 (for State maritime 
facility laws that are either less stringent or actually conflict with 
or frustrate an overriding need for national uniformity), 120, 128, 
161, 166, 167, 169 and 401.
    Title II--with respect to tank vessels only--33 CFR parts 157, 163, 
and 168. 46 CFR parts 2, 8, 13, 15, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 50, 
52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 98, 105, 110, 111, 112, 
113, 150, 151, 153, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 172, 174, 
175, 178, 179, and 199.
    Some Coast Guard regulations are grounded in, and issued under the 
authority of, both titles of the PWSA. Using the overlap analysis 
described above, the Coast Guard has made the following determinations:
    In 33 CFR part 155, the following sections are grounded in Title II 
authority, and cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a 
State: 155.100 through 155.1030, 155.1055 through 155.1060, 155.1110 
through 155.1120, and 155.1135 through 155.1150.
    In 33 CFR part 156, the following sections are grounded in Title I 
authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or contrary 
State regulation: 156.118, 156.215, 156.220, 156.230, 156.300 and 
156.310. In 33 CFR part 156, the following sections are grounded in 
Title II authority, and cover fields that are foreclosed from 
regulation by a State: 156.100 through 156.115, 156.120 through 
156.210, 156.225, and 156.320 through 156.330.
    In 33 CFR part 160, the following sections are grounded in Title I 
authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or contrary 
State regulation: 160.1 through 160.7, 160.105 through 160.107, and 
160.115 through 160.215. In 33 CFR part 160, the following regulations 
as applied to tank vessel operations are grounded in Title II, and 
cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a State: 160.101, 
160.103, 160.109, 160.111 and 160.113.
    In 33 CFR part 162, the following sections are grounded in Title I 
authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or contrary 
State regulation: 33 CFR 162.1 through 162.40, 162.65 through 
162.65(b)(3), 162.65(b)(4)(ii) through 162.65(b)(6), 162.75 through 
162.75(b)(5)(iv), 162.75(b)(6) through 162.80(a)(1), 162.80(a)(3) 
through 162.90(b)(2)(iii), 162.90(b)(2)(vi) through 162.90(b)(3)(iv), 
162.90(b)(4)(ii) through 162.117(h)(2), 162.120 through 162.125(a), 
162.125(b)(3) through (5).
    In 33 CFR part 162, the following sections are promulgated pursuant 
to Title II, and cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a 
State: 162.65(b)(4)(i) operation and equipping, 162.75(b)(5)(v) 
operation and equipping, 162.75(b)(5)(vi) operation, 162.80(a)(2) 
operation and equipping, 162.90(b)(2)(iv) manning, 162.90(b)(2)(v) 
operation, 162.90(b)(4)(i) operation and equipping, 162.117(h)(3) and 
(4) operation, 162.255(e)(1) and (2) operation and equipping, and 
162.255(e)(3) operation.
    In 33 CFR part 164, the following sections are promulgated under 
Title I and therefore preempt any similar, identical or contrary State 
regulation: 33 CFR 164.01, 164.02, 164.03, 164.11(c), 164.11(e), 
164.11(f)-(i), 164.11(k)-(n), 164.11(p), 164.11(q), 164.19(b), 
164.19(c), 164.51, 164.53, 164.55, 164.61, 164.70, 164.78(a)(3)-(8) and 
164.82(c). The following sections are grounded in Title II authority, 
and cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a State: 33 CFR 
164.11(b), 164.11(d), 164.11(j), 164.11(o), 164.11(r) through 
164.19(a), 164.25 through 164.46, 164.72 through 164.78(a)(2), and 
164.78(b) through 164.82(b).
    In 33 CFR part 165, the following sections are grounded in Title I 
authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or contrary 
State regulation: 165.1 through 165.150(b)(4), 165.150(b)(6) through 
165.501(d)(2), 165.501(d)(4) through 165.501(d)(5), 165.501(d)(7) 
through 165.510(d), 165.510(f)(1) through 165.510(f)(3), 165.510(f)(9) 
through 165.540(f)(6), 165.540(f)(9) through 165.803(e)(2), 165.803(g) 
through 165.810(e), 165.810(f)(2), 165.811(a) through 165.811(c), 
165.811(e) through 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(D), 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(F) through 
165.1152(d)(1), 165.1152(d)(3) through 165.1181(d)(1), 165.1181(d)(3) 
through 165.1704(c)(1), 165.1704(c)(3) through 165.1704(c)(5), and 
165.1706 through 165.2030.
    The following sections in 33 CFR part 165 are grounded in Title II, 
and cover

[[Page 79246]]

fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a State: 165.150(b)(5) 
manning, 165.501(d)(3)(i)-(ii) and (6) equipping, 165.510(e) operation, 
165.510(f)(4) operation, 165.510(f)(5) manning, 165.510(f)(6) 
operation, 165.510(f)(7) and (8) equipping, 165.540(f)(7) and (8) 
equipping, 165.803(e)(3) and (4) equipping, 165.803(f)(1)-(3) 
equipping, 165.810(f)(1) manning, 165.810(f)(3) equipping, 165.811(d) 
equipping, 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) equipping, 165.1152(d)(2) operation, 
165.1181(d)(2) operation, and 165.1704(c)(2) and (6) equipping.

F. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Regulations 
Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32

    Chapter 32 of Title 46, U.S. Code, describes the regime of 
regulation for certain vessels that must comply with the International 
Safety Management Code that is found in Chapter IX of the Annex to the 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as 
amended (SOLAS). This regime requires that certain vessels create and 
implement a Safety Management System (SMS) and carry onboard and 
maintain a proper certificate issued by the Coast Guard reflecting a 
current SMS. 46 U.S.C. 3203 requires the Coast Guard to issue 
regulations which mandate the implementation of an SMS to which the 
Chapter applies which identifies: (1) A safety and environmental 
protection policy; (2) instructions and procedures to ensure the safe 
operation of those vessels and protection of the environment in 
compliance with international and United States law; (3) defined level 
of authority and lines of communications between, and along, personnel 
on shore and on the vessel; (4) procedures for reporting accidents and 
nonconformities with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32; (5) procedures for preparing 
for and responding to emergency situations; and (6) procedures for 
internal audits and management reviews of the system. This describes a 
pervasive scheme of safety management for those vessels to which 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 32 applies. Such a pervasive scheme, coupled with the 
strong mandate that the Coast Guard ``shall prescribe regulations,'' 
considered in light of the significant Congressional interest to create 
a uniform maritime regulatory regime, suggests that Congress intended 
to fill the field related to SMS on all vessels to which 46 U.S.C. 
Chapter 32 applies, and to any other vessels Congress has made subject 
to Coast Guard SMS regulation. See Locke, 529 U.S. 113-116.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard's view is that the field of vessel 
safety management is foreclosed from State regulation by 46 U.S.C. 
Chapter 32, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued 
regulations on the subject or not, and regardless of the existence of 
conflict between the State and Coast Guard regulation. A listing of 
current Coast Guard regulations issued pursuant to this authority is 
provided in section G, below, and in proposed section 3 of the appendix 
to subpart 1.06. For future regulations issued under this authority, 
the Coast Guard will cite to this rulemaking in the preamble to the 
final rule, and will conduct the federalism analysis required pursuant 
to Executive Order 13132. A statement that the Coast Guard regulations 
are in a field foreclosed from State regulation will also be included 
in the codified regulation in accordance with the Presidential 
Memorandum on preemption issued on May 20, 2009.

G. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32

    All of the regulations in 33 CFR part 96 have been prescribed under 
the authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32, and cover fields that are 
foreclosed from regulation by a State.

H. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Regulations 
Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33

    Chapter 33 of Title 46, U.S. Code, describes the regime of 
regulation for vessels ``subject to inspection'' by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Vessels ``subject to inspection'' is a term of art developed by 
Congress. It refers to various types of vessels listed in 46 U.S.C. 
3301 subject to a comprehensive, pervasive regime of Federal 
regulation. By contrast, ``uninspected vessels,'' such as most 
commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels, are subject to 
Coast Guard regulation, but under a much less comprehensive and 
prescriptive scheme of Federal regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
long recognized the field preemptive impact of the Federal regulatory 
regime for inspected vessels. See, e.g., Kelly v. Washington ex rel 
Foss, 302 U.S. 1 (1937) and Locke, 529 U.S. 113-116. Therefore the 
Coast Guard's view is that the regulatory regime created by 46 U.S.C. 
3306 in the areas of design, construction, alteration, repair, 
operation, superstructures, hulls, fittings, equipment, appliances, 
propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery, boilers, unfired pressure 
vessels, piping, electric installations, accommodations for passengers 
and crew, sailing school instructors, sailing school students, 
lifesaving equipment and its use, firefighting equipment, its use and 
precautionary measures to guard against fire, inspections and tests 
related to these areas and the use of vessel stores and other supplies 
of a dangerous nature covers fields that are foreclosed from regulation 
by a State. These fields are foreclosed from State regulation 
regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued a particular 
regulation on the subject or not, and regardless of the existence of 
conflict between the State and Coast Guard regulation. A listing of 
current Coast Guard regulations issued pursuant to this authority is 
provided in section I, below, and in proposed section 4 of the appendix 
to subpart 1.06. For future regulations issued under this authority, 
the Coast Guard will cite to this preemption statement in the preamble 
to the final rule, and will conduct the federalism analysis required 
pursuant to Executive Order 13132. A statement that the Coast Guard 
regulations are in a field foreclosed from State regulation will also 
be included in the codified regulation in accordance with the 
Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 20, 2009.

I. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33

    The following regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33 
cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a State: 46 CFR 
parts 70, 71, 76, 78, 90-93, 95-98, 105, 107-108, 110-122, 125-134, 
147, 147A, 148, 150-151, 153-154, 159-164, 166-169, 170-174, 175-185, 
188-190, 193-196, and 199.

J. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Regulations 
Issued Under the Authority of 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101

    Section 5 of the PTSA provides that ``the Secretary shall establish 
a marine safety information system'' for tank vessels. 46 U.S.C. 3717 
requires that, among other data, the marine safety information system 
shall include the name of each person with an ownership interest in the 
vessel, details of compliance with financial responsibility 
requirements of applicable laws or regulations, registration 
information (including all changes in the name of the vessel), and a 
record of all inspections and examinations conducted under 46 U.S.C. 
3714.
    46 U.S.C. 6101 states that ``The Secretary shall prescribe 
regulations on the marine casualties to be reported and the manner of 
reporting.'' The statute requires, among other things, the reporting of 
the death of an individual, serious injury to an individual, material

[[Page 79247]]

loss of property, material damage affecting the seaworthiness or 
efficiency of the vessel, and significant harm to the environment.
    The Supreme Court has held that ``Congress intended that the Coast 
Guard regulations be the sole source of a vessel's reporting 
obligations . . . '' and that Coast Guard regulations promulgated 
pursuant to the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101 were not intended 
by Congress ``to be cumulative to those enacted by each political 
subdivision whose jurisdiction a vessel enters.'' Locke, 529 U.S. 115-
116. Therefore, the Coast Guard's view is that regulations issued under 
the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3717 as part of a marine safety information 
system and under 46 U.S.C. 6101 for marine casualty reporting 
requirements cover fields foreclosed from regulation by a State. These 
fields are foreclosed from State regulation regardless of whether the 
Coast Guard has issued regulations on the subject or not, and 
regardless of the existence of conflict between the State and Coast 
Guard regulation. A listing of current Coast Guard regulations issued 
pursuant to this authority is provided in section K, below, and in 
proposed section 5 of the appendix to subpart 1.06. For future 
regulations issued under this authority, the Coast Guard will cite to 
this preemption statement in the preamble to the final rule, and will 
conduct the federalism analysis required pursuant to Executive Order 
13132. A statement that the Coast Guard regulations are in a field 
foreclosed from State regulation will also be included in the codified 
regulation in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum on Preemption 
issued on May 20, 2009.

K. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101

    The following regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 
6101 cover fields that are foreclosed from regulation by a State: 33 
CFR 151.15, 151.26(b)(3), 153.203, 155.1035(b), 164.61, part 173 
subpart C; 46 CFR 4.05-1 through 4.05-10, 35.15-1, 197.484 through 
197.488, and 401.260.

L. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Regulations 
Issued Under the Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901-
1912

    The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) is the domestic law 
implementing the ``International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating thereto,'' otherwise referred to as MARPOL 73/78 or MARPOL. To 
the extent an international agreement creates a standard that is 
embodied in Coast Guard regulations or is formally recognized by the 
Coast Guard as applicable pursuant to domestic law (in this case, 
APPS), that standard will also preempt a contrary State law. Under 
international law, an international treaty or agreement is binding on 
all political subdivisions of the ratifying nation, and a party would 
not be excused from compliance because of the actions of a political 
subdivision. Because international agreements reflect the intentions of 
nation-states, the Supreme Court has emphasized that any concurrent 
power held by States in fields that are the subject of international 
agreements is ``restricted to the narrowest of limits.'' Hines v. 
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 68 (1941). Accordingly, whether viewed through 
the lens of preemption by treaty or interference with the Federal 
government's exclusive authority to conduct the foreign affairs of the 
United States, the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down State laws 
that conflict with duly promulgated Federal law touching on matters of 
international concern. See, e.g., Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 
(1968); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942); United States v. 
Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937). This foreign affairs based preemption 
analysis is also buttressed by the traditional Congressional 
recognition of a uniform and consistent pattern of Federal regulation 
of shipping. The Coast Guard recognizes there are certain and limited 
express statements of non-preemption related to APPS such as in Section 
2003 of Public Law 100-220, among others, which will be considered in 
any related preemption analysis. A listing of current Coast Guard 
regulations issued pursuant to this authority is provided in section M, 
below, and in proposed section 6 of the appendix to subpart 1.06. For 
future regulations issued under this authority, the Coast Guard will 
cite to this preemption restatement in the preamble to the final rule, 
and will conduct the federalism analysis required pursuant to Executive 
Order 13132. A statement that the Coast Guard intends to preempt State 
law (if applicable) will also be included in the codified regulation in 
accordance with the Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 
20, 2009.

M. Regulations Issued Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912

    The following regulations issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912 
preempt conflicting, similar, or identical State or local laws or 
regulations with the exception of State or local laws or regulations 
specifically permitted by Section 2003 of Public Law 100-220 or other 
similar express statutory authority: 33 CFR part 151, Subpart A; 33 CFR 
155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 
155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), 155.1065(g), and all the regulations in 
33 CFR part 157.

N. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Regulations 
Issued Under Authorities Not Described Above

    Other regulations issued by the Coast Guard after the effective 
date of the final rule may have preemptive impact. In such cases, the 
Coast Guard's view is that such regulations, in order to more fully 
address the requirements of Executive Order 13132, will also in their 
preamble contain a preemption analysis that states the legal rationale 
for concluding whether the regulation has preemptive impact. A 
statement that the Coast Guard intends to preempt State law (if 
applicable) will also be included in the codified regulation in 
accordance with the Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 
20, 2009. For regulations that are currently issued and not 
specifically addressed in this proposed Assessment Framework and 
Organization Restatement of Preemption, the preemptive analysis and 
principles recited herein will be used to determine any preemptive 
effect, unless there are specific preemption exceptions applicable to 
the particular statute or regulations in question. The absence of an 
express preemptive statement in a regulation or rule preamble is not 
determinative of the preemptive impact of the regulation, considering 
that the true preemptive intent of the regulation is reflected in the 
underlying Congressional authority and intent.

O. Preemption Restatement and Assessment Framework for Certain Coast 
Guard Determinations That No Regulations Should Issue

    In some cases, the Coast Guard makes a determination that no 
regulations are needed on certain subjects or in a certain geographic 
area. These determinations can have preemptive impact over a contrary 
State determination. For example, this was true in cases of negative 
determinations made under Title I of the PWSA or pursuant to the 
preemption provisions of the Federal Motorboat Safety Act of 1971, 46 
U.S.C. 4301 et seq. See, e.g., Locke, 529 U.S. at 109 and Ray, 435 U.S. 
at 171-172, Cf. Spreitsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 66 (2002). 
These

[[Page 79248]]

negative determinations can be made in several ways, including, but not 
limited to: Formal decisions in response to the recommendations of 
advisory committees, correspondence in response to Congressional 
inquiries regarding an area of regulation, or in response to requests 
or actions by State and local governments, the marine industry, or the 
public where the USCG's decision is intended to have preemptive effect. 
Negative determinations may or may not be published in the Federal 
Register, so long as they are published in a medium likely to reach the 
affected audience as the decision of the Coast Guard on the question of 
preemption. Regardless of the method used to record and publish a Coast 
Guard preemptive determination not to regulate, negative determinations 
made after the effective date of the final rule in this matter should 
contain a statement of the preemptive impact of such negative 
determinations, although the mere absence of such a statement of 
preemptive impact does not necessarily indicate that the determination 
is not preemptive.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our 
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility.
    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that 
Order. This proposed rule would only clarify, not change, the 
preemptive status of Coast Guard regulations. We expect this proposed 
rule would not result in additional impacts on the U.S. economy.
    This proposed rule is intended to clarify the preemptive effect of 
Federal regulatory regimes, and articulate the assessment framework 
used by the Coast Guard for evaluating the preemptive impact of future 
Coast Guard regulations based on their underlying statutory schemes. 
The assessment framework is based on the federalism analysis pursuant 
to Executive Order 13132. The Coast Guard currently performs federalism 
analyses under Executive Order 13132, if applicable. The Coast Guard 
would not require additional resources to implement this proposed rule.
    By clarifying the preemption framework, the Coast Guard hopes to 
avoid or reduce confusion related to States and local governments' 
attempts to regulate in preempted areas. This action does not alter the 
preemptive effect of any Federal statute or regulation, and does not 
affect the relationship between the national government and the State 
and local governments.
    We expect no additional cost impacts to State and local governments 
or industry from this proposed rule because it only restates and 
clarifies the status of Federal and State laws as it exists. This 
proposed rule does not alter in any way the rights of States. However, 
we expect this proposed rule to be beneficial to the maritime industry 
because it avoids potential conflicts between State and Federal 
regulations.

B. Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies 
to consider whether regulatory actions 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.
    As previously discussed, we estimate this proposed rule would not 
impose additional costs and would have no additional impact on small 
entities because it does not alter the preemptive impact of any 
particular regulation or impose any direct costs on small entities, but 
rather clarifies the preemptive status of certain regulations, as 
presented in section IV--Discussion of Proposed Rule.
    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 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 Management Facility at the addresses under ADDRESSES. In 
your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Lieutenant 
Commander Lineka Quijano, Office of Maritime and International Law, 
Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-3865. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not require a collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order. This regulation, in and of itself, does not change or 
alter the Coast Guard's view on the law of preemption, or the 
preemptive impact of our existing regulatory regime. Likewise, it does 
not serve to prospectively give preemptive impact to any future 
regulatory effort. As we make clear below, many of the statutes we 
administer, and many of our regulations, have preemptive impact. In 
keeping with the intent of Congress, and the spirit of Executive Order 
13132 and the Presidential Memorandum on Preemption issued on May 20, 
2009, the purpose of this rulemaking is to identify those statutes and 
regulations the Coast Guard considers to be preemptive. We also clarify 
and restate the principles and procedures by which the Coast Guard 
identifies and promulgates regulatory determinations with preemptive 
impact. This proposed rule discusses existing law on preemption; it 
identifies the laws and regulations that have preemptive effect. It 
clarifies (but

[[Page 79249]]

does not alter) the Coast Guard's view on the preemptive effect of its 
regulations. Nonetheless, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role State 
and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. 
Accordingly, the Coast Guard encourages State and local governments to 
participate in the development of this rulemaking, and will, if we 
receive comments from States, consult with the States pursuant to 
Executive Order 13132. We will also make available to the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget any written communications 
submitted by State and local officials. Any future rulemaking covering 
an area the Coast Guard considers to have preemptive impact pursuant to 
this proposed policy will also be promulgated in accordance with E.O. 
13132 or its successors.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 [adjusted for 
inflation] or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 
Nevertheless, the Coast Guard welcomes input from Federally recognized 
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 it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a 
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' section of this preamble. This rule involves regulations 
that are editorial or procedural and regulations concerning internal 
agency functions. This rule falls under paragraphs 34(a) and (b) of the 
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Freedom of information, and Penalties.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. Add subpart 1.06 to read as follows:
Subpart 1.06--Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement 
Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard
Sec.
1.06-1 General Restatement Regarding Preemption and Preemption 
Assessment Framework.
1.06-10 Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment Framework 
for the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and Regulations Issued under 
its Authority.
1.06-20 Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment Framework 
for 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32 and Regulations Issued Under its Authority.
1.06-30 Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment Framework 
for 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33 and Regulations Issued Under its Authority.
1.06-40 Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment Framework 
for 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101 and Regulations Issued Under their 
Authority.
1.06-50 Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment Framework 
for The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, codified at 33 U.S.C. 
1901 to 1912 and Regulations Issued Under its Authority.

Appendix to Subpart 1.06 of Part 1--Regulations with Preemptive Effect.

Subpart 1.06--Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement 
Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast 
Guard

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 2 and 91; 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231, 1903(b); 46 
U.S.C. 3203, 3306, 3703, 3717, 4302, & 6101; Dept. of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

[[Page 79250]]

Sec.  1.06-1  General Restatement Regarding Preemption and Preemption 
Assessment Framework.

    (a) Preemption of State law has its basis in Article VI, clause 2, 
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Coast Guard follows 
the three general theories of preemption that the U.S. Supreme Court 
has determined apply in the context of the regulation of vessels.
    (1) Express preemption applies when Congress, by an express 
statement, specifically precludes State regulation in a given area.
    (2) Field preemption applies when the Federal regulatory regime 
pervades a specific area of regulation to the extent that courts 
conclude that Congress has left no room for State regulation. Even in 
the absence of an express statement by the Coast Guard or the 
promulgation of regulations, State rules are preempted where Congress 
has intended to occupy the field. Thus, a State may not regulate in 
areas found to be field preempted.
    (3) Conflict preemption applies in cases where courts find that the 
State regulation conflicts with a Federal statute or regulation, where 
compliance with both the State law and Federal law or regulation is 
impossible, or where State law stands as an obstacle to the 
accomplishment of the full Federal purpose.
    Note to paragraph (a): General Policy. Since the founding of the 
Republic, the Federal government has historically exercised the 
preeminent and preemptive role in regulating interstate and 
international shipping. Courts have consistently upheld and reinforced 
the preemptive effect of the Federal regulatory regime for vessels. 
See, e.g., Kelly v. Washington ex rel Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 (1937); Ray 
v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978); U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 
89 (2000). The Coast Guard is one of the primary Federal agencies 
responsible for the promulgation, implementation and enforcement of 
Federal shipping regulations, including the implementation of 
international shipping treaties to which the United States is a party. 
The Coast Guard's policy position is that consistent standards of 
universal application and enforcement, coupled with Federal initiatives 
to meet unique regional concerns, best meet local and national safety 
and environmental goals with the least disruption to maritime commerce. 
Thus, in many cases, the Coast Guard regulations preempt non-federal 
regulatory or enforcement actions, consistent with the principles 
described in paragraph (a) of this section. The Coast Guard does not 
intend, through the publication of this policy, to affect any 
regulation promulgated pursuant to authority under which Congress has 
expressed an intention not to preempt State or local law or regulation.
    (b) Procedures. In cases where a Coast Guard regulatory 
determination has preemptive impact, the Coast Guard will use the 
following procedures to identify and communicate that impact:
    (1) For regulations promulgated under the authority of a statute 
that is discussed in this subpart, but issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], the Coast Guard has published a listing of the 
preemptive impacts in the appendix to subpart 1.06 of this part, 
although that listing is not intended to be exclusive.
    (2) For regulations promulgated under the authority of a statute 
that is discussed in this subpart, issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], those final rules will contain a reference to and a 
statement of the applicability of the preemption policies in this 
subpart. The preambles of those rules will also contain a report of the 
results of the consultative process with State and local governments 
required by Executive Order 13132.
    (3) For regulations promulgated under the authority of a statute 
that is not discussed in this subpart, issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], the Coast Guard will issue preemption analyses and 
determinations on a case by case basis, as necessary. Any such 
determination will include a report on the results of the consultative 
process required under Executive Order 13132, if applicable. Any party 
seeking a Coast Guard preemption determination for a regulation covered 
by this paragraph may do so by writing to the Commandant (CG-0941), 
Attn: Office of Maritime and International Law, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 
7213, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7213.
    (4) For regulations promulgated under the authority of a statute 
not discussed in this subpart, issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], those final rules will contain a reference to the applicability 
of the general preemption policy in this subpart, as well as a 
statement of the preemptive impact of the specific statutes and 
regulations in question. The preambles of those rules will also contain 
an analysis of the preemptive impact and a report of the results of the 
consultative process with State and local governments required by 
Executive Order 13132, if applicable.
    (5) In cases where the Coast Guard has made a determination not to 
regulate on a certain subject or in a certain geographic area, the 
procedures for identifying and communicating the preemptive impact of 
such negative determinations are:
    (i) For negative determinations issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], the Coast Guard will issue preemption analyses and 
determinations on a case by case basis, as necessary. Any such 
determination will include a report on the results of the consultative 
process required under Executive Order 13132, if applicable. Any party 
seeking a Coast Guard preemption determination for a negative 
determination covered by this paragraph may do so by writing to the 
Commandant (CG-0941), Attn: Office of Maritime and International Law, 
U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7213, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20593-7213.
    (ii) For negative determinations issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], the Coast Guard negative determination will contain a 
reference to the applicability of the preemption principles in this 
subpart, as appropriate, as well as a statement of the preemptive 
impact of the negative determination. The negative determination will 
also contain a report of the results of the consultative process with 
State and local governments required by Executive Order 13132, if 
applicable.


Sec.  1.06-10  Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment 
Framework for the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and Regulations Issued 
Under Its Authority.

    (a) General. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 
92-340, 86 Stat. 424), as amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 
1978 (Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471) (collectively the ``PWSA'') 
contained two titles. Title I is codified at 33 U.S.C. 1221-1232. Title 
II is codified at 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37. This subpart refers to the PWSA 
by title, not section.
    (b) PWSA Title I (1)--Preemptive effect. Conflict preemption 
principles apply to PWSA Title I. Any regulations or negative 
determinations issued by the U.S. Coast Guard under the authority of 
PWSA Title I are intended to have preemptive impact over State law 
covering the same subject matter in the same geographic area (as 
delimited in the Federal regulation), unless the Coast Guard states 
otherwise in the preamble to the final rule or the negative 
determination in question. This does not include enforcement of Coast 
Guard safety and security zones created under the authority of Title I 
of the PWSA when done by State or local officers, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
70118 and a memorandum of agreement between the Coast Guard and the 
State or local

[[Page 79251]]

enforcement agency in question. Also, this does not include State 
maritime facility regulations that are more stringent than the Coast 
Guard maritime facility regulations in 33 CFR part 105. State maritime 
facility regulations will not be preempted so long as these State laws 
or regulations are more stringent than what is required by 33 CFR part 
105 and no actual conflict or frustration of an overriding need for 
national uniformity exists.
    (2) Procedures. For rules or negative determinations issued under 
the authority of PWSA Title I and promulgated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) and (b)(5)(i) of 
this subpart apply. For rules or negative determinations issued after 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(2) 
and (b)(5)(ii) of this subpart apply.
    (c) PWSA Title II--(1) Preemptive effect. Field preemption 
principles apply to PWSA Title II. State regulations relating to the 
design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, 
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of tank vessels are 
preempted, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has made any 
regulatory determinations on the subject in question.
    (2) Procedures. For rules issued under the authority of PWSA Title 
II and promulgated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) of this subpart apply. For rules 
issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  
1.06-1(b)(2) of this subpart apply. In addition, the preambles to those 
final rules will contain a determination as to which PWSA Title II 
category or categories are applicable.
    (d) PWSA Title I/Title II Overlap. In cases where a regulation 
could be classified as either Title I or Title II, the Coast Guard 
conducts the ``overlap analysis'' described in the U.S. Supreme Court 
decision in United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 111-112 (2000). For 
regulations issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Coast 
Guard has published a listing of our overlap analyses in the appendix 
to subpart 1.06 of this part. For regulations issued after [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the result of the overlap analysis will be 
contained in both the preamble and the text of those final rules.


Sec.  1.06-20  Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment 
Framework for 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32 and Regulations Issued Under Its 
Authority.

    (a) Preemptive effect. Field preemption principles apply to 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 32. Regulations issued by the Coast Guard under the 
authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32 in the field of vessel safety 
management cover a field foreclosed from regulation by a State, 
regardless of the existence of conflict between the State and Coast 
Guard regulation.
    (b) Procedures. For rules issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 
Chapter 32 and promulgated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) of this subpart apply. For rules 
issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  
1.06-1(b)(2) of this subpart apply. In addition, the preambles to those 
final rules will contain a determination as to which 46 U.S.C. Chapter 
32 category or categories are applicable.


Sec.  1.06-30  Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment 
Framework for 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33 and Regulations Issued Under Its 
Authority.

    (a) Preemptive effect. Field preemption principles apply to 46 
U.S.C. Chapter 33. Regulations issued by the Coast Guard under the 
authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the fields of design, construction, 
alteration, repair, operation, superstructures, hulls, fittings, 
equipment, appliances, propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery, 
boilers, unfired pressure vessels, piping, electric installations, 
accommodations for passengers and crew, sailing school instructors, 
sailing school students, lifesaving equipment and its use, firefighting 
equipment, its use and precautionary measure to guard against fire, 
inspections and tests related to these fields, and the use of vessel 
stores and other supplies of a dangerous nature cover fields that are 
foreclosed from regulation by a State. These fields are foreclosed from 
State regulation regardless of the existence of conflict between the 
State and Coast Guard regulation.
    (b) Procedures. For rules issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 
3306 and promulgated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) of this subpart apply. For rules 
issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  
1.06-1(b)(2) of this subpart apply. In addition, the preambles to those 
final rules will contain a determination as to which 46 U.S.C. 3306 
category or categories are applicable.


Sec.  1.06-40  Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment 
Framework for 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 6101 and Regulations Issued Under 
Their Authority.

    (a) Preemptive effect. Field preemption principles apply to 46 
U.S.C. 3717 and 6101. Any regulation issued by the Coast Guard under 
the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3717 or 46 U.S.C. 6101 covers fields that 
are foreclosed from State regulation. These fields are foreclosed from 
State regulation regardless of the existence of conflict between the 
State and Coast Guard regulation.
    (b) Procedures. For rules issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 
3717 or 6101 and promulgated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
the procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) and (b)(5)(i) of this subpart 
apply. For rules issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(2) and (b)(5)(ii) of this subpart apply.


Sec.  1.06-50  Restatement Regarding Preemption and Assessment 
Framework for The Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, Codified at 33 
U.S.C. 1901 to 1912 and Regulations Issued Under Its Authority.

    (a) Preemptive effect. Conflict preemption principles apply to 33 
U.S.C. 1901-1912. With the exception of State or local laws or 
regulations specifically permitted by section 2003 of Public Law 100-
220 or other similar express statutory authority, any regulation issued 
by the Coast Guard under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912 has 
preemptive impact over similar, identical, or contrary State law.
    (b) Procedures. For rules or negative determinations issued under 
the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912 and promulgated prior to 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(1) 
and (b)(5)(i) of this subpart apply. For rules or negative 
determinations issued after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the 
procedures in Sec.  1.06-1(b)(2) and (b)(5)(ii) of this subpart apply.

Appendix to Subpart 1.06--Regulations With Preemptive Effect

    1. Scope. This Appendix sets out the preemptive effect of 
certain Coast Guard regulations as they existed on [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE]. It amplifies the assessment framework set out in 
subpart 1.06 by providing examples, taken from existing law, of the 
different preemption analyses described in subpart 1.06. It also 
provides information on the Coast Guard's analytical approach to the 
listed regulations. This appendix does not list all regulations that 
may have preemptive effect, nor does it describe in totality the 
preemptive effect of all Federal statutes governing every Coast 
Guard activity. This appendix does not account for developments 
occurring after

[[Page 79252]]

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. For regulations not listed in this 
appendix, refer to the preemption assessment framework in 33 CFR 
1.06-1.
    2. Regulations with Preemptive Impact Pursuant to the Ports and 
Waterways Safety Act.
    2.1 Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 
having the preemptive effect described in 33 CFR 1.06-10(b) pursuant 
to Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. 33 CFR parts 64, 
101, 103, 104, 105 (for State maritime facility security laws that 
are either less stringent or that actually conflict with or 
frustrate an overriding need for national uniformity), 120, 128, 
161, 166, 167, 169 and 401.
    2.2 Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 
covering fields foreclosed from State regulation as described in 33 
CFR 1.06-10(c) pursuant to Title II of the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act. With respect to tank vessels only: 33 CFR parts 157, 
163, and 168; 46 CFR parts 2, 8, 13, 15, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 
39, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 98, 105, 110, 
111, 112, 113, 150, 151, 153, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 
170, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179, and 199.
    2.3 Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 
appropriate for analysis under the ``overlap analysis'' described in 
33 CFR 1.06-10(d).
    Using the overlap analysis described in 33 CFR 1.06-10(d), the 
Coast Guard has made the following determinations:
    (a) In 33 CFR part 155, the following sections are grounded in 
Title II authority, and therefore cover fields foreclosed from State 
regulation: 155.100 through 155.1030, 155.1055 through 155.1060, 
155.1110 through 155.1120, and 155.1135 through 155.1150.
    (b) In 33 CFR part 156, the following sections are grounded in 
Title I authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or 
contrary State regulation: 156.118, 156.215, 156.220, 156.230, 
156.300 and 156.310.
    (c) In 33 CFR part 156, the following sections are grounded in 
Title II authority, and therefore cover fields foreclosed from State 
regulation: 156.100 through 156.115, 156.120 through 156.210, 
156.225, and 156.320 through 156.330.
    (d) In 33 CFR part 160, the following sections are grounded in 
Title I authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or 
contrary State regulation: 160.1 through 160.7, 160.105 through 
160.107, and 160.115 through 160.215.
    (e) In 33 CFR part 160, the following regulations as applied to 
tank vessel operations are grounded in Title II, and therefore cover 
fields foreclosed from State regulation: 160.101, 160.103, 160.109, 
160.111 and 160.113.
    (f) In 33 CFR part 162, the following sections are grounded in 
Title I authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or 
contrary State regulation: 33 CFR 162.1 through 162.40, 162.65 
through 162.65(b)(3), 162.65(b)(4)(ii) through 162.65(b)(6), 162.75 
through 162.75(b)(5)(iv), 162.75(b)(6) through 162.80(a)(1), 
162.80(a)(3) through 162.90(b)(2)(iii), 162.90(b)(2)(vi) through 
162.90(b)(3)(iv), 162.90(b)(4)(ii) through 162.117(h)(2), 162.120 
through 162.125(a), 162.125(b)(3) through (5).
    (g) In 33 CFR part 162, the following regulations are 
promulgated pursuant to Title II, and therefore cover fields 
foreclosed from State regulation: 162.65(b)(4)(i) operation and 
equipping, 162.75(b)(5)(v) operation and equipping, 162.75(b)(5)(vi) 
operation, 162.80(a)(2) operation and equipping, 162.90(b)(2)(iv) 
manning, 162.90(b)(2)(v) operation, 162.90(b)(4)(i) operation and 
equipping, 162.117(h)(3) and (4) operation, 162.255(e)(1) and (2) 
operation and equipping, and 162.255(e)(3) operation.
    (h) In 33 CFR part 164, the following regulations are 
promulgated under Title I and therefore preempt any similar, 
identical or contrary State regulation: 33 CFR 164.01, 164.02, 
164.03, 164.11(c), 164.11(e), 164.11(f)-(i), 164.11(k)-(n), 
164.11(p), 164.11(q), 164.19(b), 164.19(c), 164.51, 164.53, 164.55, 
164.61, 164.70, 164.78(a)(3)-(8) and 164.82(c).
    (i) In 33 CFR part 164, the following sections are grounded in 
Title II authority, and therefore cover fields foreclosed from State 
regulation: 33 CFR 164.11(b), 164.11(d), 164.11(j), 164.11(o), 
164.11(r) through 164.19(a), 164.25 through 164.46, 164.72 through 
164.78(a)(2), and 164.78(b) through 164.82(b).
    (j) In 33 CFR 165, the following sections are grounded in Title 
I authority, and therefore preempt any similar, identical or 
contrary State regulation: 33 CFR 165.1 through 165.150(b)(4), 
165.150(b)(6) through 165.501(d)(2), 165.501(d)(4) through 
165.501(d)(5), 165.501(d)(7) through 165.510(d), 165.510(f)(1) 
through 165.510(f)(3), 165.510(f)(9) through 165.540(f)(6), 
165.540(f)(9) through 165.803(e)(2), 165.803(g) through 165.810(e), 
165.810(f)(2), 165.811(a) through 165.811(c), 165.811(e) through 
165.923(b)(2)(ii)(D), 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(F) (through 165.1152(d)(1), 
165.1152(d)(3) through 165.1181(d)(1), 165.1181(d)(3) through 
165.1704(c)(1), 165.1704(c)(3) through 165.1704(c)(5), and 165.1706 
through 165.2030.
    (k) In 33 CFR part 165, the following sections are grounded in 
Title II, and therefore cover fields foreclosed from State 
regulation: 165.150(b)(5) manning, 165.501(d)(3)(i)-(ii) and (6) 
equipping, 165.510(e) operation, 165.510(f)(4) operation, 
165.510(f)(5) manning, 165.510(f)(6) operation, 165.510(f)(7) and 
(8) equipping, 165.540(f)(7) and (8) equipping, 165.803(e)(3) and 
(4) equipping, 165.803(f)(1)-(3) equipping, 165.810(f)(1) manning, 
165.810(f)(3) equipping, 165.811(d) equipping, 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) 
equipping, 165.1152(d)(2) operation, 165.1181(d)(2) operation, and 
165.1704(c)(2) and (6) equipping.
    3. Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 
covering fields foreclosed from State regulation as described in 33 
CFR 1.06-20.
    All of the regulations in 33 CFR part 96 have been prescribed 
under the authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32, and therefore cover 
fields foreclosed from State regulation.
    4. Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 
covering fields foreclosed from State regulation as described in 33 
CFR 1.06-30.
    The following regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 
33 cover fields foreclosed from State regulation: 46 CFR parts 70, 
71, 76, 78, 90-93, 95-98, 105, 107-108, 110-122, 125-134, 147, 147A, 
148, 150-151, 153-154, 159-164, 166-169, 170-174, 175-185, 188-190, 
193-196, and 199.
    5. Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE) and covering fields foreclosed from State regulation as 
described in 33 CFR 1.06-40.
    The following regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3717 and 
6101 cover fields foreclosed from State regulation: 33 CFR 151.15, 
151.26(b)(3), 153.203, 155.1035(b), 164.61, part 173 subpart C; 46 
CFR 4.05-1 through 4.05-10, 35.15-1, 197.484 through 197.488, 
401.260.
    6. Regulations in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and 
having the preemptive effect described in 33 CFR 1.06-50.
    The following regulations issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1901 
through 1912 preempt similar, identical, or contrary State or local 
laws or regulations with the exception of State or local laws or 
regulations specifically permitted by Section 2003 of Public Law 
100-220 or other similar express statutory authority: 33 CFR part 
151, subpart A; 33 CFR 155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 
155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), 
155.1065(g), and all the regulations in 33 CFR part 157.

    Dated: December 5, 2013.
F.J. Kenney,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Judge Advocate General.

[FR Doc. 2013-29714 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P