[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28376-28377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13269]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Ch. I
46 CFR Ch. I
[CGD 95-022]
Presidential Regulation Review
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing an initial policy determination
on regulatory reform initiatives. The Coast Guard is also reopening the
comment period for public comment on the Coast Guard's regulatory
process and its response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative.
DATES: Written comments must be received not later than December 8,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary,
Marine Safety Council (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may be delivered to room 3406 at the
same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments will become part of this docket ad will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce P. Novak, Regulations
Coordinator, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100
Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone (202) 267-6819.
This telephone is equipped to record messages on a 24-hour basis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 1995 (60 FR 16423) the Coast
Guard announced it would be holding a public meeting in Washington, DC
on April 20, 1995, to take comments on the President's recently
announced Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and the Coast Guard's
regulatory development process. The deadline for [[Page 28377]] written
comments was May 1, 1995. On April 5, 1995 the Coast Guard published a
second notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 17287) announcing a series
of regional public meetings to be held on the same topics. The deadline
for written comments in this notice was June 5, 1995.
At the April 20, 1995 public meeting and in written comments to the
docket, several commentors requested an extension of the May 1, 1995
comment period. The issues discussed in the notice and at the public
meeting are important and require careful thought and evaluation. Since
the regulatory reform initiative is an ongoing process, a longer
comment period can be accommodated. In addition to receiving comments
on the regulatory policy announced in this notice, comments on the
issues raised in the two prior notices may be submitted. To provide
maximum value on this notice, comments should be received by December
8, 1995. However, late comments will be accepted and evaluated to the
extent practicable.
In response to the Federal Register notice and public meetings, the
Coast Guard has received and is still receiving comments suggesting
specific regulations for review and identifying reasons why those
regulations should be either amended or eliminated. The Coast Guard
will fully evaluate each suggestion and may initiate appropriate
rulemaking projects at a later date. However, the Coast Guard has
already made a preliminary determination to proceed immediately with at
least two regulatory reinvention initiatives. The first is to purge the
Code of Federal Regulations of obsolete and out-of-date regulations. A
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a wide range of
recissions was published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1995 (60 FR
24748). This first set of obsolete and out-of-date regulations has
minimal impact on the public and no controversy or objection is
expected. Additional obsolete and out-of-date regulations will be
proposed for elimination or revision in later rulemaking documents.
Second, the Coast Guard has established a goal of eliminating any
Coast Guard induced differential between requirements that apply to
U.S. vessels in international trade and those that apply to similar
vessels in international trade that fly the flag of responsible foreign
nations. The Coast Guard will carefully evaluate every existing and
newly proposed regulation. To the maximum extent possible, requirements
that create an unwarranted differential between U.S. and responsible
international standards will be eliminated. There are several new
rulemaking projects under development that reflect this new Coast Guard
policy.
The U.S. maritime industry conducted several studies, some of which
indicated that industry competitiveness has been adversely impacted by
the cost differential between building a vessel to U.S. standards and
building it to some foreign standards. The industry reported that
differential was from 0% to 15% of the total construction cost.
However, all of these industry studies were conducted prior to
implementation of the 1981 and 1983 amendments to the 1974 Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. The Convention and its amendments have
greatly reduced the gap between U.S. and international standards.
The U.S. has sometimes unilaterally adopted more stringent
standards than the international regulations promulgated by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the
United Nations. A Maritime Administration sponsored study conducted in
1979 reported that the portion of the total construction cost
differential directly attributable to discretionary requirements
imposed by the Coast Guard was less than one-half of one percent.
However, even a one-half of one percent differential in construction
costs should be avoided if it does not result in needed additional
safety or environmental protection.
In the past, international standards were in large part inadequate
or nonexistent which required the United States to adopt high quality
standards of its own. This situation has changed in recent years. Great
strides have been taken by the responsible members of the international
community to adopt standards that provide levels of safety and
environmental protection that are generally equivalent to U.S.
standards. The IMO has adopted a wide range of safety and environmental
protection requirements that parallel many of the standards that apply
to U.S. vessels. However, the IMO requirements are in some cases
general in nature and need amplifying national regulations. In
addition, IMO requirements do not constitute a complete ship
construction standard. They must be used together with classification
society standards and flag state requirements. Responsible foreign flag
states and classification societies now have standards that are
equivalent to U.S. standards. Because these responsible flag states and
classification societies now assure high levels of protection, it is no
longer desirable for the United States to apply different requirements
to U.D. vessels. Accordingly, in cooperation with the American Bureau
of Shipping, the Coast Guard has identified various U.S. regulations
that differ from the best international standards. The Coast Guard is
now carefully evaluating each of those regulations to determine if it
makes necessary additional safety or environmental protection
contributions. Those regulations that do not provide necessary added
levels of protection will be proposed for elimination.
Because of the global nature of maritime commerce, it is seldom
effective for an individual nation to require substantially different
standards for its vessels engaged in international trade. Ships of
every nationality call at ports all over the world. Substandard
performers pose a risk to their host nations everywhere. For this
reason, IMO recently formed the Flag State Implementation Subcommittee
(FSI) to develop strong international standards for nations that flag
vessels (flag states) and for nations that host vessels (port states).
By working closely with the FSI the Coast Guard will assure both a high
and a level playing field for U.S. flag vessels in international trade.
The Coast Guard invites comment on this initial regulatory policy.
Dated: May 22, 1995.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-13269 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M