Presidential Regulation Review

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