Browse by Year
/ 2008
/ September
/ Monday, September 29, 2008
[Federal Register: September 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56492-56501]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29se08-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[Docket No. USCG-2004-19621]
RIN 1625-AA89
Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS
ACTION: Interim rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to allow the
discharge of bulk dry cargo residue (DCR) in limited areas of the Great
Lakes by self-propelled vessels and by any barge that is part of an
integrated tug and barge unit. DCR is the residue of non-toxic and non-
hazardous bulk dry cargo like limestone, iron ore, and coal. These
regulations also add new recordkeeping and reporting requirements and
encourage carriers to adopt voluntary control measures for reducing
discharges. Discharges are now prohibited in certain protected and
sensitive areas where, previously, they were allowed. The Coast Guard
also requests public comments on the need for and feasibility of
additional conditions that might be imposed on discharges in the
future, such as mandatory use of control measures, or further
adjustments to the areas where discharges are allowed or prohibited.
DATES: This interim rule takes effect September 29, 2008. Initial
reports under amended 33 CFR 151.66(c)(4) are due January 15, 2009.
Comments and related material submitted in response to the request for
comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before January
15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2004-19621 and are available for inspection or
copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
We encourage you to submit comments identified by Coast Guard
docket number USCG-2004-19621 to the Docket Management Facility at the
U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use
only one of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
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 system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call LT Heather St. Pierre, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-
1432 or e-mail Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Acronyms
II. Regulatory History and Good Cause for Immediate Effectiveness
III. Background, Purpose, and Discussion of Rule
IV. Discussion of Comments
V. Request for Additional Comments
VI. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Business
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. Acronyms
APA Administrative Procedure Act
DCR Dry Cargo Residue
[[Page 56493]]
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
IEP Interim Enforcement Policy
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ROD Record of Decision
II. Regulatory History and Good Cause for Immediate Effectiveness
In the Federal Register on May 23, 2008, we published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and a notice of availability for the
accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (73 FR 30014).
We received written comments on the proposed rule from 55 sources, and
heard from 3 commenters at public meetings. The public meetings were
announced in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273) and
held in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on July 15 and 17, 2008,
respectively. Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) was announced on August 22, 2008, by the Environmental
Protection Agency (73 FR 49667) and by the Coast Guard (73 FR 49694),
and the Record of Decision (ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS was
signed on [DATE].
This interim rule takes effect immediately upon its publication in
the Federal Register. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), a substantive rule such as this must be published not
less than 30 days before its effective date, unless the agency finds
good cause for an earlier effective date and publishes that finding
with the rule. As we subsequently discuss in more detail, this rule
generally allows the continuation of existing practices in the Great
Lakes. Those practices have been sanctioned by Congress and, although
they have minor indirect adverse impacts on the Great Lakes
environment, their discontinuation could impose a substantial economic
burden on Great Lakes maritime commerce. Congressional sanction for the
existing practices expires on September 30, 2008, and it was Congress's
intent that the Coast Guard review existing practices and issue new
regulations governing those practices by that date. If the APA's 30-day
provision were given effect, then there would be a period of up to a
month during which existing practices would be prohibited, and the
resulting burden on Great Lakes maritime commerce would be significant
in relation to the duration of the prohibition and the potential
environmental benefits of such a short prohibition. The Coast Guard has
concluded the APA's 30-day provision is unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest due to the disruption entailed by so short a period of
prohibition. Therefore, the Coast Guard finds good cause for this
interim rule to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
III. Background, Purpose, and Discussion of Rule
This interim rule adopts the regulatory text proposed in our May
2008 NPRM, with only minor changes. For a fuller discussion of the
background and purpose of this rulemaking, please consult the NPRM.
A substantial portion of Great Lakes shipping involves ``bulk dry
cargos:'' principally limestone, iron ore, and coal, but also lesser
quantities of other substances like cement and salt. During ship
loading or unloading operations, small portions of these cargos often
fall on ship decks or within ship unloading tunnels. This fallen dry
cargo residue (DCR) can contaminate other cargos or cause crew members
to slip or otherwise injure themselves on a ship's deck. Traditionally,
Great Lakes carriers have managed DCR by periodically washing both the
deck and cargo unloading tunnels with water in a practice commonly
known as ``cargo sweeping.'' In order to reduce costs and minimize in-
port time, ships typically conduct this cargo sweeping underway while
transiting between ports.
Prior to the adoption of this interim rule, Coast Guard regulations
that implement the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33
U.S.C. 1901 et seq., have treated DCR as an operational waste, which
constitutes garbage. The discharge of any garbage, anywhere on the
navigable waters of the United States, was prohibited. Strict
enforcement of this regulatory scheme on the Great Lakes would have put
an end to the practice of cargo sweeping. However, in recognition of
the special characteristics of Great Lakes dry cargo shipping, an
``interim enforcement policy'' (IEP) allowed ``incidental discharges''
of non-toxic and non-hazardous DCR on the Great Lakes from 1993 until
2008. The IEP was originally adopted by the Coast Guard's Ninth
District, and then mandated by Congress in 1998, 2000, and 2004 (Pub.
L. 105-383, sec. 415; Pub. L. 106-554, sec. 1117; Pub. L. 108-293, sec.
623). The IEP allowed cargo sweeping only in defined waters, most of
which are relatively deep and far from shore. Additionally, it
prohibited or restricted discharges in special areas that are
considered environmentally sensitive. The congressionally mandated
enforcement of the IEP expires September 30, 2008, or upon the
promulgation of new regulations, whichever date comes first.
The 2004 legislation gave the Coast Guard authority to regulate the
discharge of DCR on the Great Lakes, notwithstanding any other law
(Pub. L. 108-293, sec. 623(b)). The Coast Guard interprets this
authority to allow regulation on the Great Lakes, on water or on shore,
of any operation related to the loading, transfer, or unloading of dry
bulk cargo, or to cargo sweeping or other discharge of dry bulk cargo
residue. All of these operations relate to and are part and parcel of
the discharge of dry bulk cargo, as contemplated by Congress in the
2004 legislation. House Report 108-617, the conference report prepared
in support of the 2004 legislation, states:
It is expected that the [IEP] will be made permanent or replaced
with an alternative regime that appropriately balances the needs of
maritime commerce and environmental protection.
This interim rule amends Coast Guard regulations so that DCR
discharges may continue in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, so long
as those discharges are in compliance with regulatory conditions that
derive, with modifications, from the IEP. One modification is non-
substantive: We are clarifying the current policy but not changing it,
to exclude non-self propelled barges that are not part of an integrated
tug and barge unit. Integrated tugs and barges remain included because
they are designed and operated similarly to self propelled vessels of
the same size and service. We are substantively modifying the IEP to
add new recordkeeping and reporting requirements for dry cargo
carriers. We are adding, to the list of locations in the Great Lakes
where DCR discharges will not be allowed, additional areas that the
Final Environmental Impact Study designates as protected and sensitive.
Finally, we are strongly encouraging carriers to voluntarily adopt
control measures for reducing the amount of DCR that accumulates on or
within vessels and that would ultimately be discharged into the Great
Lakes.
Based on our Final Environmental Impact Statement, we have
concluded that continued discharges of DCR will have only a minor
indirect impact on most areas within the Great Lakes environment. The
FEIS indicated that unconstrained discharges could have a direct
significant adverse impact on protected and sensitive areas. We will
mitigate that impact by prohibiting most discharges in those areas, and
within three miles of land-based protected and sensitive areas. Only
discharges under certain conditions and in specified areas
[[Page 56494]]
will be allowed in the Western Basin of Lake Erie, in order to avoid
the adverse economic impact that the FEIS indicates could accompany the
complete prohibition of discharges in that area. Vessels operating
exclusively in the Western Basin will be allowed to discharge
limestone, clean stone, coal, iron ore, and salt in dredged navigation
channels between Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River Light, where
environmental conditions are already disturbed frequently due to
dredging.
IV. Discussion of Comments
We received 55 comments during the public comment period on our May
2008 NPRM, as well as comments from 3 individuals at our two public
meetings. Few, if any, commenters distinguished between the DEIS and
NPRM in their comment, and therefore all comments were considered for
both documents. We have addressed the comments in detail in the FEIS,
which was made available to the public on August 22, 2008. In response
to public comments, we are extending the areas where DCR discharges are
prohibited to include waters within three miles of shore at the
following sites: Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores on
Lake Michigan and Grand Portage National Monument and Apostle Islands
and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores on Lake Superior. Otherwise, we
are adopting the regulatory text we proposed in the NPRM without
substantive change.
A table presenting the substance of each comment received, and the
Coast Guard's response, appears in the FEIS which can be found in the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov. The comments, and our responses,
are summarized in the following discussion. During the drafting of this
interim rule, we received late comments which did not raise new
substantive issues and did not affect the following discussion.
Comments in favor of prohibiting continued DCR discharges. Forty-
six commenters favored prohibiting continued DCR discharges in the
Great Lakes. We agree with these commenters that our environmental
analysis shows that prohibition could minimize the potential for
adverse environmental impacts, but disagree that DCR discharges should
be completely prohibited. In giving the Coast Guard permanent
regulatory authority over Great Lakes DCR discharges, Congress expected
us to strike an appropriate balance between maritime commercial and
environmental protection needs. By balancing the adverse environmental
impact of continued DCR discharges in the Great Lakes against the
potentially substantial economic cost of prohibiting discharges
anywhere in the Great Lakes, we believe this interim rule best achieves
Congress' intent.
Comments on the toxicity of DCR. Fifteen commenters expressed
concern regarding toxic chemicals in DCR and their effects on humans,
animals, and plants. As recounted in detail in the FEIS, we have
carefully evaluated the toxic potential of DCR. In general, we found
that any toxic components of DCR deposits in the Great Lakes do not
exist in concentrations known to be toxic to organisms. In those few
instances where a cargo's residue concentration can be found near or
above potentially harmful levels, natural sedimentation lowers the
concentration to well below potentially harmful levels. There is little
or no potential for any fish with toxic concentrations in their tissues
to enter the food chain. Moreover, the inclusion of mandatory
recordkeeping in our interim rule will enable us to track future DCR
discharges, and should environmental conditions change significantly in
the future, we retain the regulatory authority needed to address those
changed conditions.
Comments on the impact of DCR on invasive mussels and the aquatic
environment. Eight commenters expressed concern regarding invasive
mussels and the aquatic environment. The FEIS contains detailed
information about how we evaluated the impact of DCR on the aquatic
environment, especially with respect to invasive mussels. We found
minor adverse effects on sediment physical structure, the benthic
community, and invasive species. Except in portions of Lakes Michigan
and Huron where the potential impact is minor, the discharge of DCR
will not change the distribution or density of mussels in most of the
Great Lakes, either because mussels are already ubiquitous (e.g., in
Lakes Erie and Ontario) or because water depth, temperature, and
calcium levels limit mussel distribution and density (e.g., in Lake
Superior). Once again, we believe our interim rule best achieves the
legislative intention behind our regulatory authority by balancing the
minor adverse impact of continued DCR discharges on sediment physical
structure, the benthic community, and invasive species against the
potential economic cost of prohibiting those discharges.
Comments on the legality of the Coast Guard's proposal. Thirty-six
commenters objected to the continued allowance of DCR discharge on the
grounds that it is already illegal under U.S. or international laws,
treaties, or agreements. Among the authorities listed by these
commenters are the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), APPS, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA), and State laws in Michigan, Minnesota, and
Pennsylvania. We discuss the possible interplay between this interim
rule and State law more fully in ``Federalism,'' Part V.E. of this
preamble.
This interim rule replaces the IEP with new regulations. We
initially adopted the IEP in response to concerns that strict
enforcement of existing authorities such as APPS would prohibit
continued DCR discharge in the Great Lakes. Congress subsequently
addressed that same concern by passing legislation in 1998, 2000, and
2004 that required the Coast Guard to implement and enforce the IEP on
the Great Lakes. In 2004, Congress also gave the Coast Guard authority
``notwithstanding any other law'' to regulate the discharge of DCR in
the Great Lakes. The legislative history of the 2004 legislation shows
that Congress expected the Coast Guard to make the IEP permanent or
replace the IEP with an alternative regime that appropriately balances
maritime commercial and environmental protection needs. The 2004
legislation is the latest expression of Congress's intentions with
respect to regulating Great Lakes DCR discharge, and the basis for the
Coast Guard's rulemaking.
Comments relating to recordkeeping and reporting. Seventeen
commenters either opposed mandatory recordkeeping and reporting as
unnecessary, or asked for modifications in the record form or in the
frequency of reporting. We agree that some minor modifications to the
reporting form are appropriate which will be reflected in Form CG-33.
However, we disagree that the quarterly reporting schedule requires
excessively frequent reporting. We have found through the numerous
rules and programs we administer that recordkeeping is an integral and
important part of ensuring regulatory compliance. The Coast Guard is
not requiring the recording or reporting of any data that constitutes
trade secrets or privileged and confidential commercial or financial
information. We consider the economic cost of our new recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to be reasonable, especially considering the
value of comprehensive DCR practice data and its potential relationship
with natural resources. Data reported to the Coast Guard will be useful
as we evaluate the costs and benefits of DCR control measures.
Quarterly reporting ensures
[[Page 56495]]
that data is assembled quickly. Once our data collection needs are
satisfied, we will likely retain the recordkeeping requirement, but may
modify or eliminate the reporting requirement.
We have removed the facsimile of Form CG-33 from the regulation,
but included information on how to obtain the form itself in the
regulatory text.
V. Request for Additional Comments
In our May 2008 NPRM, we promised to open a new rulemaking to begin
a new phase of DCR study, simultaneously with publication of the final
rule for the present rulemaking. The new phase would consider what
additional conditions, if any, should be imposed on DCR discharges in
order to offset any long term impacts they might have.
We have decided to conduct this new phase as part of the present
rulemaking rather than as a separate project. Therefore, in this
interim rule we announce the opening of the new phase, and strongly
encourage you to submit public comments to assist us. We want to
determine if, in the long term, the optimal balancing of commercial and
environmental interests requires the mandatory use of DCR control
measures, the adjustment of the geographical boundaries within which
discharges are currently allowed, or other regulatory changes.
The outcome of this new phase is not predetermined. We might find a
clear case for imposing new DCR control measure requirements and
altering geographical boundaries. Alternatively, we might find that the
costs of any new regulatory measures outweigh the environmental
benefits the new measures would provide, and leave our regulations
unchanged. In determining the regulatory outcome, we intend to be
guided by data on DCR discharges and on DCR control measures that are
already in voluntary use, and by careful consideration of public
comments. The DCR control measures we have identified for analysis are
listed in the Table below.
Table--Potential Dry Cargo Residue Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipboard measures:
Enclosed conveyor.
Troughed conveyor.
Conveyor skirts.
Belt scrapers.
Water mist for dust control.
Conveyor capacity indicators.
Deck remote controls for conveyors.
Stop conveyor while ship or belt is repositioned.
Delay loading/unloading during high wind.
Radio communication between deck and loader.
Crew training on procedures to reduce DCR.
Limit vertical angle of conveyor boom.
Broom & shovel.
Tarps to collect DCR.
Cargo hold vibrator.
Watertight gate seal.
Cargo hold lining.
Minimize hatch removal during poor weather.
Careful cargo hold gate operation.
Shoreside measures:
Enclosed conveyor.
Troughed conveyor.
Conveyor skirts.
Belt scrapers.
Water mist for dust control.
Conveyor capacity indicators.
Deck remote controls for conveyors.
Stop conveyor while ship or belt is repositioned.
Delay loading/unloading during high wind.
Radio communication between deck and loader.
Crew training on procedures to reduce DCR.
Limit vertical angle of conveyor boom.
Flow feeder.
Loading chute, including telescoping or conveyors.
Chemical surfactants.
Suction pumped cargo, slurry transport, pneumatic or screw
conveyors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better focus our efforts, we invite you to respond to the
following questions:
1. Is there a control measure, other than those listed in the
Table, that we should study?
2. Do you have data on the cost of installing, operating and
maintaining control measures or their effectiveness in reducing the
volume of DCR discharged? Can you identify a data source we should
consult?
3. If control measures were to be required, are you in favor of a
phase-in, and if so, how might the phase-in be structured?
4. Are you in favor of limiting the areas in which control measures
should be required, and if so, what are the areas where those
requirements should apply?
5. Are there other changes the Coast Guard should make in order to
regulate the long term discharge of DCR in the Great Lakes in a way
that is both economically and environmentally sustainable?
Please see the ADDRESSES section of this document for information
on how you can share your responses to these questions with us.
[[Page 56496]]
VI. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
Public comments on the NPRM are summarized in Part IV of this
preamble. We received no public comments that would alter our
assessment of impacts in the NPRM. We have adopted the assessment in
the NPRM as final. See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of the
NPRM for the complete analysis. A summary of the assessment follows.
The recordkeeping provisions in this rule require owners and
operators of self propelled vessels to maintain records and report
information on dry cargo operations. This rule does not require the use
of control measures to reduce the amount of residue swept into the
Great Lakes.
There are minimal costs involved in requiring owners and operators
of vessels to keep records of their bulk dry cargo residue sweeping
operations and to make those records available to the Coast Guard.
Moreover, many vessel operators already record this information
voluntarily. We identified 55 U.S., 33 Canadian, and 186 non-Canadian
foreign vessels operating on the Great Lakes affected by the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule.
We estimate the annual recurring cost of this rule to industry,
both U.S. and foreign, to be $88,828 (non-discounted). The total
combined U.S. and foreign 10-year (2009-2018) present value cost of
this rule is $623,891 discounted at 7 percent and $757,721 discounted
at 3 percent.
We estimate the annual recurring cost of this rule to U.S. industry
to be $60,077 (non-discounted). The total U.S. 10-year (2009-2018)
present value cost of this rule is $421,956 discounted at 7 percent and
$512,469 discounted at 3 percent. See the ``Regulatory Evaluation''
section of the NPRM for additional details of the population and cost
estimates.
This rule will increase the Coast Guard's ability to understand the
practice of dry cargo sweeping, monitor the practice, and, if
necessary, subject the practice of dry cargo sweeping to further
controls in the future.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
In the NPRM, we certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and we requested public comments on this
certification. We received no comments on this certification and adopt
it as final.
In the NPRM, we identified 13 small entities affected by this rule
involving inland water freight transportation, marine cargo handling,
packaging and labeling services, and other navigation related
industries. We estimated the per vessel annual cost impact of this
rulemaking on small entities to be about $1,092. We determined that the
cost of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements would not
significantly impact the annual operating revenues of the affected
small entities. See the ``Small Entities'' section of the NPRM for more
details.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Business
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance; please consult Lt St. Pierre (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for a new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. A summary of the title and description of the information
collection, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. This information has
not changed from the NPRM. The estimate covers the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection. See the ``Collection of Information'' section of the NPRM
for additional details.
Title: Dry Cargo Residue Sweepings in the Great Lakes.
Summary of the Collection of Information: These DCR recordkeeping
provisions will require vessel operators to maintain a DCR log to
document what dry cargos are loaded, unloaded, and swept, when they are
swept, how they are swept, how much is swept, what control measures, if
any, are in place, and where, when, and how fast the vessel is
traveling when the sweepings take place.
Need for Information: By making DCR recordkeeping mandatory, we
will greatly increase our ability to understand the practice of dry
cargo sweeping, monitor the practice, and if necessary, subject the
practice of DCR sweeping to further controls in the future.
Proposed Use of Information: The DCR recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will provide additional data to support Coast Guard
analysis of policies to reduce DCR discharges over the long term,
beyond the next 6 to 10 years.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners and
operators of U.S., Canadian, and foreign flag vessels carrying dry-bulk
cargos operated on the Great Lakes. The respondents will conduct DCR
recordkeeping and handle the submissions.
Number of Respondents: Based on estimates from the NPRM, the total
number of vessels that handle Great Lakes dry bulk cargo shipments is
274 (= 55 U.S. vessels + 33 Canadian vessels
[[Page 56497]]
+ 186 non-Canadian foreign vessels). We estimate the number of
respondents equal the number of vessels since there will be crew on
each vessel recording the information.
Frequency of Response: Based on estimates from the NPRM, the annual
frequency of response is 10,615 for U.S. vessels and 5,153 for foreign
vessels.
Burden of Response: Based on estimates from the NPRM, the total
annual burden hours for this rule are 886 hours for U.S. vessel
operators and 448 hours for foreign vessel operators. We estimate the
annual costs of this burden to be $60,077 (non-discounted) for U.S.
operators and $28,751 for foreign operators.
During public hearings, one commenter questioned the usefulness of
collecting man hour data stating that recording man hours can vary
greatly by interpretation and that the data will be unusable. The Coast
Guard disagrees with the commenter. The man hour data provided by
vessel masters will enable the Coast Guard to better estimate the
burden of implementing DCR control measures. The information will
provide a benchmark for measuring DCR-related man hours for the
different alternatives under consideration. We have provided
instructions and guidance for recording man hours. As discussed in the
NPRM, we found many vessel operators already record this information
voluntarily.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of the
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its review of
the collection of information. OMB approved the collection for 33 CFR
part 151 and Form CG-33 on September 4, 2008, and the corresponding
approval number from OMB is OMB Control Number 1625-0072, which expires
on September 11, 2011.
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. The Coast Guard received 10 comments
in response to our NPRM regarding the possible interplay between Coast
Guard regulations and State laws that may relate to DCR discharges. We
understand that at least some States in the Great Lakes region already
have legislation that may prohibit certain solid waste discharges in
their Great Lakes waters, and that certain of those States take the
position that DCR may be or at least may contain solid waste. However,
we do not agree with the commenters that the Federal regulation either
expressly preempts or necessarily conflicts with those laws. Rather,
and to clarify our Federalism statement in accordance with the
responsibilities and the principles contained in EO 13132 regarding
Federalism, the Coast Guard states that this regulation does not
expressly preempt those State laws. Nor does the Coast Guard by
promulgating this regulation take the position that such State laws
facially frustrate an over-riding federal purpose. However, the
ultimate question regarding preemption of State laws is a legal
question that is subject to court interpretation and decision based on
the application of particular facts to those individual laws. Because
no court has ruled on the questions raised, the Coast Guard cautions
carriers that they must comply with all applicable Federal and State
laws regulating DCR discharges. We will work with States and carriers
to make sure carriers are informed of any State laws that could impose
more restrictions on DCR discharges than we have proposed.
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 or more in any
one year. This rule will not result in such expenditure.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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). The Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision appear in the
docket.
[[Page 56498]]
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151
Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 151 as follows:
PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER
0
1. The authority citation for part 151 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101;
Pub. L. 104-227 (110 Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108-293 (118 Stat. 1063),
Sec. 623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1, sec. 2(77).
Subpart A--Implementation of MARPOL 73/78 and the Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty as it pertains to
Pollution From Ships
0
2. Revise Sec. 151.66 to read as follows:
Sec. 151.66 Operating requirements: Discharge of garbage in the Great
Lakes and other navigable waters.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person on
board any ship may discharge garbage into the navigable waters of the
United States.
(b) On the United States' waters of the Great Lakes, commercial
ships, excluding non-self propelled barges that are not part of an
integrated tug and barge unit, may discharge bulk dry cargo residues in
accordance with this paragraph and paragraph (c) of this section.
Owners and operators of ships to which these paragraphs apply are
encouraged to minimize the volume of dry cargo residues discharged
through the use of suitable residue control measures onboard and by
loading and unloading cargo at facilities that use suitable shoreside
residue control measures. As used in this paragraph and paragraph (c)
of this section:
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior administered by the National Park Service, less Madeline
Island, and including the Wisconsin shoreline of Bayfield Peninsula
from the point of land at 46[deg]57'19.7'' N, 90[deg]52'51.0'' W
southwest along the shoreline to a point of land at 46[deg]52'56.4'' N,
91[deg]3'3.1'' W.
Bulk dry cargo residues means non-hazardous and non-toxic residues
of dry cargo carried in bulk, including limestone and other clean
stone, iron ore, coal, salt, and cement. It does not include residues
of any substance known to be toxic or hazardous, such as, nickel,
copper, zinc, lead, or materials classified as hazardous in provisions
of law or treaty;
Caribou Island and Southwest Bank Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
47[deg]30.0' N 85[deg]50.0' W
47[deg]24.2' N 85[deg]38.5' W
47[deg]04.0' N 85[deg]49.0' W
47[deg]05.7' N 85[deg]59.0' W
47[deg]18.1' N 86[deg]05.0' W
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge means the U.S. waters
of the Detroit River bound by the area extending from the Michigan
shore at the southern outlet of the Rouge River to 41[deg]54' N,
083[deg]06' W along the U.S.-Canada boundary southward and clockwise
connecting points:
42[deg]02' N 083[deg]08' W
41[deg]54' N 083[deg]06' W
41[deg]50' N 083[deg]10' W
41[deg]44.52 N 083[deg]22' W
41[deg]44.19 N 083[deg]27' W
Grand Portage National Monument means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from a southwest
corner of the monument point of land, 47[deg]57.521' 89[deg]41.245', to
the northeast corner of the monument point of land, 47[deg]57.888'
89[deg]40.725'.
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land near Gary, Indiana at 41[deg]42'59.4'' N 086[deg]54'59.9'' W
eastward along the shoreline to 41[deg]37'08.8'' N 087[deg]17'18.8'' W
near Michigan City, Indiana.
Integrated tug and barge unit means any tug barge combination
which, through the use of special design features or a specially
designed connection system, has increased seakeeping capabilities
relative to a tug and barge in the conventional pushing mode;
Isle Royale National Park means the site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park Service, where the boundary includes
any submerged lands within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States within four and one-half miles of the shoreline of Isle Royale
and the surrounding islands, including Passage Island and Gull Island.
Mile means a statute mile, and refers to the distance from the
nearest land or island;
Milwaukee Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
43[deg]27.0' N 87[deg]14.0' W
43[deg]21.2' N 87[deg]02.3' W
43[deg]03.3' N 87[deg]04.8' W
42[deg]57.5' N 87[deg]21.0' W
43[deg]16.0' N 87[deg]39.8' W
Northern Refuge means the area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting
the coordinates, beginning on the northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:
45[deg]45' N 86[deg]00' W,
western shore of High Island, southern shore of Beaver Island:
45[deg]30' N 85[deg]30' W
45[deg]30' N 85[deg]15' W
45[deg]25' N 85[deg]15' W
45[deg]25' N 85[deg]20' W
45[deg]20' N 85[deg]20' W
45[deg]20' N 85[deg]40' W
45[deg]15' N 85[deg]40' W
45[deg]15' N 85[deg]50' W
45[deg]10' N 85[deg]50' W
45[deg]10' N 86[deg]00' W
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land at 46[deg]26'21.3'' N 086[deg]36'43.2'' W eastward along the
Michigan shoreline to 46[deg]40'22.2'' N 085[deg]59'58.1'' W.
Six Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
44[deg]55' N 82[deg]33' W
44[deg]47' N 82[deg]18' W
44[deg]39' N 82[deg]13' W
44[deg]27' N 82[deg]13' W
44[deg]27' N 82[deg]20' W
44[deg]17' N 82[deg]25' W
44[deg]17' N 82[deg]30' W
44[deg]28' N 82[deg]40' W
44[deg]51' N 82[deg]44' W
44[deg]53' N 82[deg]44' W
44[deg]54' N 82[deg]40' W
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near
Lake Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, that includes
North Manitou Island, South Manitou Island and the Michigan shoreline
from a point of land at 44[deg]42'45.1'' N 086[deg]12'18.1'' W north
and eastward along the shoreline to 44[deg]57'12.0'' N
085[deg]48'12.8'' W.
Stannard Rock Protection Area means the area within a 6 mile radius
from Stannard Rock Light, at 47[deg]10'57'' N 87[deg]13'34'' W;
Superior Shoal Protection Area means the area within a 6 mile
radius from the center of Superior Shoal, at 48[deg]03.2' N
87[deg]06.3' W;
[[Page 56499]]
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary means the site on or near
Lake Huron designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration as the boundary that forms an approximately rectangular
area by extending along the ordinary high water mark between the
northern and southern boundaries of Alpena County, cutting across the
mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along
latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west. The coordinates of the
boundary are:
45[deg]12'25.5'' N 83[deg]23'18.6'' W
45[deg]12'25.5'' N 83[deg]00'00'' W
44[deg]51'30.5'' N 83[deg]00'00'' W
44[deg]51'30.5'' N 83[deg]19'17.3'' W
Waukegan Special Protection Area means the area enclosed by rhumb
lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:
42[deg]24.3' N 87[deg]29.3' W
42[deg]13.0' N 87[deg]25.1' W
42[deg]12.2' N 87[deg]29.1' W
42[deg]18.1' N 87[deg]33.1' W
42[deg]24.1' N 87[deg]32.0' W; and
Western Basin means that portion of Lake Erie west of a line due
south from Point Pelee.
Table 151.66(b)--Bulk Dry Cargo Residue Discharges Allowed on the Great
Lakes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge allowed
Location Cargo except as noted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tributaries, their connecting Limestone and Prohibited where
rivers, and St. Lawrence other clean there is an apparent
River. stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes.
All other cargos. Prohibited.
Lake Ontario.................. Limestone and Prohibited where
other clean there is an apparent
stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes.
Iron ore......... Prohibited within 6
miles from shore.
All other cargos. Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore.
Lake Erie..................... Limestone and Prohibited where
other clean there is an apparent
stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes; prohibited
in the Detroit River
International
Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in
Western Basin,
except that a vessel
operating
exclusively within
Western Basin may
discharge limestone
or clean stone cargo
residues over the
dredged navigation
channels between
Toledo Harbor Light
and Detroit River
Light.
Iron ore......... Prohibited within 6
miles from shore;
prohibited in the
Detroit River
International
Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in
Western Basin,
except that a vessel
may discharge
residue over the
dredged navigation
channels between
Toledo Harbor Light
and Detroit River
Light if it unloads
in Toledo or Detroit
and immediately
thereafter loads new
cargo in Toledo,
Detroit, or Windsor.
Coal, salt....... Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore; prohibited in
the Detroit River
International
Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in
Western Basin,
except that a vessel
may discharge
residue over the
dredged navigation
channels between
Toledo Harbor Light
and Detroit River
Light if it unloads
in Toledo or Detroit
and immediately
thereafter loads new
cargo in Toledo,
Detroit, or Windsor.
All other cargos. Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore; prohibited in
the Detroit River
International
Wildlife Refuge;
prohibited in
Western Basin.
Lake St. Clair................ Limestone and Prohibited where
other clean there is an apparent
stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes.
All other cargos. Prohibited.
Lake Huron except Six Fathom Limestone and Prohibited where
Scarp Mid-Lake Special other clean there is an apparent
Protection Area. stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes; prohibited
in the Thunder Bay
National Marine
Sanctuary.
Iron ore......... Prohibited within 6
miles from shore and
in Saginaw Bay;
prohibited in the
Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary;
prohibited for
vessels up bound
along the Michigan
thumb as follows:
(1) Between 5.8 miles
northeast of
entrance buoys 11
and 12 to the track
line turn abeam of
Harbor Beach,
prohibited within 3
miles from shore;
and
(2) For vessels bound
for Saginaw Bay
only, between the
track line turn
abeam of Harbor
Beach and 4 nautical
miles northeast of
Point Aux Barques
Light, prohibited
within 4 miles from
shore and not less
than 10 fathoms of
depth.
Coal, salt....... Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore and in Saginaw
Bay; prohibited in
the Thunder Bay
National Marine
Sanctuary;
prohibited for
vessels up bound
from Alpena into
ports along the
Michigan shore south
of Forty Mile Point
within 4 miles from
shore and not less
than 10 fathoms of
depth.
All other cargos. Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore and in Saginaw
Bay; prohibited in
the Thunder Bay
National Marine
Sanctuary.
Lake Michigan................. Limestone and Prohibited where
other clean there is an apparent
stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes; prohibited
within the Milwaukee
Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special
Protection Areas;
prohibited within
the Northern Refuge;
prohibited within 3
miles of the shore
of the Indiana Dunes
and Sleeping Bear
National Lakeshores;
prohibited within
Green Bay.
[[Page 56500]]
Iron ore......... Prohibited in the
Northern Refuge;
north of 45[deg] N,
prohibited within 12
miles from shore and
in Green Bay; south
of 45[deg] N,
prohibited within 6
miles from shore,
and prohibited
within the Milwaukee
Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special
Protection Areas, in
Green Bay, and
within 3 miles of
the shore of Indiana
Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National
Lakeshores; except
that discharges are
allowed at:
(1) 4.75 miles off
Big Sable Point
Betsie, along
established Lake
Carriers Association
(LCA) track lines;
and
(2) Along 056.25[deg]
LCA track line
between due east of
Poverty Island to a
point due south of
Port Inland Light.
Coal............. Prohibited in the
Northern Refuge;
prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore and prohibited
within the Milwaukee
Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special
Protection Areas, in
Green Bay, and
within 3 miles of
the shore of Indiana
Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National
Lakeshores; except
that discharges are
allowed:
(1) Along 013.5[deg]
LCA track line
between 45[deg] N
and Boulder Reef,
and along 022.5[deg]
LCA track running
23.25 miles between
Boulder Reef and the
charted position of
Red Buoy 2;
(2) Along 037[deg]
LCA track line
between 45[deg]20' N
and 45[deg]42' N;
(3) Along 056.25[deg]
LCA track line
between points due
east of Poverty
Island to a point
due south of Port
Inland Light; and
(4) At 3 miles from
shore for coal
carried between
Manistee and
Ludington along
customary routes.
Salt............. Prohibited in the
Northern Refuge;
prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore and prohibited
within the Milwaukee
Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special
Protection Areas, in
Green Bay, and
within 3 miles of
the shore of Indiana
Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National
Lakeshores, and in
Green Bay.
All other cargos. Prohibited in the
Northern Refuge;
prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore and prohibited
within the Milwaukee
Mid-Lake and
Waukegan Special
Protection Areas, in
Green Bay, and
within 3 miles of
the shore of Indiana
Dunes and Sleeping
Bear National
Lakeshores.
Lake Superior................. Limestone and Prohibited where
other clean there is an apparent
stone. impact on wetlands,
fish spawning areas,
and potable water
intakes; and
prohibited within
Isle Royal National
Park and the Caribou
Island and Southwest
Bank, Stannard Rock,
and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas,
and within 3 miles
of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and
Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores
or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Iron ore......... Prohibited within 6
miles from shore
(within 3 miles off
northwestern shore
between Duluth and
Grand Marais); and
prohibited within
Isle Royal National
Park and the Caribou
Island and Southwest
Bank, Stannard Rock,
and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas,
and within 3 miles
of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and
Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores
or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Coal, salt....... Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore (within 3
miles off
northwestern shore
between Duluth and
Grand Marais); and
prohibited within
Isle Royal National
Park and the Caribou
Island and Southwest
Bank, Stannard Rock,
and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas,
and within 3 miles
of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and
Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores
or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
Cement........... Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore (within 3
miles offshore west
of a line due north
from Bark Point);
and prohibited
within Isle Royal
National Park and
the Caribou Island
and Southwest Bank,
Stannard Rock, and
Superior Shoal
Protection Areas,
and within 3 miles
of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and
Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores
or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
All other cargos. Prohibited within
13.8 miles from
shore; and
prohibited within
Isle Royal National
Park and the Caribou
Island and Southwest
Bank, Stannard Rock,
and Superior Shoal
Protection Areas,
and within 3 miles
of the shore of the
Apostle Islands and
Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshores
or the Grand Portage
National Monument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)(1) The master, owner, operator, or person in charge of any
commercial ship loading, unloading, or discharging bulk dry cargo in
the United States' waters of the Great Lakes and the master, owner,
operator, or person in charge of a U.S. commercial ship transporting
bulk dry cargo and operating anywhere on the Great Lakes, excluding
non-self
[[Page 56501]]
propelled barges that are not part of an integrated tug and barge unit,
must ensure that a written record is maintained on the ship that fully
and accurately records information on:
(i) Each loading or unloading operation on the United States'
waters of the Great Lakes, or in the case of U.S. commercial ships on
any waters of the Great Lakes, involving bulk dry cargo; and
(ii) Each discharge of bulk dry cargo residue that takes place in
United States' waters of the Great Lakes, or in the case of U.S.
commercial ships on any waters of the Great Lakes.
(2) For each loading or unloading operation, the record must
describe:
(i) The date of the operation;
(ii) Whether the operation involved loading or unloading;
(iii) The name of the loading or unloading facility;
(iv) The type of bulk dry cargo loaded or unloaded;
(v) The method or methods used to control the amount of bulk dry
cargo residue, either onboard the ship or at the facility;
(vi) The time spent to implement methods for controlling the amount
of bulk dry cargo residue; and
(vii) The estimated volume of bulk dry cargo residue created by the
loading or unloading operation that is to be discharged.
(3) For each discharge, the record must describe:
(i) The date and time the discharge started, and the date and time
the discharge ended;
(ii) The ship's position, in latitude and longitude, when the
discharge started and when the discharge ended; and
(iii) The ship's speed during the discharge.
(iv) Records must be kept on Coast Guard Form CG-33, which can be
found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/dry_cargo.asp. The
records must be certified by the master, owner, operator, or person in
charge and kept in written form onboard the ship for at least two
years. Copies of the records must be forwarded to the Coast Guard at
least once each quarter, no later than the 15th day of January, April,
July, and October. The record copies must be provided to the Coast
Guard using only one of the following means:
(A) E-mail to DCRRecordkeeping@USCG.mil;
(B) Fax to (202) 372-1926, ATTN: DCR RECORDKEEPING; or
(C) Mail to U.S. Coast Guard: Commandant (CG-522), ATTN: DCR
RECORDKEEPING, CGHQ Room 1210, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC
20593-0001.
Dated: September 23, 2008.
J.G. Lantz,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and
Stewardship, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-22670 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Browse by Year
/ 2008
/ September
/ Monday, September 29, 2008
|
|
