[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 69095]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27537]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1119]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Food Canning Establishment Registration, Process
Filing, and Recordkeeping for Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed
Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically Sealed Containers; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the information collection entitled ``Food Canning
Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for
Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically
Sealed Containers'' that appeared in the Federal Register of September
18, 2013 (78 FR 57391). In the notice requesting comment on the
proposed information collection, we requested comments on the
information collection provisions that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA). We are taking this action in response to a request for
an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit
comments on the proposed information collection.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed information
collection. Submit either electronic or written comments by February
18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57391), FDA
published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comment on a
proposed collection of information related to ``Food Canning
Establishment Registration, Process Filing, and Recordkeeping for
Acidified Foods and Thermally Processed Low-Acid Foods in Hermetically
Sealed Containers.'' Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval.
    We have received a request to extend the comment period for the
proposed collection of information. The request noted that we intend to
issue a draft guidance document further explaining the forms that are
the subject of the collection of information and requested that the
comment period for the proposed collection of information be extended
to match the comment period that will be announced in a future notice
requesting comments on such a draft guidance document. The requestor
expected that a likely comment period for the draft guidance would be
60 days.
    We have considered the request and are extending the comment period
for the information collection for 90 days, until February 18, 2014. We
believe that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments without significantly delaying our
submission of the proposed collection of information to OMB for review
under the PRA. We are not granting the specific request to extend the
comment period to match the date when we publish a notice of
availability for a related draft guidance because we cannot say with
certainty when that notice will publish. However, we expect to issue
that notice in a timely manner such that we would announce a comment
period until approximately February 18, 2014. In addition, we note that
comments are welcome on guidance documents at any time (21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 13, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27537 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5350-5351]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01440]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2012-0944; FRL-9771-6]

Adequacy of Massachusetts Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Region 1 proposes to approve Massachusetts's modification
of its approved Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program. On March 22,
2004, EPA issued final regulations allowing research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) permits to be issued to certain municipal solid
waste landfills by approved states. On December 7, 2012 Massachusetts
submitted an application to EPA Region 1 seeking Federal approval of
its RD&D requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing on
or before March 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
RCRA-2012-0944, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Juiyu Hsieh.

     Mail: Send written comments to Juiyu Hsieh, RCRA Waste
Management and UST Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration
(OSRR07-1), EPA New England--Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Juiyu
Hsieh, RCRA Waste Management and UST Section, Office of Site
Restoration and Remediation (OSRR07-1), EPA New England--Region 1, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Office's normal hours of operation.
    For detailed instructions on how to submit comments, please see the
direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juiyu Hsieh at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving Massachusetts's Research Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) permit program through a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipates no adverse comments to this action. Unless we
get written adverse comments which oppose this approval during the
comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date
it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal.
If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct
rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-01440 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8065]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03211]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0056; FRL 9942-46-OW]

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology: Assumable Waters Subcommittee; Notice of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of federal advisory subcommittee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice of
two upcoming public meetings of the Assumable Waters Subcommittee
convened under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT). The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will provide
advice and recommendations on how the EPA can best clarify assumable
waters for dredge and fill permit programs pursuant to the Clean Water
Act section 404(g)(1). The EPA is undertaking this effort to support
states and tribes that wish to assume the program. Similar to the
parent NACEPT, the subcommittee represents a diversity of interests
from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and local,
State, and tribal governments.
    Meeting agendas and materials will be posted at www2.epa.gov/cwa-404/assumable-waters-sub-committee.

DATES: The Assumable Waters Subcommittee will hold two 3-day public
meetings on:
     March 15 and 16, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and on March
17, 2016, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the One Potomac Yard Building in
Arlington, VA.
     June 7 through 9, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in the One
Potomac Yard Building in Arlington, VA.

ADDRESSES: One Potomac Yard, 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA, 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Bachle, Designated Federal
Officer, via Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by phone: (202) 566-
2468, via postal service at: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide
written comments to the Assumable Waters Subcommittee should be sent to
Laura Bachle via Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by March 4, 2016,
for the March meeting and by May 27, 2016, for the June meeting. The
meetings are open to the public, with limited seating available on a
first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend
should contact Laura Bachle via Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> by March 4, 2016, for the March meeting and by
May 27, 2016, for the June meeting. Public comments will be heard on
Wednesday, March 16 and Wednesday, June 8, 2016, at 1 p.m.
    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or
accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to
Laura Bachle at the email address or phone number listed. To ensure
adequate time for processing, please make requests for accommodations
at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Benita Best-Wong,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2016-03211 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79241-79252]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29714]

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

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

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.

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

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

[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


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62504-62505]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC13-2-000.
    Applicants: Zephyr Wind, LLC, BlackRock NTR Renewable Power Fund
(Master), L.P.
    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers of Filing
Requirements, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited Review of Zephyr
Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5511.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2985-006; ER10-3049-007; ER10-3051-007.
    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Champion Energy
Services, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status for Champion Energy
Marketing LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5516.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4666-001; ER11-4667-001; ER11-4669-001; ER11-
4670-001.
    Applicants: NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 1, LLC, NaturEner Glacier
Wind Energy 2, LLC, NaturEner Power Watch, LLC, NaturEner Montana Wind
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Facts of NaturEner Glacier Wind
Energy 1, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5470.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-678-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 10-1-12 VLR Compliance to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5433.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1856-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-10-01 Filing in Compliance with August 31, 2012
Order in Docket ER12-1856 to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5378.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2662-000.
    Applicants: Park Power LLC.
    Description: Park Power LLC supplements their Application for
Market Based Authority.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5488.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-5-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: New 205 Filing of SMMPA O&M Agreement to be effective
12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5449.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-6-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: OATT Amendments to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5459.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-7-000
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Edison Navajo Transmission Agreement to be effective
12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121001-5461.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-8-000.
    Applicants: Hermiston Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Baseline refile to be effective 12/14/2001.
    Filed Date: 10/2/12.
    Accession Number: 20121002-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-10-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Request to Defer and Amortize Costs through APS OATT
Transmission Formula to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/2/12.
    Accession Number: 20121002-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH13-1-000.
    Applicants: Bloom Energy Corporation, Clean Technologies, LLC,
Bloom Energy 2009 PPA Portfolio Holding Company, LLC, Clean
Technologies II, LLC, Diamond State Generation Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Bloom Energy Corporation, et al. submits FERC-65-B
Waiver Notification under PH13-1.
    Filed Date: 10/2/12.
    Accession Number: 20121002-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 2, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25267 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P