[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69462-69465]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27645]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9919-61-OAR]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines Air Toxics Control Measure; Request for
Confirmation That Amendments Are Within the Scope of Previous
Authorization; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it adopted amendments to
California's Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines Air Toxics Control Measure
(Portable Engine ATCM) in 2007, 2009, and 2010. By letter dated
September 15, 2014, CARB asked that EPA authorize these amendments
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). CARB requested EPA's
confirmation that the amendments are within the scope of a prior
authorization, or, in the alternative, that the amendments merit full
authorization. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled
a public hearing to consider California's request, and that EPA is now
accepting written comment on the request.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's
request on January 14, 2015 at 10 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing only
if any party notifies EPA by December 15, 2014 to express interest in
presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties that wish to present
oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to
David Read at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request
for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William
Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5530 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a
public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and will instead
consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any
party may submit written comments until February 16, 2015.
    Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may
call David Read at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or after December 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0798, by one of the following methods:
     Online at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the Online
Instructions for Submitting Comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0798, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Online Instructions for Submitting Comments: Direct your comments
to

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0798. EPA's policy is that all comments
we receive will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will
automatically be captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted
by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any
testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this
proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0798.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government
work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public
docket is available through the federal government's electronic public
docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter, in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view
documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(``CBI'') or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web
page that contains general information on its review of California
waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to
prior waiver and authorization Federal Register notices. The page can
be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Read, Attorney, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. California's Portable Engine ATCM Regulations

    California initially adopted its Portable Engine ATCM regulations
on February 26, 2004 as part of a broad California program to reduce
emissions of diesel particulate matter. The Portable Engine ATCM
regulations applied to in-use, portable, off-road \1\ diesel-fueled
engines rated 50 brake horsepower (bhp) and greater. These engines were
required to be certified to certain emission standards by January 1,
2010, unless the engines were designated as low-use engines or as
engines exclusively used in emergency applications. The initial
Portable Engine ATCM became operative under state law on March 11, 2005
\2\ and EPA authorized the regulations on November 29, 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The federal term ``nonroad'' and the California term ``off-
road'' may be used interchangeably herein.
    \2\ The Portable Engine ATCM is set forth at 17 CCR 93116 et
seq.
    \3\ 77 FR 72846 (December 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As authorized, the Portable Engine ATCM regulations require subject
engines to meet specified emission standards, and require fleets of in-
use diesel-fueled portable engines to meet fleet-average standards for
diesel PM emissions that become increasingly more stringent in 2013,
2017, and 2020.

II. The 2007 Amendments

    CARB adopted the 2007 amendments at issue in this notice on July
31, 2007, and they became effective on September 12, 2007. The 2007
amendments were designed to extend temporary, emergency provisions CARB
had adopted to address the inability of owners and operators to permit
or register older engines that did not satisfy the Portable Engine ATCM
certification requirement to meet the most stringent Federal or
California emission standards. The 2007 amendments addressed this issue
by (i) granting discretion to local air districts to permit or register
uncertified portable engines that were operated in California within a
designated time period prior to October 1, 2006, or that were low-use
engines or used exclusively in emergency applications, (ii) allowing
Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines that were in operation within a designated
time period prior to October 1, 2006, but did not meet the most
stringent emission requirements, to be permitted or registered until
December 31, 2009, and (iii) and otherwise providing additional
compliance flexibility.

III. The 2009 Amendments

    In 2008, CARB adopted an In-Use Off-Road regulation \4\ and a Truck
and Bus regulation.\5\ CARB then amended the Portable Engine ATCM to
exempt certain engines (namely, secondary engines on two-engine cranes
and two-engine sweepers, and on lattice boom cranes) that instead
became subject to these other new regulations. CARB formally adopted
the amendments to the Portable Engine ATCM on October 19, 2009 (the
2009 amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The California In-Use Off-Road regulation is set forth at 13
CCR 2449 et seq.
    \5\ The California Truck and Bus regulation is set forth at 13
CCR 2025 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The 2010 Amendments

    California formally approved the 2010 amendments to the Portable
Engine ATCM on October 19, 2010 and January 20, 2011. The 2010
amendments became operative under State law on February 19, 2011. The
2010 amendments primarily provide additional exemptions (namely for
snow removal vehicles and auxiliary engines on water well drilling
rigs) and compliance flexibility for certain owners and operators of
portable engines, as well as clarification or correction of perceived
oversights in the law.

    By letter dated September 15, 2014, CARB submitted a request to EPA
pursuant to section 209(e) of the CAA for confirmation that the 2007,
2009, and 2010 amendments fall within the scope of EPA's previous
authorization, or, in the alternative, that EPA grant a full
authorization for those amendments.

V. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the CAA prohibits States and local governments
from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement
relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad vehicles or
engines. The Act also preempts States from adopting and enforcing
standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions
from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however,
requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public
hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and
other requirements related to the control of emissions from non-new
nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however, requires the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to
authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other
requirements relating to the control of emissions from such vehicles or
engines if California determines that California standards will be, in
the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such
authorization if it finds that (1) the determination of California is
arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such California
standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3)
California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with CAA section 209.\6\ In addition, other states with air
quality attainment plans may adopt and enforce such regulations if the
standards and the implementation and enforcement procedures are
identical to California's standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated
a rule that sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the
criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before
granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or
vehicle emission standards.\7\ EPA revised these regulations in
1997.\8\ As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has
historically interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency''
inquiry to require, at minimum, that California standards and
enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section
209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that
subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA's review of California regulations under section 209 is
not a broad review of the reasonableness of the regulations or its
compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the
Clean Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny California requests for
waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As
a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's
requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA
decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not
found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA's
determination. See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v.
Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir.1998), Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20
(D.C. Cir. 1979). See also 78 FR 58090, 58120 (September 20, 2013).
    \7\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
    \8\ 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable regulations,
now in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, Sec.  1074.105, provide:
    (a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
Federal standards.
    (b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
    (1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
    (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
    (3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
    (c) In considering any request to authorize California to adopt
or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50
horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to
safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or
fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
    \9\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
Federal and State testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id; see also 78 FR 58090, 58092 (September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If California amends regulations that EPA has already authorized,
California can seek EPA confirmation that the amendments are within the
scope of the previous authorization. A within-the-scope confirmation,
without a full authorization review, is permissible if three conditions
are met.\11\ First, the amended regulations must not undermine
California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency
with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not
raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 78 FR 38970, 38972 (June 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. EPA's Request for Comments

    As stated above, EPA is offering the opportunity for a public
hearing, and is requesting written comment on issues relevant to a
within-the-scope analysis. Specifically, we request comment on whether
California's 2007, 2009, or 2010 Portable Engine ATCM amendments: (1)
Undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in
the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare
as comparable Federal standards; (2) affect the consistency of
California's requirements with section 209 of the Act; or (3) raise any
other new issues affecting EPA's previous authorization determinations.
    Should any party believe that the amendments are not within the
scope of the previous authorization, EPA also requests comment on
whether the 2007, 2009, or 2010 Portable Engine ATCM amendments meet
the criteria for a full authorization. Specifically, we request comment
on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; (b) whether
California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; and (c) whether California's standards and

accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of
the Act.

VII. Procedures for Public Participation

    If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the
proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the
hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense.
Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the
record open until February 16, 2015. Upon expiration of the comment
period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request
based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant
written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent.
All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0798.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent
possible and label it as ``Confidential Business Information''
(``CBI''). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision
on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the
document that summarizes the key data or information should be
submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information
is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions
containing such information should be sent directly to the contact
person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered
by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when
EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without
further notice to the person making comments.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Christopher Grundler,
 Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-27645 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13944-13945]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0250]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0023

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0023,
Barge Fleeting Facility Records; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0250] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. In response to your comments, we
may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2019-0250], and
must be received by June 7, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Barge Fleeting Facility Records.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0023.
    Summary: The regulations require the person in charge of certain
barge fleeting facilities to keep records of twice daily inspections of
barge mooring and movements of barges and hazardous cargo in and out of
a facility.
    Need: Title 33 CFR 165.803 requirements are intended to prevent
barges from breaking away from a fleeting facility and drifting
downstream out of control in the congested Lower Mississippi River
waterway system.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Operators of barge fleeting facilities.
    Frequency: Daily.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
11,076 hours to 7,542 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated
annual number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
Chief, Office of Information Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-06778 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Meeting Notes on RFS2 Proposed Rulemaking

Date: 6/15/09

Location: EPA offices

Attendees:

In person						On phone

Megan Brachtl, EPA					David Korotney, EPA

Karl Simon, EPA					Paul Machiele, EPA

John Weihrauch, EPA					Geoff Cooper, Renewable Fuels Assn

Meg McCarthy, EPA					Shannon Brooms, Bingham McCutchen

Chuck Knauss, Bingham McCutchen			Ann Steckel, Farm Bureau

Sandra Franco, Bingham McCutchen

Todd Kemp, National Grain and Feed Assn

Samantha Slater, Renewable Fuels Assn

Jessica Bennett, National Corn Growers Assn

We discussed the renewable biomass provisions of the proposed Renewable
Fuel Standard regulations, particularly the definition of
“agricultural land” and the interpretation of the phrase “that is
actively managed or fallow, and nonforested.”  Additionally, we
discussed the implementation and compliance issues associated with the
renewable biomass provisions.


Supporting Statement

for

Oil Record Book for Ships

OMB No.:  1625-0009

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  CG-4602A & Instruction

A.  Justification

1)  Circumstances which make the collection of information necessary.

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and the International
Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), requires that
information about oil cargo or fuel operations be entered into an Oil
Record Book (ORB).  Annex I is implemented in U.S. law through the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (Pub. L. 96-478, Oct. 21, 1980,
94 Stat. 2297), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.  The requirement is
contained in 33 CFR 151.25.  Entries must be made in the ORB (form
CG-4602A) for a number of operations, such as:

Ballasting or cleaning of fuel tanks during the voyage.

Disposal of oily residues from fuel tanks, or other sources.

The discharge of oil or oily mixtures for the purpose of securing the
safety of the ship, preventing damage to the ship or cargo, or saving of
life at sea.

The escape of oil or oily mixtures resulting from damage to the ship,
unavoidable leakage, any accident or exceptional circumstance.

The discharges of residue arising from the purification or clarification
of fuel or lubricating oil.

The discharge of oil or oily mixtures from tank vessels of 150 gross
tons or non-tank vessels of 400 gross tons.

The internal transfer of oil between tanks during the voyage.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Coast Guard

Protection of the Natural Resources.

Prevention Policy and Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Reduce the amount of oil and chemicals discharged into the marine
environment.

Reduce the consequences of pollution incidents.

2)  Purpose of the information collection.

The Coast Guard uses the information recorded in the record book to
verify compliance with MARPOL 73/78, and as a supplemental means of
finding violations of APPS and MARPOL.  The actual recording of
information deters violations in the manner of an accounting standard,
documenting the management of quantities of potential pollutants onboard
the vessel in a manner which allows validation to occur through accuracy
of the record and comparison to quantities of actual volumes of fluids
onboard the vessel. Unless this information is recorded, the Coast Guard
would have to rely on whistleblowers and/or on actual sightings of oil
discharges for enforcement, making verification of compliance more
difficult.  While violations might still be found, many violations of
the law could go undetected resulting in continued pollution of the sea
by oil.  Even with the ORB and the recordkeeping requirement, many
violations go undetected.  The written requirement just acts as one more
deterrent.

3)  Considerations of the use of improved technology.

To meet international treaty obligations and national compliance and
enforcement requirements, the ORB must be maintained and available in
written (i.e., non-electronic) format.  The ORB content has been
standardized.  The U.S. Government prints the ORB and makes it
available, from the Coast Guard, to masters and operators of all U.S.
vessels.  The ownership of the ORB for all U.S. ships remains with the
U.S. Government.  For additional details about the ORB requirements, see
Appendix A.

4)  Efforts to identify duplication.

The Coast Guard monitors State and local regulatory activity in this
field.  To date, no equivalent state or local programs have been
identified that require similar information, and no other Federal
agencies have similar or equivalent regulatory requirements.

5)  Methods used to minimize the burdens to small entities if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6)  Consequences to the Federal program or policy if collection were
conducted less frequently.

Entries are recorded in the appropriate record books as soon as it is
practical after the completion of each oil transfer operation in order
to ensure the accuracy of the entry.  If this information was recorded
less frequently, it is possible that the person making the entry may
enter incorrect information.  Since the Coast Guard uses the information
in the record books to enforce the APPS, it is imperative that the
information be recorded accurately and in a timely manner.  There is no
requirement to submit the ORB to the Coast Guard.  The ORB must be
maintained aboard the vessel for three years.

7)  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8)  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9)  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10)  Describe any assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11)  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12)  Estimate of annual hour and cost burden to respondents.

The total annual respondents are 1,672.

The total annual responses are 684,784.

The total annual burden hours requested is 28,536.

The total annual cost is $2,540,952.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix B.  The wage rates
used are in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “Out-Government” personnel.

Oil Record Book (ORB):  Each time a vessel conducts a transfer of oil,
an ORB entry must be completed and kept.  Completing an ORB entry
constitutes a response.  This requirement covers certain U.S. vessels
that carry oil for fuel or cargo.  We estimate the annual frequency of
responses varies by vessel type.  We estimate that it will take vessel
personnel about 2.5 minutes (0.04167 hours) to complete the entry (i.e.,
response).  For U.S. Tank Ships, we estimate that the ORB entry will be
completed by the Chief Engineer.  For U.S. Tank Barges and U.S. Nontank
Vessels, we estimate that the ORB entry will be completed by a tankerman
or Second Engineer/Mate.  The position of Chief Engineer is analogous to
a Lieutenant Commander (O-4) and the position of a tankerman or Second
Engineer/Mate is equivalent to a Chief Petty Officer (E-7).

13)  Total of annualized capital and start-up cost.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14)  Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The annualized Federal Government cost estimate is $13,300 (see Appendix
C).  The cost is based on 2 elements.  First, the cost is based on Coast
Guard personnel review of the ORB during periodic inspections, random
boardings, and post-casualty investigations.  We estimate that there
will be approximately 1,000 ORB reviews per year and that a review will
be conducted by a CG Lieutenant (O-3) taking about 5 minutes (0.08333
hours) per review.  The wage rate shown is in accordance with the
current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “In-Government”
personnel.  Second, the cost is based on printing/storage/distribution
costs of $7,000 for the ORB.

15)  Explain the reasons for change in burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to an increase in the
estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed change to
the recordkeeping requirements of this collection.  The methodology for
calculating burden was revised to more accurately reflect the annual
level of recordkeeping activity.

16)  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17)  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The form (ORB) associated with this collection is prescribed by an
international treaty (e.g., MARPOL) that the U.S. Government is
signatory to.  The addition of an expiration date to the ORB—that for
OMB approval—may cause significant problems.  First, it could cause
huge enforcement problems since there would be evidentiary problems and
an inability to enforce falsified records and recordkeeping captured on
expired record books. Second, it could cause enforcement problems on
U.S.-flag vessel owner/operators in foreign ports as well, leading to
vessel delays and enforcement by foreign Port State Control. Third, it
would cause enforcement problems on U.S.-flag vessel owner/operators in
the United States if they are found with forms past the expiry date.
Finally, these ORBs are not often updated and the requirement would be
carried on indefinitely since it is the only way for the international
maritime community to be able to verify compliance and enforce
violations that may have occurred outside of their territorial seas.
With an expiry date, there is a risk of being unable to fully and
adequately meet the international obligations that the United States
agreed to when it ratified the treaty when those forms expire. It is for
these reasons that expiration date for OMB approval is not displayed on
the ORB associated with this collection.  Even if the OMB approval is
for a particular span of time, the form must have an ability to be
acceptable past that span of time in order to meet our obligations under
the treaty.

18)  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

Appendix A

Summary:  This Appendix explains why the ORB must be in hard copy
format.

Our international obligations are clear under the treaty to which we are
party.  A physical book is required to comply with the regulations under
MARPOL 73/78.  If the U.S. were to unilaterally utilize an electronic
means to satisfy the regulation, our ships would be liable to fines and
other sanctions when they visited the ports of signatory states to
MARPOL 73/78, just as we would sanction a vessel in our waters that did
not have an ORB.

To meet international treaty obligations and national compliance and
enforcement requirements, the ORB must be maintained and available in
written (i.e., non-electronic) format.  The ORB content has been
standardized.  The U.S. Government prints the ORB and makes it
available, from the Coast Guard, to masters and operators of all U.S.
vessels.  The ownership of the ORB for all U.S. ships remains with the
U.S. Government.

Background:

AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS,
1973 (MARPOL 73/78) were adopted on 15 October 2004 and entered into
force on 1 January 2007.  Under MARPOL 73/78, the U.S. is obligated to
provide an Oil Record Book for use on board those vessels to which the
treaty applies.  These requirements are found in Regulation 17 and
Regulation 36 of MARPOL 73/78.  These Regulations state:

Regulation 17

Oil Record Book, Part I - Machinery space operations

1 Every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and every ship of 400
gross tonnage and above other than an oil tanker shall be provided with
an Oil Record Book Part I (Machinery Space Operations).  The Oil Record
Book, whether as a part of the ship’s official log-book or otherwise,
shall be in the Form specified in appendix III to this Annex.

. . .

6 The Oil Record Book Part I, shall be kept in such a place as to be
readily available for inspection at all reasonable times and, except in
the case of unmanned ships under tow, shall be kept on board the ship.
It shall be preserved for a period of three years after the last entry
has been made.

7 The competent authority of the Government of a Party to the present
Convention may inspect the Oil Record Book Part I on board any ship to
which this Annex applies while the ship is in its port or offshore
terminals and may make a copy of any entry in that book and may require
the master of the ship to certify that the copy is a true copy of such
entry.  Any copy so made which has been certified by the master of the
ship as a true copy of an entry in the ship's Oil Record Book Part I
shall be made admissible in any judicial proceedings as evidence of the
facts stated in the entry.

Regulation 36

Oil Record Book, Part II - Cargo/ballast operations

1 Every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above shall be provided with
an Oil Record Book Part II (Cargo/Ballast Operations). The Oil Record
Book Part II, whether as a part of the ship's official logbook or
otherwise, shall be in the Form specified in appendix III to this Annex.

. . .

7 The Oil Record Book shall be kept in such a place as to be readily
available for inspection at all reasonable times and, except in the case
of unmanned ships under tow, shall be kept on board the ship.  It shall
be preserved for a period of three years after the last entry has been
made.

8 The competent authority of the Government of a Party to the Convention
may inspect the Oil Record Book Part II on board any ship to which this
Annex applies while the ship is in its port or offshore terminals and
may make a copy of any entry in that book and may require the master of
the ship to certify that the copy is a true copy of such entry.  Any
copy so made which has been certified by the master of the ship as a
true copy of an entry in the ship's Oil Record Book Part II shall be
made admissible in any judicial proceedings as evidence of the facts
stated in the entry.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), of which the U.S. is a
member, is responsible for administration of international maritime
treaties.  Specifically, the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) of IMO is responsible for MARPOL 73/78.  That Committee studied
the feasibility of using electronic means to record the information
required in the ORB.  The MEPC made the following finding:

"10.40 The Committee concurred with the view of the Sub-Committee that,
with regard to the issue of electronic means to control oil discharges
from ships, while the use of electronic means to control oil discharges
on board ships should be possible, those means should not be intended as
a replacement of the current Oil Record Book, which had proved to be an
effective way of controlling illegal discharges, but rather as a
supplement to it, which could help reinforce compliance, and should only
be fitted voluntarily."  [emphasis added]

Our international obligations are clear under the treaty to which we are
party.  A physical book is required to comply with the regulations under
MARPOL 73/78.  If the U.S. were to unilaterally utilize an electronic
means to satisfy the regulation, our ships would be liable to fines and
other sanctions when they visited the ports of signatory states to
MARPOL 73/78, just as we would sanction a vessel in our waters that did
not have an ORB.

The information required to be in an ORB is not amenable to the use of
improved information technology.  The information required is particular
to each vessel’s oil cargo, fuel operation, and configuration.  To
meet international treaty obligations and national compliance and
enforcement requirements, the ORB must be maintained and available in
written (i.e., non-electronic) format.  The ORB content has been
standardized.  The U.S. Government prints the ORB and makes it
available, from the Coast Guard, to masters and operators of all U.S.
vessels.  The ownership of the ORB for all U.S. ships remains with the
U.S. Government.

The CG regulations for ORB are found at 33 CFR 151.25 and can be
accessed at the following: <  HYPERLINK
"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title33-vol2/pdf/CFR-2014-title33
-vol2-sec151-25.pdf"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title33-vol2/pdf/CFR-2014-title33-
vol2-sec151-25.pdf .

  The regulation requires “each oil tanker 150 gross tons or above,
ship of 400 gross tons and above other than an oil tanker, and manned
fixed or floating drilling rig or other platform shall maintain an ORB
Part I (Machinery Space Operations).  An oil tanker of 150 gross tons
and above or a non oil tanker that carries 200 cubic meters or more of
oil in bulk, shall also maintain an ORB Part II (Cargo/Ballast
Operations),” (33 CFR 151.25(a)).

  This is based on (a) printing costs of $3,000, (b) distribution costs
of $2,000 and (c) general overhead cost of $2,000 which includes
warehouse storage, shipping, and handling costs ($3,000 + $2,000 +
$2,000 = $7,000).

OMB 2115-0025		  DATE \@ "MM/dd/yy"  09/29/15

1625-0009

 PAGE   4

  PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  6