[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44528-44544]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[Docket No. USCG-2004-19621]
RIN 1625-AA89

Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes replacing its existing interim rule
with a new rule to regulate the operation of U.S. and foreign vessels
carrying bulk dry cargo such as limestone, iron ore, and coal on the
U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and the operation of U.S. bulk dry
cargo vessels anywhere on the Great Lakes. Specifically, the Coast
Guard proposes new requirements for the discharge of bulk dry cargo
residue (DCR) on the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard
also announces the availability of the tiered Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared in support of this proposal. The
proposed rule would continue to allow non-hazardous and non-toxic
discharges of bulk DCR in limited areas of the Great Lakes. However,
vessel owners and operators would need to minimize DCR discharges using
methods they would be required to document in DCR management plans. The
proposed rule would prohibit limestone and clean stone DCR discharges
in some waters where they are now permitted. The proposed rule promotes
the Coast Guard's strategic goals of maritime mobility and safety and
protection of natural resources.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 29,
2012 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of
information must reach OMB on or before October 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2004-19621 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 four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    Collection of Information Comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section VII.D. of this document,
you must also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that your
comments to OIRA are received on time, the preferred methods are by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though slower, method
is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email John C. Morris, Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards (CG-OES-3), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1433, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments on Interim Rule
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
    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-2004-19621), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2004-19621'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' 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
comments 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 and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2004-19621'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' 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 Department of Transportation 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 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 plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

AB Able Bodied Seaman
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DCR Dry Cargo Residue
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR Federal Register
ICR Information Collection Request
IR Interim Rule
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget
ROD Record of Decision
PIC Person in charge
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
VGP Vessel General Permit

III. Basis and Purpose

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes a
rule to replace the interim rule (73 FR 56492, Sep. 29, 2008) now in
effect. It also announces the availability of the tiered Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which we previously announced we
would prepare in support of this proposed rule (scoping notice, 73 FR
79496; Dec. 29, 2008). The legal basis for this rulemaking is section
623(b) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004
(``the Act,'' Pub. L. 108-293). Section 623(b) of the Act gives the
Coast Guard the authority, ``notwithstanding any other law * * * to
promulgate regulations governing the discharge of dry bulk cargo
residue on the Great Lakes.''
    The purpose of this rulemaking, as a whole, is to exercise the
authority conferred on the Coast Guard by the Act in a way that
appropriately balances the needs of maritime commerce and environmental
protection, by determining how, if at all, the discharge of dry cargo
residue (DCR) can continue in the Great Lakes within a regulatory
framework that imposes environmentally appropriate conditions on DCR
discharges. The purpose of this SNPRM phase of the rulemaking is to
propose a rule that would allow some DCR discharges to continue, under
a regulatory framework that imposes additional conditions on the
vessels from which those discharges take place.

IV. Background

    Prior to opening this rulemaking, we published a notice of inquiry
requesting information about the then-current status of dry cargo
operations in the Great Lakes (69 FR 77147, Dec. 27, 2004; correction,
70 FR 1400, Jan. 5, 2005). The regulatory history for this rulemaking
began with an announcement of our intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the rulemaking and a request for
public comments on the scope of the EIS (``scoping notice,'' 71 FR
12209, March 9, 2006). On June 8, 2006, we published a notice for a
public meeting on the scope of the EIS, and again requested public
comments (71 FR 33312). The scoping meeting was held in Cleveland, OH,
on July 6, 2006. Our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and notice of
the availability of the accompanying draft environmental impact
statement appeared on May 23, 2008 (73 FR 30014). Public meetings on
the NPRM and DEIS were announced on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273) and held
in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on July 15 and 17, 2008,
respectively. Availability of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS) was announced on August 22, 2008, by the Environmental
Protection Agency (73 FR 49667) and by the Coast Guard (73 FR 49694),
and the Record of Decision (ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS was
signed September 23, 2008. An interim rule was published September 29,
2008 (73 FR 56492). On December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79496), we published a
second scoping notice announcing our intent to prepare a new ``tiered''
(updated) EIS in support of a final rule, requested public comments,
and announced a public scoping meeting, which was held in Chicago, IL,
on January 28, 2009.
    There are several factors that must be taken into account when
addressing DCR discharges in the waters of the U.S. side of the Great
Lakes. The Lakes support a significant volume of bulk dry cargo
shipping that remains within the Great Lakes system. The Lakes are, in
places, very deep and wide and either adjoin Canadian waters or are
land-locked. Therefore, vessels that remain within the Great Lake
system--unlike their East, West, or Gulf Coast counterparts--are
continually subject to the navigable waters laws of both the United
States and Canada.
    The legislative conference report prepared in support of section
623(b) of the Act expressed Congress's expectation that in regulating
Great Lakes DCR discharges, given these special characteristics, the
U.S. Coast

Guard would adopt an approach ``that appropriately balances the needs
of maritime commerce and environmental protection.'' House Report 108-
617.
    Our interim rule amended 33 CFR 151.66, a Coast Guard regulation
that implements the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) 33
U.S.C. 1901 et seq. That regulation generally prohibits the discharge
of DCR--an ``operational waste'' and, hence, ``garbage'' as both terms
are defined in 33 CFR 151.05--in all U.S. navigable waters. The interim
rule amended that prohibition with respect to the U.S. waters of the
Great Lakes. It allows non-hazardous and non-toxic DCR discharges in
limited areas of the Great Lakes, provided that carriers observe
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and it encourages carriers to
adopt voluntary control measures for minimizing discharges. The interim
rule applies to the owners and operators of U.S., Canadian, and other
foreign vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes, and also to the owners and operators of U.S. vessels carrying
bulk dry cargo when they are on the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes.
Non-self-propelled barges are excluded unless they are part of an
integrated tug-and-barge unit.
    Our Record of Decision in support of the interim rule concluded
that the interim rule's only adverse environmental impacts would be
minor and indirect, and that an outright ban of DCR discharges could
cause an adverse economic impact for carriers and related industries in
the Great Lakes region. Therefore, we found that allowing DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes, under the conditions imposed by the
interim rule, struck ``the best balance between economic and
environmental concerns that can be achieved, given currently available
information.'' ROD, p. 4. The conditions the interim rule imposed on
DCR discharges were intended to limit even minor and indirect impacts
of DCR discharges, and to give us the regulatory tools we needed to
monitor discharges in the future.
    We stated in the interim rule that, before taking action in this
rulemaking, we would ``determine if, in the long term, the optimal
balancing of commercial and environmental interests requires the
mandatory use of DCR control measures, the adjustment of the
geographical boundaries within which those discharges are currently
allowed, or other regulatory changes.'' (73 FR at 56495.) We have now
made a tentative determination of that issue and, in this SNPRM, we
propose a rule based on that tentative determination. We request your
comments on that determination and on the proposed rule.

V. Discussion of Comments on Interim Rule

    In response to our September 2008 interim rule and December 2008
scoping notice, we received comments from 19 sources, including 5 State
agencies (representing 4 States, with 1 State providing comments from 2
separate agencies, and 1 agency submitting multiple comments), 4
industry groups, 2 non-industry groups, 1 Indian Tribal group, and 7
individuals.
    Three commenters expressed support for the interim rule or said DCR
discharges should be permitted because of their low environmental
impact and the high cost of eliminating discharges. Eight commenters
expressed opposition to the interim rule or favored prohibiting all DCR
discharges in the Great Lakes; one of the eight said our rule should
move toward eliminating those discharges. These comments were
unsupported by argument or evidence and therefore we can only
acknowledge them.
    Three State agency commenters said the interim rule is inconsistent
with their State laws and with their coastal zone management plans. The
interim rule states that it does not expressly preempt State laws and
that it expressly cautions carriers that they must comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws regulating DCR discharges. It also
states that the Coast Guard will work with States and carriers to make
sure carriers are informed of any State laws that could impose more
restrictions on DCR discharges than the Coast Guard allows. 73 FR at
56497 col. 2.
    Two State agency commenters said that DCR discharges are harmful
because they provide favorable substrate conditions for invasive or
exotic species. We acknowledge this as a legitimate concern, but point
out that our tiered DEIS continues to support our 2008 ROD's finding
that, with the mitigating measures the interim rule provides, any such
adverse environmental impact is only minor and indirect. Furthermore,
except for the Western Basin of Lake Erie, our proposed rule prohibits
the discharge of any type of DCR within 3 miles of any shoreline in the
Great Lakes. (The existing exception for the Western Basin recognizes
that some vessels carrying limestone or clean stone never leave that
area, so a complete prohibition on DCR discharges on those vessels
could pose an extreme hardship on them.) This change to the interim
rule would eliminate the introduction of any additional DCR substrate
to shallower near-shore waters, the preferred habitat of several
invasive species found in freshwater.
    Two State agency commenters disagreed with our characterization of
DCR as non-toxic and non-hazardous. Our tiered DEIS continues to
support the interim rule's characterization of any DCR discharge it
allows as non-toxic and non-hazardous.
    Two State agency commenters pointed out that Lake Superior is the
subject of a ``Demonstration Lake'' agreement between several States
and the Province of Ontario, Canada, pursuant to which the parties
commit themselves to the elimination of pollutants in Lake Superior.
The International Joint Commission's 1990 designation of Lake Superior
as a ``demonstration area'' led to a Binational Program to Restore and
Protect the Lake Superior Basin, under which a zero-discharge standard
applies, but only to particularly toxic heavy metals and organochlorine
compounds. The Binational Program does not apply a zero discharge
standard to other materials, such as DCR, so long as discharges of
those other materials do not threaten identified key near-shore and
wetland habitats. Our environmental analysis identified such habitats,
based on all the data supplied to us by commenters or otherwise
available to us. Both the interim rule and the proposed rule prohibit
discharges in those habitats and other special protection areas.
    Two State agency commenters said the interim rule is at odds with
the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP) for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels. EPA requires VGP permittees to engage in
specific behaviors or best management practices in order to minimize
those discharges; the approach this SNPRM proposes for our rule.
However, there is no conflict between the VGP and the interim rule,
because the VGP specifically excludes from its coverage ``discharges of
bulk dry cargo residues as defined at 33 CFR 151.66(b),'' citing the
interim rule-amended version of 33 CFR 151.66. See VGP (Feb. 5, 2009),
sec. <IP_ADDRESS>; docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0717 (available at
http://www.regulations.gov). One State agency commenter asked us to
require specific technological and procedural measures for controlling
DCR, pointing out for example that decks can be swept while cargo
loading is in progress, and that shoreside facilities can stop their
conveyor belts while a vessel repositions itself during loading
operations. Another commenter offered information about specific
control measures, recommended requiring the

use of best management practices to minimize DCR discharges, and
recommended that we regulate shoreside facilities because vessels have
no control over those facilities. Our proposed rule's ``broom clean''
requirement does not specify how to comply with that requirement, but
one way would be to sweep the deck while loading takes place. We assume
that the other control measures cited by these commenters would be
among the voluntary options vessel owners and operators would consider
in preparing the DCR management plans that we propose to require. With
respect to shoreside facilities, we understand that vessels do not
control those facilities, but they can voluntarily arrange with a
facility to identify measures that the facility is willing to take to
help the vessel comply with 33 CFR 151.66's requirements. As we
subsequently discuss, we think that our regulatory focus needs to be on
vessels rather than on shoreside facilities.
    One State agency commenter said that we should voluntarily extend
the interim rule's comment period and the period for consulting with
States within the framework of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
The Coast Guard routinely grants State requests for additional time to
evaluate Coast Guard CZMA consistency determinations, and both States
and the general public will have that additional time to consider the
Coast Guard's proposal for regulating DCR during the public comment
period for this SNPRM, and therefore we do not see the need for
additional extensions of time as requested by this commenter at this
time.
    One commenter, representing many States with coastal zone
management plans, said that we should rely on States to provide us with
information about developing port-based DCR control measures. As we
subsequently discuss, we think that our regulatory focus needs to be on
vessels, rather than on shoreside facilities. However, in proposing
that vessels develop DCR management plans, we assume that a vessel's
owner or operator will want to consult with shoreside facilities to
assess what each facility can do to help the vessel comply with
discharge minimization requirements.
    Two commenters asked us to remove the quarterly reporting
requirement as unnecessary, while two commenters recommended
modifications to the Coast Guard recordkeeping form. We lack sufficient
information to remove the reporting requirement at this time, and we
specifically seek further public comment on the costs and benefits of
indefinitely requiring the reporting to continue. Because the
recommended modifications came from only two of the commenters and
would require the costly revision of a commonly used standard form that
provides the information we need, we also decline to modify the form at
this time.
    Another commenter, representing several associations, said that our
reliance on the Act to regulate DCR discharges in the Great Lakes
``notwithstanding any other law'' was misplaced in the absence of a
stronger showing of congressional intent to override international
treaties like the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), or a stronger showing of the
irreconcilability of MARPOL 73/78 and Great Lakes DCR regulations.
MARPOL 73/78 is not irreconcilable with our interim rule or our
proposed rule. Our interim rule already shares MARPOL Annex V's
requirements for recordkeeping and for avoiding near-shore discharges,
and our proposed rule would add an Annex V-like requirement for
maintaining and following a DCR management plan. However, MARPOL 73/78
is inapplicable to the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. APPS and the Act
provide the statutory authority for 33 CFR 151.66. In the preamble to
our interim rule, 73 FR at 56493, we extensively discussed the reasons
why the zero-discharge approach to operational waste discharges
(including DCR discharges) generally taken by APPS and Coast Guard
regulations is not necessary for protecting the environment and could
be disruptive for Great Lakes commerce. We also stated our
interpretation that House Report 108-617, which accompanied passage of
the Act, clearly expresses Congress's expectation that the Coast Guard
will exercise its authority ``notwithstanding any other law'' to
``appropriately balance[e] the needs of maritime commerce and
environmental protection.'' We believe the approach we took in the
interim rule, and that we now propose strengthening in this rule, meets
that expectation by adapting the pollution-preventing spirit of APPS to
the special characteristics of the Great Lakes cited in our interim
rule preamble's discussion.
    The commenter representing several associations also called on the
Coast Guard to review DCR control measures every three years. While we
acknowledge that industry practices and technology may evolve over
time, the Coast Guard declines to set a requirement for a three-year
review. However, the Coast Guard will monitor that evolution and
expects industry participants to do the same. In evaluating a vessel's
compliance with the proposed DCR management plan requirement, the
proposed rule would allow Coast Guard inspectors to take into account
the extent to which the procedures described in the DCR management plan
reflect current industry standard practices for vessels with comparable
characteristics, cargoes, and operations. Furthermore, the Coast Guard
is subject to statutes, executive orders, and agency policies that
require the periodic reevaluation of existing regulations, including 33
CFR 151.66, to make sure that regulations continue to be appropriate
despite changes in conditions.
    Finally, the commenter representing several associations said that
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the final rule should
reevaluate DCR controls that affect special protected areas, and that
we should add studies of discharge prohibitions under section 312 of
the Clean Water Act, mandate complete discharge bans for new commercial
operations and phased-in eliminations for existing operations, require
mandatory discharge controls, and undertake additional studies of DCR
toxicity. The interim rule already prohibits DCR discharges in special
protected areas, and we have reevaluated that prohibition in the
environmental analysis for this SNPRM. www.regulations.gov. Section 312
of the Clean Water Act seeks to address the dumping of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage from vessels into U.S. navigable waters;
DCR is not considered sewage waste and therefore this aspect of the
comment is beyond the scope of our rulemaking. Our ongoing
environmental analysis affirms our earlier assessment that ``any toxic
components of DCR deposits in the Great Lakes do not exist in
concentrations known to be toxic to organisms.'' 73 FR at 56494 col. 2;
www.regulations.gov. We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion
that mandatory discharge controls be imposed on all operations, but we
do propose requiring each vessel to have a DCR management plan
describing specifically how it will minimize discharges. This approach
would require a vessel's owner or operator to determine and to
implement those measures that best achieve discharge minimization,
given the vessel's characteristics, cargoes, and operations. We also
disagree with the commenter's suggestion that DCR discharge
prohibitions be imposed on new operations and phased in for existing
operations. We believe our proposal for discharge minimization, in
accordance

with a vessel's DCR management plan, best achieves the balance of
commercial and environmental considerations that Congress had in mind
when it passed the Act.
    One commenter said that the EIS for the final rule should study
specific best management practices and technology. We agree, and our
tiered DEIS reflects our evaluation of specific best management
practices and technology.
    One commenter, a Canadian association, said that we should
harmonize our regulatory treatment of DCR with Canada's. We believe
that our interim rule and our proposed rule are in harmony with
Canadian DCR regulations for the Great Lakes, which may be found in
Division 5, Subdivisions 1-4 of the Statutory Orders and Regulations of
Canada (SOR)/2007-86, ``Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals.'' In promulgating these 2007
regulations, Transport Canada stated that its intent was to make
Canadian regulations compatible with the then-current U.S. DCR
enforcement policy. Like that policy, and like the interim rule and our
proposed rule, the Canadian regulations prohibit the discharge of DCR
in near-shore or special protected areas and require DCR discharge
recordkeeping. In addition, Canadian regulations require that vessels
carry and operate in accordance with a garbage management plan that
covers its DCR procedures, and we are proposing a similar requirement
with this rule.
    The Canadian association also suggested some voluntary industry
programs that could provide information about DCR control measures. We
agree that owners and operators might find that such programs offer
good advice on minimizing DCR discharges.
    One commenter, representing Indian tribal interests, asked for
consultation with the Coast Guard and asked that the EIS for the final
rule add fish spawning grounds as a separate area of focus. Although we
determined in the interim rule that Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, is not applicable to
this rulemaking because it does 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, 73
FR at 56496 col. 3, we have nevertheless engaged in consultation with
this commenter. Documentation of that consultation appears in the
docket as item USCG-2004-19621-0182. Fish spawning grounds have already
been incorporated in our environmental analysis and DCR discharges in
these areas are prohibited.

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The context in which we developed this proposal. We stated in the
interim rule that, before taking action in this rulemaking, we would
``determine if, in the long term, the optimal balancing of commercial
and environmental interests requires the mandatory use of DCR control
measures, the adjustment of the geographical boundaries within which
those discharges are currently allowed, or other regulatory changes.''
73 FR at 56495.
    To help us achieve that long term balance, we analyzed the DCR
discharge records reported to us in accordance with the interim rule.
This helped us describe and quantify DCR discharges, and to determine
what control measures were common and effective in controlling DCR
discharges. This information is available in the appendices to the
tiered DEIS. We also observed Great Lakes dry cargo operations
firsthand. During the 2009 and 2010 shipping seasons, we visited
vessels and facilities in the region, and observed cargo loading and
unloading, and DCR discharge operations. This enabled us to gather DCR
data using a known consistent set of metrics and a process that was
completely independent of any used by vessel owners or operators to
complete and submit their DCR discharge reports.
    From this analysis and observation, we drew the following
conclusions:
    There is significant variation in the amount of DCR that vessels
discharge; a finding that is supported by results reported by the
regulated industry. However, most vessels appear to be minimizing the
volume of DCR they discharge. They treat their cargo as a commodity to
be conserved and not wasted. They deal with shoreside facilities that
take the same practical view. These vessels and facilities use best
practices to prevent cargo spillage in the first place, and to clean it
up when it occurs. Most best practices are simple, intuitive, and cost
little: For example, lining conveyor belts with fabric skirts,
communicating with the shoreside facility to shut down loading chutes
while moving from one hold to the next, and using brooms and shovels to
clean up DCR and return it to the hold before the hold is sealed.
    Deck spillage is a relatively minor source of DCR, and easily
addressed through simple measures. By far the greater source of DCR is
from cargo hold spillage into vessel tunnels. Tunnel spillage
predominantly occurs during cargo unloading.
    Within tunnels, large pieces of DCR that remain after unloading
should be easy to recover while the vessel is underway, and to place on
the conveyor belt with the rest of the cargo during the vessel's next
unloading. Dust and small particles, however, inevitably make their way
into the vessel's sump water. The sump must be pumped periodically, to
preserve the vessel's trim and stability. Sump pumping can take several
hours. If performed shoreside, this operation may delay the vessel,
increasing its operating costs. It would be economically more rational
to perform sump pumping only while the vessel is underway, though this
would likely result in sump discharges being the main contributor to
DCR discharges in the Great Lakes.
    In this SNPRM, we propose a rule that would make three general
changes to the current interim rule. (We also propose the non-
substantive addition or amendment of two definitions, ``commercial
vessel'' and ``mile,'' for stylistic purposes.) Our tiered DEIS
supports all of these changes. The proposed rule would, like the
interim rule, continue to apply to the owners and operators of U.S.,
Canadian, and other foreign vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, and also to the owners and operators of U.S.
vessels carrying bulk dry cargo when they are on the Canadian waters of
the Great Lakes. It would continue the interim rule's exclusion of non-
self-propelled barges, unless they are part of an integrated tug and
barge unit. The three proposed changes are as follows:
    First, we would require the volume of DCR discharges to be
minimized. Except for a new, objectively verifiable, ``broom clean''
standard applying to decks, discharge minimization would be achieved
through methods of the vessel owner or operator's choice. ``Broom
clean'' would be defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as a condition in which
deck residues ``consist only of dust, powder, or isolated and random
pieces none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter.'' ``Minimization''
would also be defined, as the ``reduction, to the greatest extent
practicable, of any bulk dry cargo residue discharge from the vessel.''
Reinforcing the concept of minimization, we would also redefine bulk
DCR to emphasize that DCR can exist ``regardless of particle size.''
    Second, we would require discharge minimization methods to be
documented in a vessel-specific DCR management plan, which we would

define as a written plan, subject to Coast Guard inspection, meeting at
least the minimum criteria we would describe in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(5)
    Third, limestone and clean stone DCR discharges would no longer be
permitted within 3 miles of shore, except within a limited area of the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.
    Minimization and the DCR management plan. The proposed rule would
require U.S. and foreign carriers conducting bulk dry cargo operations
on the Great Lakes to minimize the amount of cargo residue discharged
into the Great Lakes. Except for the new broom clean standard, our
focus would be on discharge minimization, not on minimizing DCR. Nor
would we require vessels to eliminate DCR discharges, because we
continue to believe, as we did when we issued the interim rule, that a
``zero discharge'' requirement would be more costly than necessary to
protect the environment against adverse impacts, and because the
adverse impacts that can be associated with DCR discharges are only
minor and indirect. Nevertheless, the elimination of DCR discharges
remains the ideal, and we expect vessels to come as close to that ideal
as practicable, given current industry standard practices for vessels
of ``comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations''--a term we
would define in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as meaning ``similar vessel design,
size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes, deck and hold
configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment configuration.''
    Discharge minimization would include keeping the vessel's deck in
broom clean condition. All vessels should be able to achieve the broom
clean standard on deck, by sweeping spilled cargo back into holds
before they are sealed, if not by some other method. However, as noted,
deck DCR only accounts for a relatively small proportion of overall DCR
discharges. For the more significant tunnel sump discharges, it is not
possible for us to define a similar standard that could be applied to
all vessels. We believe that the degree of minimization that will be
practicable for those discharges will depend on the variables of a
vessel's characteristics, cargoes, and operations, and on the
technology or procedures used to compensate for those variables.
    Rather than mandating the use of specific procedures or
technologies that may be ineffective or impracticable for some vessels,
each vessel's owner or operator would select the method or methods best
suited for minimizing that vessel's DCR discharges. We believe that the
great majority of vessels affected by the proposed rule are already
effectively minimizing those discharges. However, by making
minimization a regulatory requirement, we would level the playing field
to ensure that all affected vessels engage in responsible discharge
minimization practices.
    The proposed requirement for each vessel to carry its own vessel-
specific DCR management plan on board, and to have that plan available
for inspection, is central to the enforceability of a discharge
minimization requirement.
    Coast Guard inspectors would enforce discharge minimization by
making sure that the vessel has a DCR management plan onboard, that the
plan is complete and addresses all required items, and that the master
or person in charge (PIC) ensures that the vessel and its crew operate
according to the plan. The Coast Guard could infer the vessel's failure
to minimize discharges from evidence such as:
     A missing plan;
     A plan that fails to address obvious DCR situations on the
vessel that raise the probability of an eventual DCR discharge, such as
obvious DCR buildup in the vessel's tunnels;
     Discharge minimization equipment that is called for in the
plan but not maintained or operating properly; or
     A crewmember's inability to perform a discharge-
minimization task for which the plan makes the crewmember responsible.
    To ensure that the vessel's owner and operator exercise due
diligence in writing the management plan, we would require the plan to
describe:
     The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to minimize
cargo spillage during loading and unloading;
     The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to recover
spilled cargo and place it in holds or on unloading conveyances;
     How the owner or operator ensures crew familiarity with
management plan procedures;
     Who has onboard responsibility for the vessel's discharge
minimization procedures;
     What arrangements, if any, the vessel has with specific
ports or cargo terminals for unloading and disposing of the vessel's
DCR ashore; and
     How unavoidable DCR discharges will be conducted.
    Our regulatory focus has been, and will remain, the vessels that
carry bulk dry cargo--even though shoreside cargo loading and unloading
facilities undoubtedly play a role in creating, or limiting the
creation of, the shipboard DCR that is eventually discharged into the
Great Lakes. Focusing on vessels makes sense because the Coast Guard's
inspection infrastructure is more geared toward vessels than to
shoreside facilities. We would expect each vessel's DCR management plan
to describe how the vessel works with shoreside facilities to
facilitate the vessel's compliance with the requirements of 33 CFR
151.66.
    Another important aspect of the proposed management plan
requirement is that the plan would need to be revised whenever there
was a substantive change to the procedures or the equipment used to
manage dry cargo residues on the vessel covered by the plan. Although
regular or periodic revisions of the management plan are not required
under this proposed rule, vessel owners would be required to maintain
the plan in a manner that assures it accurately reflects the current
procedures, practices, and technology employed in managing dry cargo
residues on the vessel.
    We expect that industry standard practices for the management of
dry cargo residue will evolve as existing dry cargo conveyance
technologies are supplanted by those that are more efficient,
effective, and reliable. ``Industry standard practices'' would be
specifically defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) and would include practices
for installation, maintenance, operation, training, and supervision
relating to bulk dry cargo transfer and DCR control measures. A primary
premise of this proposed rule is that a vessel owner or operator will
employ dry cargo residue management practices that are on par with the
current industry standard for vessels of comparable characteristics,
cargoes, and operations. ``Comparable characteristics, cargoes, and
operations'' would be defined in 33 CFR 151.66 (b)(2) as meaning
``similar vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes,
operational routes, deck and hold configurations, and fixed cargo
transfer equipment configurations''. A vessel's compliance with this
requirement of the proposed rule would be determined in part by how
well the vessel's DCR management practices, as outlined in its
management plan, compare with the current industry standard practices
employed by the majority of vessels with comparable characteristics,
cargoes, and operations. If, for example, a vessel's plan continues to
rely on technology or procedures that have been supplanted by more
recent, affordable, and easily implemented industry standard practices,
a Coast Guard inspector could consider this as evidence of failure to
maintain the plan or failure to minimize DCR discharges.
    Limestone and clean stone. While we propose to retain the interim
rule's

approach toward the discharge of DCR in general, we propose a change
with respect to limestone and clean stone DCR discharges. For most
substances, DCR discharges have been and would remain subject to
several geographic limitations, including a flat prohibition on
discharges within a certain distance from shore and in special
protected areas. For limestone and clean stone, however, the interim
rule continued the prior policy, which allowed DCR from limestone and
clean stone to be discharged close to shore, except where the nearest
shore is in a special protected area or where the discharge would have
an ``apparent impact'' on wetlands, fish spawning areas, or potable
water intakes. We think this standard is too subjective and that it
could be difficult for vessel crews to determine whether or not a stone
DCR discharge would have an apparent impact on the local environment.
Therefore, we propose making limestone and clean stone DCR discharges
subject to the same 3 mile restriction we impose on other DCR
discharges. Our 2009 and 2010 field research and the EIS indicated that
limestone and clean stone vessels already avoid DCR discharges within 3
miles of shore because of near-shore operational hazards. Thus, those
vessels should not incur any additional cost from the proposed
extension of the exclusion zone. (We would preserve the existing
exception for a limited portion of Lake Erie's Western Basin because
some vessels carrying limestone or clean stone never leave that area,
and if such a vessel wanted to discharge DCR it could be unusually and
adversely affected by a complete prohibition on DCR discharges in the
area.) Our proposed change would ensure that near-shore wetlands, fish
spawning areas, and potable water intakes within the entire Great Lakes
ecosystem are protected from DCR discharges, while simultaneously
simplifying understanding and compliance with the rule for the
regulated industry. It should also mitigate an environmental impact
identified in the Final EIS for the interim rule; that is, possible
changes in the physical structure of the lake bottom sediment, which
may cause a less than 10% increase in zebra and quagga mussel
attachment rates.

VII. 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 SNPRM has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. A draft Regulatory Assessment follows:
    The Coast Guard proposes a rule that would require vessels to
minimize their DCR discharges, to document their DCR minimization
methods, and to observe new restrictions on limestone and clean stone
DCR discharges.
    Table 1 compares components of the interim rule (baseline used for
this rulemaking) and this SNPRM. It summarizes any changes in the
component that we propose in the SNPRM.

                                          Table 1--No-Action (IR) and Preferred Alternative Comparison Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SNPRM Provision       Change from IR to
       Provision description              IR Provision        IR Provision synopsis     SNPRM Provision            synopsis                SNPRM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping......................  33 CFR                  Vessels must record     NA...................  .....................  Recordkeeping
                                      151.66(c)(1)(iv).       all DCR loading,                                                      requirement would
                                                              unloading and                                                         remain in place. The
                                                              sweeping on form CG-                                                  industry would not
                                                              33.                                                                   incur any change in
                                                                                cost.
Reporting/Certification............  33 CFR                  The data collected are  NA...................  .....................  Vessels will continue
                                      151.66(c)(1)(iv).       used to determine                                                     to certify and
                                                              vessel practices in                                                   submit reports on a
                                                              handling DCR, and the                                                 quarterly basis. The
                                                              amount of DCR that is                                                 industry will not
                                                              being managed by the                                                  incur any change in
                                                              vessels.                                                              cost.
Limestone & clean stone............  33 CFR 151.66(b)......  Limestone and clean     33 CFR 151.66(b)(2)..  Limestone and clean    There would be a no-
                                                              stone are exempt from                          stone DCR              cost change; our
                                                              the 3-mile near-shore                          discharges, under      research indicates
                                                              sweeping boundary.                             the proposed rule,     that vessels already
                                                              Under the IR, these                            would not be allowed   avoid DCR discharges
                                                              commodities can be                             within 3 miles of      within 3 miles of
                                                              discharged anywhere                            shore.                 shore because of
                                                              along the shoreline,                                                  near-shore
                                                              provided there is no                                                  operational hazards.
                                                              apparent impact on
                                                              environmentally
                                                              sensitive areas.
Voluntary minimization.............  33 CFR 151.66(b)......  Vessels are encouraged  NA...................  The portion of 33 CFR  There is no cost
                                                              to minimize the                                151.66(b) in the IR    associated with the
                                                              amount of DCR going                            dealing with           removal of this IR
                                                              into the water and                             voluntary              requirement. (See
                                                              the use of control                             minimization would     the management plan
                                                              measures to reduce                             be removed in the      below for details on
                                                              the amount of DCR                              SNPRM.                 mandatory
                                                              falling on the decks                                                  minimization.)
                                                              and tunnels of
                                                              vessels.

Broom clean standard...............  NA....................  ......................  33 CFR 151.66(b)(3)..  This requirement       Vessels would realize
                                                                                stipulates that        a new cost for this
                                                                                vessels must show      requirement. We
                                                                                that decks have been   anticipate that
                                                                                swept to a standard    vessels would see an
                                                                                that is in keeping     annual cost increase
                                                                                with the mandatory     ranging from $14,203
                                                                                minimization           to $53,263 (non-
                                                                                requirement of this    discounted). Foreign
                                                                                proposed rule.         vessels would incur
                                                                                an average annual
                                                                                cost of $28,847 (non-
                                                                                discounted). The
                                                                                benefit of this
                                                                                requirement is a
                                                                                reduction in the
                                                                                amount of discharge
                                                                                going into the
                                                                                waters of the Great
                                                                                Lakes.
Management plan....................  NA....................  ......................  33 CFR 151.66(b)(4)..  The plan must          The new requirement
                                                                                describe the           would have an
                                                                                specific measures      initial year cost of
                                                                                the vessel employs     $24,777 (non-
                                                                                to ensure the          discounted) to
                                                                                minimization of bulk   prepare a management
                                                                                dry cargo residue      plan. After the
                                                                                discharge.             initial year,
                                                                                existing U.S.
                                                                                vessels would not
                                                                                incur additional
                                                                                cost (within the 10-
                                                                                year period of
                                                                                analysis) from this
                                                                                new requirement.
                                                                                Foreign vessels
                                                                                would incur a first
                                                                                year cost of $17,340
                                                                                and an annual cost
                                                                                of $1,530 (all non-
                                                                                discounted) from
                                                                                this new
                                                                                requirement. This
                                                                                requirement would
                                                                                ensure that vessels
                                                                                are minimizing the
                                                                                amount of DCR going
                                                                                into the waters of
                                                                                the Great Lakes, and
                                                                                provide USCG with
                                                                                the means of
                                                                                policing DCR
                                                                                discharge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    The proposed rule has costs associated with having vessel owners
and operators develop and maintain a management plan that describes the
specific measures the vessel employs to ensure the minimization of bulk
DCR discharges in the waters of the Great Lakes. The proposed rule
would not impose any additional capital expenditures on the U.S. bulk
dry cargo fleet operating exclusively on the Great Lakes, since we
believe that vessels would use equipment already available onboard
their vessels to comply with this proposed rule (for further
information on specific measures currently being used, see DEIS).
    We estimated the annualized costs of the SNPRM for the US fleet to
range from $17,500 to $56,298 (with a per vessel average cost of $671),
and the annualized costs of the SNPRM for the foreign fleet to range
from $13,922 to $48,697 (with a per vessel average cost of $368), all
costs are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. The following
table summarizes the affected population of vessels, costs and benefits
of the proposed rule.

Table 2--Summary of Affected Population, Costs and Benefits of the SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Affected Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US.................................  55 Vessels (14 owners).
Foreign............................  85 Vessels.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total..........................  140 Vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Costs*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US.................................  Annualized = $17,500--$56,298.
                                     10 year = $122,916--$395,413.
Foreign............................  Annualized = $13,922--$48,697.
                                     10 year = $97,786--$342,029.
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total..........................  Annualized = $31,423--$104,995.
                                     10 year = $220,701--$737,444.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimizing the amount of DCR discharged into the waters of the Great
 Lakes would improve the aquatic environment.
Promotion of environmental stewardship among owners and operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Costs are presented as ranges and estimated using a 7 percent discount
  rate.

    The proposed rule would require all vessels loading or unloading
bulk dry cargo at ports within the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and
each U.S. bulk dry cargo vessel anywhere on the Great Lakes, to have a
management plan

onboard and available for Coast Guard inspection that describes the
specific measures the vessel employs to minimize DCR discharges.
Foreign vessels greater than 400 GT can meet the management plan
requirement under this proposed rule because they are required to meet
the similar waste management plan requirement in Annex V of MARPOL 73/
78. However, since Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 does not cover all of the
requirements in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4), foreign vessels would be required
to address any additional management plan requirements under this
proposed rule.
    We estimate that the proposed rule would affect 14 entities that
currently manage the 55 U.S. dry bulk carrier vessels, and 85 foreign
dry bulk carrier vessels (70 Canadian and 15 non-Canadian) operating
within U.S. jurisdictional waters of the Great Lakes in any given year.
We anticipate that the controlling entities of U.S. vessels would write
the management plans. We assume that a management plan for a foreign
vessel operating in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would be written
by the vessel master.
    We estimate the affected population of foreign dry bulk carriers to
be 85 vessels based on the data obtained from reporting requirements
established by the 2009 interim rule. We originally estimated the
foreign vessel population to be 219 vessels for 2008 NPRM and the 2009
interim rule. Our revised estimate of the foreign vessel population is
based on recent data on foreign vessel dry cargo operations that was
not available for the NPRM or the interim rule publications.
    To maintain consistency with the cost methodology used in the
interim rule, we continue to use Coast Guard reimbursable standard
rates found in COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M (``COMDTINST'') to
analyze the changes in wages for this rulemaking.\1\ We have verified
that the wages found in the COMDTINST are comparable to the loaded
wages found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Therefore, that
comparison between the interim rule and the SNPRM is straightforward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M, ``COAST GUARD REIMBURSABLE
STANDARD RATES'', FEB 28 2011, http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1M.PDF (begins on page 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below shows estimated costs for developing the management
plan required by proposed 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4) and for having onboard a
hard copy of the plan available for inspection by the Coast Guard.

                                                Table 3--Cost of Company Development of a Management Plan
                                                                    [Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Labor rate    Time in      Cost per    Number of    Total initial
          33 CFR 151.66 (b)(4)                 Developer rating         (loaded)      hours         plan        plans          cost       Recurring cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US
    Company management plan............  GS-12......................          $69           25       $1,725           14         $24,150  ..............
    Cost of copies.....................  GS-3.......................           28          .05    \a\ 11.40           55             627  ..............
Foreign
    Canadian Vessel....................  O-6........................          136      \b\ 1.5          204           70          14,280  ..............
    Non-Canadian Foreign...............  O-6........................          136      \b\ 1.5          204           15           3,060       \c\ 1,530
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..........................  ...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          42,117           1,530
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.
(a): Assumes that companies would spend $10 on supplies for each copy of the management plan. The $10 is added to the labor and time estimated to be
  $1.40 ($28 * 0.05 hrs), therefore the total cost of copies per plan is $11.40.
(b): We assume that foreign vessels greater than 400 GT would develop a modified management plan, since foreign vessels greater than 400 GT are required
  to have a waste management plan in accordance with Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Therefore, the time required by foreign vessels greater than 400 GT to
  develop a management plan would be less than the time estimated for the U.S. fleet. Time required for foreign vessels developing a management plan was
  provided by the USCG Environmental Standards Division.
(c): The recurring cost of the management plan is only for half of the non-Canadian foreign vessels entering the Great Lakes in any given year. We
  anticipate that half the number of these vessels would return the following year, while the other half would be new visitors to the Great Lakes.

    In addition to the management plan, the proposed rule would require
that the deck be maintained in a broom clean condition whenever a
vessel is in transit (33 CFR 151.66(b)(4)). We assume for the purpose
of this regulatory analysis that an Able Body Seaman (AB) would be
tasked with maintaining the broom clean standard as required under this
proposed rule during loading and unloading operations, to the best of
the AB's abilities under current vessel conditions. The requirement is
intended to ensure that vessels are active in reducing the amount of
DCR going into the waters of the Great Lakes. We do not expect that
vessels would need to purchase additional brooms, shovels, etc., since
these items are standard equipment on those vessels.
    In order to determine the cost of maintaining decks in broom clean
condition, we established that the surface area requiring broom
cleaning would be those areas around the cargo hatches. During a site
visit to the Great Lakes to observe vessel loading and unloading
operations, we recorded the number of hatches for each vessel visited.
We extrapolated the observed data to obtain an estimated number of
total hatches for the Great Lakes bulk dry cargo fleet. We estimated
the total number of hatches for the 55 U.S. vessels to be 1,169, while
the total number of hatches for the 70 Canadian and 15 non-Canadian
foreign vessels was estimated at 1,672. We estimate that 15 to 56
percent of the hatches would be affected by the broom clean standard
after every loading and unloading event, and that it would take an AB
three minutes per hatch (at a wage rate of $27 per hour) to meet the
broom clean standard. Table 4 shows the annual estimated cost to the
U.S. fleet for maintaining the broom clean standard. The cost range for
this requirement is $14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted). Costs are
based on all vessels making an average of 60 trips per year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Annual vessel trip information comes from the DEIS.

                                                                  Table 4--U.S. Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                Time req'd   number of     % of      % Vessels  Avg number   Number of  Total hrs/
              33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3)                            Crew member             Labor rate    (%/Hr)       fleet      Hatches      broom     of trips/     crew         yr.     Total cost
                                                                                hatches      swept       clean        yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)...............................  Deckhand (AB).....................         $27        0.05       1,169          15         100          60           1         526     $14,203
Broom Clean (High)..............................  Deckhand (AB).....................          27        0.05       1,169          56         100          60           1       1,963      53,001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.

    The cost to Canadian and non-Canadian foreign vessels is shown in
Tables 5(a) and (b). The combined cost of the broom clean standard for
foreign vessels is estimated to range from $69 to $45, 247 (non-
discounted). Costs are based on Canadian vessels making an average of
45 trips per year and non-Canadian foreign vessels averaging only one
trip per year.

                                                              Table 5(a)--Canadian Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                Time req'd   number of     % of      % Vessels  Avg number   Number of  Total hrs/
              33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3)                            Crew member             Labor rate    (%/Hr)       fleet      Hatches      broom     of trips/     crew         yr.     Total cost
                                                                                hatches      swept       clean        yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)...............................  Deckhand (AB).....................         $27        0.05       1,330          15         100          45           1         449     $12,120
Broom Clean (High)..............................  Deckhand (AB).....................          27        0.05       1,330          56         100          45           1        1676      45,247
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.

                                                         Table 5(b) Non-Canadian Foreign Fleet Cost for Meeting the Broom Clean Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                Time req'd   number of     % of      % Vessels  Avg number   Number of  Total hrs/
              33 CFR 151.66 (b)(3)                            Crew member             Labor rate    (%/Hr)       fleet      Hatches      broom     of trips/     crew         yr.     Total cost
                                                                                hatches      swept       clean        yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broom Clean (Low)...............................  Deckhand (AB).....................         $27        0.05         342          15         100           1           1           3         $69
Broom Clean (High)..............................  Deckhand (AB).....................          27        0.05         342          56         100           1           1          10         259
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.

    The cost of complying with the management plan and broom clean
requirements for the U.S. fleet is estimated to have a first-year cost
range of $38,982 to $77,778 (non-discounted) and recurring annual costs
ranging from $14,203 to $53,001 (non-discounted). Table 6 shows the
U.S. fleet cost estimate for the 10-year period of analysis.

                                                    Table 6--U.S. Vessels High and Low Cost Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        High Cost Estimate                               Low Cost Estimate
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Undiscounted         3%              7%         Undiscounted         3%              7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         $77,778         $75,513         $72,690         $38,982         $37,846         $36,432
2.......................................................          53,001          49,959          46,293          14,203          13,388          12,406
3.......................................................          53,001          48,503          43,265          14,203          12,998          11,594
4.......................................................          53,001          47,091          40,434          14,203          12,619          10,836
5.......................................................          53,001          45,719          37,789          14,203          12,252          10,127
6.......................................................          53,001          44,388          35,317          14,203          11,895           9,464
7.......................................................          53,001          43,095          33,006          14,203          11,549           8,845
8.......................................................          53,001          41,839          30,847          14,203          11,212           8,266
9.......................................................          53,001          40,621          28,829          14,203          10,886           7,726
10......................................................          53,001          39,438          26,943          14,203          10,569           7,220
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost..........................................         554,787         476,165         395,413         166,812         145,214         122,916
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized Cost.................................  ..............          55,821          56,298  ..............          17,024          17,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.

    In addition, we estimate that foreign vessels would incur a first-
year cost that ranges from $15,249 to $59,527 (non-discounted). All
foreign vessels would incur an annual cost due to the broom clean
standard; however, half of the 15 non-Canadian foreign vessels entering
the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would be anticipated to incur an
additional cost for developing a management plan since the same non-
Canadian foreign vessel is not expected to make the same trip every
year. We estimate recurring cost of all foreign vessels to range from
$13,719 to $47,035 (non-discounted). Table 7 shows the U.S. fleet cost
estimate for the 10-year period of analysis.

                                                  Table 7--Foreign Vessels High and Low Cost Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        High Cost Estimate                               Low Cost Estimate
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Undiscounted         3%              7%         Undiscounted         3%              7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................         $59,527         $57,793         $55,632         $15,249         $14,805         $14,251
2.......................................................          47,035          44,335          41,082          13,719          12,391          11,983
3.......................................................          47,035          43,044          38,395          13,719          12,555          11,199
4.......................................................          47,035          41,790          35,883          13,719          12,189          10,466
5.......................................................          47,035          40,573          33,535          13,719          11,834           9,781
6.......................................................          47,035          39,391          31,342          13,719          11,489           9,141
7.......................................................          47,035          38,244          29,291          13,719          11,155           8,543
8.......................................................          47,035          37,130          27,375          13,719          10,830           7,985
9.......................................................          47,035          36,049          25,584          13,719          10,514           7,462
10......................................................          47,035          34,999          23,910          13,719          10,208           6,974
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost..........................................         482,843         413,347         342,029         138,719         118,510          97,786
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized Cost.................................  ..............          48,457          48,697  ..............          13,893          13,922
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not total due to rounding.

    The proposed rule would also prohibit all near-shore limestone and
clean stone DCR discharges, except in the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Our research found that vessels carrying limestone and clean stone
already avoid DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore because of near-
shore operational hazards. Therefore, the proposed prohibition of these
discharges would not incur any additional cost to the fleet.
    We estimate the total annualized cost to industry (US and foreign)
of the SNPRM to be $31,423 to $104,995 and the total discounted 10-year
costs to industry to be $220,701 to $737,444 (values discounted at 7
percent). We do not expect there would be additional government costs
required to implement the changes from this SNPRM.
Benefits
    We examined the benefits of the proposed rule and concluded that
the benefits are qualitative. The requirement of the management plan
causes all vessel owners and operators to become more active in
preserving the Great Lakes' aquatic environment. The proposed rule sets
a performance standard that allows the industry to determine its most
efficient methods to minimize DCR discharges.
    We anticipate that the proposed rule would change the current
industry behavior of discharging DCR into the waters of the Great
Lakes. The proposed requirement for vessels to have and follow DCR
management plans should increase overall compliance levels with today's
industry best practices for preventing or minimizing DCR discharges. In
enforcing the DCR management plan requirement, the Coast Guard would be
able to consider how well a vessel's plan reflects then-current
industry standard practices. This would ensure that if, over time,
there is an improvement in most vessels' ability to manage DCR, all
vessels will be measured against the improved standard. Although our
environmental analysis has shown only minor and indirect adverse
environmental impacts from DCR discharges, we assume that any reduction
in those impacts would provide at least a qualitative benefit. In
addition, the vessel owners and operators themselves could realize
efficiency gains from maintaining and gradually improving their DCR
management practices. The proposed rule would not impose a rigid
prescriptive standard, but would give the industry the flexibility to
develop vessel-specific performance standards that achieve the
regulatory objectives in the most cost-effective way.
Alternatives
    Alternative 1: no action. This alternative would simply keep the
current DCR interim rule in place. We have re-evaluated the interim
rule and concluded that our proposed rule would do more to minimize the
volume of DCR discharge going into the waters of the Great Lakes and
would reduce the interim rule's regulatory costs. Therefore we reject
this alternative.
    Alternative 2: modified regulations with DCR management plan
requirement. This is the preferred alternative described in this SNPRM
and evaluated here.
    Alternative 3: baseline control measures. This alternative would
enforce the existing DCR management baseline. Each vessel would be
required to maintain its current practices or equipment for managing
DCR. We closely evaluated this alternative but reject it because over
time a vessel's baseline operational equipment will wear out and need
replacement, and it would be difficult for inspectors to gauge how well
the replacement equipment replicates the operational state attained by
the original equipment. Moreover, this alternative provides inferior
environmental protection, by locking vessels into today's baseline. By
contrast, the preferred alternative assumes that DCR management
practices and technology will improve over time, and we want the
regulatory compliance of vessels in the future to be measured against
the best practices and technology then available, and not against
today's baseline, which we assume will represent a lower level of DCR
management capability.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard analysis did not find any non-profit or
governmental small entities. However, we did find 9 small entities
affected by this rule classified under one of the following North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 6-digit codes for water
transportation: 238910--Site Preparation Constructor; 483113--Coastal
and Great Lakes Freight Transportation; 484110--General Freight
Trucking Local; 487210--Scenic & Sightseeing Transportation Water;

483212--Inland Water Passenger Transportation; and 483211--Inland Water
Freight. According to the Small Business Administration's size
standards, a U.S. company classified under these NAICS codes with
annual revenues of less than $7 million is considered a small business.
We estimate the cost of this rule to be less than 1 percent of revenue
for 100 percent of the small entities for both initial and recurring
costs. The estimated annualized costs per small entity complying with
the proposed rule would range from a high estimate of $7,327 to a low
estimate of $2,267 with both discounted at 7 percent respectively.
    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. Comments submitted in response to
this finding will be evaluated under the criteria in the ``Regulatory
Information'' section of this preamble.
    We are interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule
on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential
impacts. 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 where indicated under the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' section of this SNPRM, or see
www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2004-19621, for additional
instruction.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 John C. Morris of
the Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES-3) at the
telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    The proposed rule would call for a revision to an existing
collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1310.3(c), ``collection of
information'' comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, and other, similar actions. The title and description of
those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total
annual burden can be found under, ``The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.''
    Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters
of Instruction for Certain Persons in Charge (PIC).
Summary of the Collection of Information
    The Information Collection Request (ICR) is a collection of
recordkeeping requirements that documents management of waste onboard
vessels. It also requires that persons on non-inspected vessels must
carry a letter verifying the credential of the PIC, and that they have
had instruction on the management of waste. Currently, the ICR covers
Waste Management Plans and Refuse Discharge Logs for The International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships letters of
instruction for certain PIC and the DCR recordkeeping.
    This proposed rule deals with section D of the current ICR, which
addresses all dry bulk carrier vessels (foreign and domestic) operating
on the Great Lakes. Under the interim rule, this population is required
to report DCR quantities and the location of discharges into U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes, in accordance with 33 CFR 151.66(c). We used
the information collected from these reports to analyze and determine
how best to regulate vessels in handling/managing DCR. The proposed
rule would require U.S. and foreign vessels to develop and maintain a
management plan that describes the specific measures the vessel employs
to ensure the minimization of bulk DCR discharges.
    Need for Information: Since there is no uniformity as to the types
of equipment used throughout the fleet, the management plan would
provide a description of how the individual vessel ensures the
minimization of DCR discharges.
    Proposed Use of Information: The information in the management plan
would provide the Coast Guard with the means to monitor how individual
operators are effectively managing and minimizing their DCR discharges.
In addition, the management plan would be used by Coast Guard
inspectors to enforce the minimization requirement.
    Description of the Respondents: We estimate that all U.S. bulk dry
cargo vessels operating anywhere in the Great Lakes, and foreign
commercial bulk dry cargo vessels operating on the U.S. waters of the
Great Lakes, would be affected by the management plan requirement.
    Number of Respondents: The management plan would have a total
number of 140 \3\ (55 U.S. vessels + 70 Canadian vessels + 15 non-
Canadian foreign vessels) respondents, which account for the total
number of bulk dry cargo vessels operating on the waters of the Great
Lakes in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The number of foreign vessels affected has been updated
(from the interim rule) due to information being provided by Form
CG-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of the Response: All vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on
the Great Lakes are required to develop a management plan. The
frequency in the development of the management plan would be subject to
vessels modifying their vessels and/or equipment. We do not anticipate
vessels modifying or adding major equipment during the 10-year period
of this analysis. We therefore assume that the development of the
management plan would occur once for U.S. and Canadian vessels.
However, a percentage (50%) of non-Canadian foreign vessels would be
required to develop a management plan each year, since we estimate that
this percentage would be entering the Great Lakes for the first time.
Therefore, we estimate that in the first year there would be 140 (55
U.S. vessels + 70 Canadian vessels + 15 non-Canadian foreign vessels)
total management plans developed by all bulk dry cargo vessels
operating in U.S. waters, and 8 (rounded) reoccurring responses by non-
Canadian foreign vessels.
    Burden of Response: We estimate that there would be 55 management
plans developed for the entire U.S. dry cargo vessel fleet operating on
the Great

Lakes, and that it would only affect the burden of response in the
first year that the proposed rule is in effect. The total estimated
burden hours for the U.S. fleet is 352.75 (350 hours company section +
2.75 hours copies), at a cost to the fleet of $24,150 (non-discounted).
The total foreign vessel fleet would have a burden of response in the
first year of 128 hours (1.5 hours for management plan x 85 vessels),
at a cost of $17,340 (non-discounted).
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The proposed rule would not have
an annual cost burden after the first year of this rule being
implemented for U.S. and Canadian vessels (see ``BURDEN OF RESPONSE,''
above). After the first year, non-Canadian foreign vessels would incur
an annual burden. We anticipate non-Canadian vessels would incur an
annual burden of 11 hours for management plan development at a cost of
$1,530 (non-discounted).
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have
submitted a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the
collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining the burden are; how we can
improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information, and
how we can minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. As
we discussed at length in part V of this preamble, we received comments
from several States in response to our interim rule and are aware that
some agencies in some States bordering the Great Lakes disagree with
the Coast Guard's approach to the discharge of DCR in those waters. We
encourage all such States, and any of their agencies with a stake in
the outcome of this rulemaking, to continue sharing their input with
us. We believe neither the interim rule, nor the rule proposed by this
document, necessarily preempts or conflicts with State laws that may
prohibit DCR discharges or impose conditions on those discharges that
differ from those imposed by the Coast Guard. We do not take the
position that such State laws facially frustrate an overriding Federal
purpose. Until such time as a cognizant court rules to the contrary, we
caution carriers that they must comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws regulating DCR discharges. We encourage States to make us
aware of laws they think are applicable. As we are so informed, we will
share that information with the public by placing it in the docket for
this rulemaking.

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 would 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.
However, a group representing tribal interests requested consultation,
and the Coast Guard agreed to brief that group on the rulemaking. The
briefing is described in the docket (see docket item USCG-2004-19621-
0182).

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.

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 Management 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). A draft
``Environmental Impact Statement'' (EIS) is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. We encourage the public to submit
comments on the draft EIS.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 151 as follows:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

    1. The authority citation for part 151 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101;
Pub. L. 104-227 (110 Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108-293 (118 Stat. 1063),
Sec.  623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1, sec. 2(77).

    2. Amend Sec.  151.66 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  151.66  Operating requirements: Discharge of garbage in the Great
Lakes and other navigable waters.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) On the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, commercial vessels
may discharge bulk dry cargo residues in accordance with and subject to
the conditions imposed by this paragraph
    (2) As used in this paragraph--
    Apostle Islands National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior administered by the National Park Service, less Madeline
Island, and including the Wisconsin shoreline of Bayfield Peninsula
from the point of land at 46[deg]57'19.7'' N, 090[deg]52'51.0'' W
southwest along the shoreline to a point of land at 46[deg]52'56.4'' N,
091[deg]3'3.1'' W.
    Broom clean means a condition in which the vessel's deck shows that
care has been taken to prevent or eliminate any visible concentration
of bulk dry cargo residues, so that any remaining bulk dry cargo
residues consist only of dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces,
none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter.
    Bulk dry cargo residues means non-hazardous and non-toxic residues,
regardless of particle size, of dry cargo carried in bulk, including
limestone and other clean stone, iron ore, coal, salt, and cement. It
does not include residues of any substance known to be toxic or
hazardous, such as nickel, copper, zinc, lead, or materials classified
as hazardous in provisions of law or treaty.
    Caribou Island and Southwest Bank Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:

47[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W

47[deg]24.2' N, 085[deg]38.5' W

47[deg]04.0' N, 085[deg]49.0' W

47[deg]05.7' N, 085[deg]59.0' W

47[deg]18.1' N, 086[deg]05.0' W
    Commercial vessel means a commercial vessel loading, unloading, or
discharging bulk dry cargo in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, or a
U.S. commercial vessel transporting bulk dry cargo and operating
anywhere on the Great Lakes; but the term does not include a non-self-
propelled barge unless it is part of an integrated tug and barge unit.
    Comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations means similar
vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes,
deck and hold configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment
configuration.
    Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge means the U.S. waters
of the Detroit River bound by the area extending from the Michigan
shore at the southern outlet of the Rouge River to 41[deg]54.0' N
083[deg]06.0' W along the U.S.-Canada boundary southward and clockwise
connecting points:

42[deg]02.0' N, 083[deg]08.0' W

41[deg]54.0' N, 083[deg]06.0' W

41[deg]50.0' N, 083[deg]10.0' W

41[deg]44.52' N, 083[deg]22.0 ' W

41[deg]44.19' N, 083[deg]27.0' W
    Dry cargo residue (or DCR) management plan means the plan required
by paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    Grand Portage National Monument means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from the southwest
corner of the monument point of land at 47[deg]57.521' N,
089[deg]41.245' W to the northeast corner of the monument point of
land, 47[deg]57.888' N, 089[deg]40.725' W.
    Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land near Gary, Indiana at 41[deg]42'59.4'' N, 086[deg]54'59.9'' W
eastward along the shoreline to 41[deg]37'08.8'' N, 087[deg]17'18.8'' W
near Michigan City, Indiana.
    Industry standard practices means practices that ensure the proper
installation, maintenance, and operation of shipboard cargo transfer
and DCR removal equipment, proper crew training in DCR minimization
procedures and cargo transfer operations, and proper supervision of
cargo transfer operations to minimize DCR accumulation on or in a
commercial vessel.
    Integrated tug and barge unit means any tug-barge combination
which, through the use of special design features or a specially
designed connection system, has increased sea-keeping capabilities
relative to a tug and barge in the conventional pushing mode.
    Isle Royale National Park means the site on or near Lake Superior,
administered by the National Park Service, where the boundary includes
any submerged lands within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States within 4\1/2\ miles of the shoreline of Isle Royale and the
surrounding islands, including Passage Island and Gull Island.
    Mile means a statute mile.
    Milwaukee Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area enclosed
by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:

43[deg]27.0' N, 087[deg]14.0' W

43[deg]21.2' N, 087[deg]02.3' W

43[deg]03.3' N, 087[deg]04.8' W

42[deg]57.5' N, 087[deg]21.0' W

43[deg]16.0' N, 087[deg]39.8' W

    Minimization means the reduction, to the greatest extent
practicable, of any bulk dry cargo residue discharge from the vessel.
    Northern Refuge means the area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting
the coordinates, beginning on the northernmost point and proceeding
clockwise:

45[deg]45.0' N, 086[deg]00.0' W

western shore of High Island, southern shore of Beaver Island:

45[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]30.0' W

45[deg]30.0' N, 085[deg]15.0' W

45[deg]25.0' N, 085[deg]15.0' W

45[deg]25.0' N, 085[deg]20.0' W

45[deg]20.0' N, 085[deg]20.0' W

45[deg]20.0' N, 085[deg]40.0' W

45[deg]15.0' N, 085[deg]40.0' W

45[deg]15.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W

45[deg]10.0' N, 085[deg]50.0' W

45[deg]10.0' N, 086[deg]00.0' W

    Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore means the site on or near Lake
Superior, administered by the National Park Service, from a point of
land at

46[deg]26'21.3'' N, 086[deg]36'43.2'' W eastward along the Michigan
shoreline to 46[deg]40'22.2'' N, 085[deg]59'58.1'' W.
    Six Fathom Scarp Mid-Lake Special Protection Area means the area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning
on the northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:

44[deg]55.0' N, 082[deg]33.0' W

44[deg]47.0' N, 082[deg]18.0' W

44[deg]39.0' N, 082[deg]13.0' W

44[deg]27.0' N, 082[deg]13.0' W

44[deg]27.0' N, 082[deg]20.0' W

44[deg]17.0' N, 082[deg]25.0' W

44[deg]17.0' N, 082[deg]30.0' W

44[deg]28.0' N, 082[deg]40.0' W

44[deg]51.0' N, 082[deg]44.0' W

44[deg]53.0' N, 082[deg]44.0' W

44[deg]54.0' N, 082[deg]40.0' W

    Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore means the site on or near
Lake Michigan, administered by the National Park Service, that includes
North Manitou Island, South Manitou Island and the Michigan shoreline
from a point of land at 44[deg]42'45.1'' N, 086[deg]12'18.1'' W north
and eastward along the shoreline to 44[deg]57'12.0'' N,
085[deg]48'12.8'' W.
    Stannard Rock Protection Area means the area within a 6-mile radius
from Stannard Rock Light, at 47[deg]10'57'' N, 087[deg]13'34'' W.
    Superior Shoal Protection Area means the area within a 6-mile
radius from the center of Superior Shoal, at 48[deg]03.2' N,
087[deg]06.3' W.
    Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary means the site on or near
Lake Huron designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration as the boundary that forms an approximately rectangular
area by extending along the ordinary high water mark between the
northern and southern boundaries of Alpena County, cutting across the
mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along
latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west. The coordinates of the
boundary are:

45[deg]12'25.5'' N, 083[deg]23'18.6'' W

45[deg]12'25.5'' N, 083[deg]00'00'' W

44[deg]51'30.5'' N, 083[deg]00'00'' W

44[deg]51'30.5'' N, 083[deg]19'17.3'' W

    Waukegan Special Protection Area means the area enclosed by rhumb
lines connecting the following coordinates, beginning on the
northernmost point and proceeding clockwise:

42[deg]24.3' N, 087[deg]29.3' W

42[deg]13.0' N, 087[deg]25.1' W

42[deg]12.2' N, 087[deg]29.1' W

42[deg]18.1' N, 087[deg]33.1' W

42[deg]24.1' N, 087[deg]32.0' W
    Western Basin means that portion of Lake Erie west of a line due
south from Point Pelee.
    (3) Discharges of bulk dry cargo residue under paragraph (b) of
this section are allowed, subject to the conditions listed in Table
151.66(b)(3) of this section.

                Table 151.66(b)(3)--Bulk Dry Cargo Residue Discharges Allowed on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                             Cargo                 Discharge allowed except as noted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tributaries, their connecting rivers,     Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
 and the St. Lawrence River.               stone.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited.
Lake Ontario............................  Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
                                           stone.
                                          Iron ore...................  Prohibited within 6 miles from shore.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore.
Lake Erie...............................  Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
                                           stone.                       prohibited in the Detroit River
                                                                        International Wildlife Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited in Western Basin, except that
                                                                        a vessel operating exclusively within
                                                                        Western Basin may discharge limestone or
                                                                        clean stone cargo residues over the
                                                                        dredged navigation channels between
                                                                        Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
                                                                        Light.
                                          Iron ore...................  Prohibited within 6 miles from shore;
                                                                        prohibited in the Detroit River
                                                                        International Wildlife Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited in Western Basin, except that
                                                                        a vessel may discharge residue over the
                                                                        dredged navigation channels between
                                                                        Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
                                                                        Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit
                                                                        and immediately thereafter loads new
                                                                        cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
                                          Coal, salt.................  Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore;
                                                                        prohibited in the Detroit River
                                                                        International Wildlife Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited in Western Basin, except that
                                                                        a vessel may discharge residue over the
                                                                        dredged navigation channels between
                                                                        Toledo Harbor Light and Detroit River
                                                                        Light if it unloads in Toledo or Detroit
                                                                        and immediately thereafter loads new
                                                                        cargo in Toledo, Detroit, or Windsor.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore;
                                                                        prohibited in the Detroit River
                                                                        International Wildlife Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited in Western Basin.
Lake St. Clair..........................  Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
                                           stone.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited.
Lake Huron, except Six Fathom Scarp Mid-  Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
 Lake Special Protection Area.             stone.                       prohibited in the Thunder Bay National
                                                                        Marine Sanctuary.
                                          Iron ore...................  Prohibited within 6 miles from shore and
                                                                        in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
                                                                        Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary;
                                                                        prohibited for vessels upbound along the
                                                                        Michigan thumb as follows:
                                                                       (i) Between 5.8 miles northeast of
                                                                        entrance buoys 11 and 12 to the track
                                                                        line turn abeam of Harbor Beach,
                                                                        prohibited within 3 miles from shore.
                                                                       (ii) For vessels bound for Saginaw Bay
                                                                        only, between the track line turn abeam
                                                                        of Harbor Beach and 4 nautical miles
                                                                        northeast of Point Aux Barques Light,
                                                                        prohibited within 4 miles from shore and
                                                                        not less than 10 fathoms of depth.

                                          Coal, salt.................  Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
                                                                        and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
                                                                        Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary;
                                                                        prohibited for vessels upbound from
                                                                        Alpena into ports along the Michigan
                                                                        shore south of Forty Mile Point within 4
                                                                        miles from shore and not less than 10
                                                                        fathoms of depth.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
                                                                        and in Saginaw Bay; prohibited in the
                                                                        Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Lake Michigan...........................  Limestone and other clean    Prohibited within 3 miles from shore;
                                           stone.                       prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-Lake
                                                                        and Waukegan Special Protection Areas;
                                                                        prohibited within the Northern Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited within 3 miles of the shore
                                                                        of the Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear
                                                                        National Lakeshores; prohibited within
                                                                        Green Bay.
                                          Iron ore...................  Prohibited in the Northern Refuge; north
                                                                        of 45[deg]N, prohibited within 12 miles
                                                                        from shore and in Green Bay; south of
                                                                        45[deg]N, prohibited within 6 miles from
                                                                        shore, and prohibited within the
                                                                        Milwaukee Mid-Lake and Waukegan Special
                                                                        Protection Areas, in Green Bay, and
                                                                        within 3 miles of the shore of Indiana
                                                                        Dunes and Sleeping Bear National
                                                                        Lakeshores; except that discharges are
                                                                        allowed at:
                                                                       (a) 4.75 miles off Big Sable Point
                                                                        Betsie, along established Lake Carriers
                                                                        Association (LCA) track lines; and
                                                                       (b) Along 056.25[deg] LCA track line
                                                                        between due east of Poverty Island to a
                                                                        point due south of Port Inland Light.
                                          Coal.......................  Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
                                                                        and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
                                                                        Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
                                                                        Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
                                                                        of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
                                                                        Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores;
                                                                        except that discharges are allowed--
                                                                       (i) Along 013.5[deg] LCA track line
                                                                        between 45[deg]N and Boulder Reef, and
                                                                        along 022.5[deg] LCA track running 23.25
                                                                        miles between Boulder Reef and the
                                                                        charted position of Red Buoy 2;
                                                                       (ii) Along 037[deg] LCA track line
                                                                        between 45[deg]20'N and 45[deg]42'N;
                                                                       (iii) Along 056.25[deg] LCA track line
                                                                        between points due east of Poverty
                                                                        Island to a point due south of Port
                                                                        Inland Light; and
                                                                       (iv) At 3 miles from shore for coal
                                                                        carried between Manistee and Ludington
                                                                        along customary routes.
                                          Salt.......................  Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
                                                                        and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
                                                                        Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
                                                                        Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
                                                                        of the shore of Indiana Dunes and
                                                                        Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores, and
                                                                        in Green Bay.
                                          All other cargoes..........  Prohibited in the Northern Refuge;
                                                                        prohibited within 13.8 miles from shore
                                                                        and prohibited within the Milwaukee Mid-
                                                                        Lake and Waukegan Special Protection
                                                                        Areas, in Green Bay, and within 3 miles
                                                                        of the shore of Indiana Dunes and