[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19135-19141]
[FR Doc No: E9-9634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 160

[Docket No. USCG-2007-28648]
RIN 1625-AB19

Crewmember Identification Documents

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard requires each crewmember on a foreign
commercial vessel en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at
a U.S. port or place, or on a U.S. commercial vessel coming from a
foreign port or place of departure to a U.S. port or place of
destination, to carry and present upon demand an acceptable
identification when in U.S. navigable waters. The vessel operators are
required to ensure that crewmembers comply with this requirement. This
rule would implement a Maritime Transportation Security Act mandate and
help ensure that the Coast Guard can authoritatively identify
crewmembers on vessels in U.S. navigable waters.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2007-28648 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
selecting the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, inserting USCG-2007-28648 in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter,
and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID column.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Commander Kelly Post, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Commander Jonathan H.
Maiorine, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Activities,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Background and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Support for Proposed Rule
    B. Acceptance of Seafarer's Identification Document
    C. Transportation Worker Identification Credential not SID
Compliant
    D. Interoperability of Identification Credentials
    E. Electronic Identification Document Readers
    F. Ratification of the ILO 185 Convention

    G. Availability of TWIC Hardware and Readers
    H. The Scope of Sanctions
    I. Seamen's Books
    J. Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Workers
    K. Travel Outside U.S. Territorial Sea
    L. Navigable Waters of the United States
    M. Change Based on MMC Final Rule Being Issued
    N. Clarification of Force Majeure Exception
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FR Federal Register
ILO International Labour Organization
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
MMC Merchant Mariner Credential
MMD Merchant Mariner Document
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act
SID Seafarer's Identification Document
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    On May 14, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Crewmember Identification Documents'' in the Federal
Register (73 FR 27778). We received 8 letters containing 27 comments on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

III. Background and Purpose

    In section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA), Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, 2080-81 (November 25,
2002), codified at 46 U.S.C. 70111, Congress directed the Secretary of
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to require all
crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports to carry and present on
demand any identification the Secretary decides is necessary. Section
102 also directed the Secretary to develop forms and processes for the
identification and verification of crewmembers. In section 103 of the
MTSA, Congress indicated the objective of requiring crewmember
identification is to be able to establish authoritatively, the identity
of any seafarer aboard a vessel within U.S. jurisdiction, including
U.S. territorial seas. 116 Stat. 2084, and 46 U.S.C. 70111, note.
    Congress directed the Secretary to consult with the Attorney
General and Secretary of State when developing these crewmember
identification requirements. 46 U.S.C. 70111. The Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) delegated this rulemaking
authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard and directed the
Commandant to develop these requirements in cooperation with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). Section 2 (97)(g) of DHS Delegation No. 0170.1,
Delegation to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. A copy of this
delegation is available in the docket. Accordingly, the Coast Guard
collaborated with CBP and TSA and consulted with the Attorney General
and Secretary of State in the development of this rule.
    On October 13, 2006, Congress revised 46 U.S.C. 70111 through
section 110 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of
2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347 120 Stat. 1891, 1893 (October
13, 2006) and established a deadline for these requirements to be in
place not later than October 13, 2007. This rule fulfills Congress'
mandate to require that crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports or
places of destination carry and present on demand identification the
Secretary decides is necessary.
    In the preamble of the NPRM, we noted that if an effective rule
were issued in the ``Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification
Credentials'' (RIN 1625-AB02) rulemaking before we issued this
crewmember identification final rule, we would add the Merchant Mariner
Credential (MMC) to the list of acceptable identification documents in
33 CFR 160.310. See May 14, 2008, 73 FR 27780. On March 16, 2009, a
final rule from the MMC rulemaking was published (74 FR 11196), so we
have added the MMC as an acceptable identification in this final rule.
The MMC rule is effective April 15, 2009.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 27 comments regarding the proposed rule. The following
is a summary of the comments received, and the changes made to the
regulatory text since our proposed rule was published.

A. Support for Proposed Rule

    Six commenters made statements that were generally supportive of
the proposed rule and Coast Guard's efforts to positively identify
crewmembers aboard commercial vessels in U.S. waters. In addition, one
of these comments included appreciation that the NPRM did not propose
to create an undue burden on mariners and that an acceptable
identification, along with the appropriate entrance documents (such as
a visa and passport), will facilitate shore-leave for mariners.
    The Coast Guard agrees. Our objectives in drafting these
regulations are to implement statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C. 70111,
and to do so in a way consistent with the DHS goal of enhancing
security while minimizing the burden upon the maritime industry to the
maximum extent possible. We agree that possession of an acceptable
identification will enable authoritative identification of crewmembers
while in U.S. waters. We remind mariners that compliance with the
requirements in this rule, however, does not relieve vessel crewmembers
and operators of any requirements under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) or INA implementing regulations. We have made no changes from
the proposed rule based on these comments.

B. Acceptance of Seafarer's Identification Document

    One commenter stated that listing the Seafarer's Identification
Document (SID) as an acceptable form of identification appears to
create inconsistency in U.S. policy since the United States is not a
signatory to the International Labour Organization Convention (ILO)
number 185. Another commenter stated that if the SID permits the
authoritative identification of a crewmember, then it should suffice
for shore leave without a visa.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The United States' position against
ratification of the ILO 185 convention is primarily based on the
convention's current requirement that all SID holders be granted entry
without a visa. This does not mean, however, that the Coast Guard finds
no value in or has no appreciation for international crewmember
identification, issued by signatory governments, to assist us in

authoritatively identifying crewmembers while in U.S. waters. We have
made no changes from the proposed rule based on these comments.

C. Transportation Worker Identification Credential not SID Compliant

    Three commenters also expressed concern that because the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) is not SID
compliant, U.S. mariners may be denied shore-leave while calling on
foreign ports whose countries are signatory to the ILO 185 convention
in response to foreign mariners with SIDs being denied shore leave
while in the United States. In addition, one commenter stated the Coast
Guard continues to refuse to take the necessary steps to facilitate
shore-leave and this problem must be addressed or mariners will
increasingly find themselves held prisoners on their vessel while in
port.
    The commenters are correct regarding TWIC. It is not ILO 185 SID
compliant. We expect that U.S. mariners, while calling on foreign ports
of countries either signatory or non-signatory to ILO 185, will
continue to be eligible for shore leave based on compliance with the
host country's immigration laws, regulations, and policy as they
pertain to seafarers. Under the ILO 185 convention, signatory countries
agree to permit shore leave to SID-holding mariners without a visa,
with some exceptions. Nowhere does the convention state that signatory
countries should deny shore leave to mariners without a SID. The United
States' position on shore leave for foreign mariners, with or without a
SID, remains that it should be facilitated to the maximum extent
possible while complying with the applicable requirements under our INA
and INA implementing regulations. We have made no changes from the
proposed rule based on these comments.

D. Interoperability of Identification Credentials

    Four commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule does not
enhance interoperability between U.S. and international identification
credentials for crewmembers and creates economic disadvantages and
security risks by not mandating background checks for foreign
crewmembers, similar to those required of U.S. mariners who must obtain
a TWIC.
    This rule addresses acceptable forms of identification for
crewmembers aboard vessels in U.S. waters. By our acceptance in this
rule of the international SID, some degree of interoperability, as it
pertains to acceptable forms of identification, is achieved. While the
comment regarding background checks for foreign crewmembers is outside
the scope of this rulemaking, which is focused on authoritatively
identifying crewmembers, current requirements and programs are already
in place to reduce the risk of a transportation security incident
associated with foreign flag vessels and crew.

E. Electronic Identification Document Readers

    Also, regarding interoperability, two commenters expressed concern
that electronic TWIC readers will not be able to read the SID and,
while overseas, SID readers will not be able to read TWICs.
    Not all of the documents we define as acceptable identification in
33 CFR 160.310 are machine readable, but we expect to be able to
efficiently and effectively examine them onboard.

F. Ratification of the ILO 185 Convention

    Four commenters expressed support or desire for the United States
to ratify the ILO 185 Convention and to remove U.S. visa requirements
for crewmembers.
    The United States' position regarding ratification of the ILO
Convention 185 or removal of U.S. visa requirements for crewmembers is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This rule is not intended to
address immigration or shore leave requirements.

G. Availability of TWIC Hardware and Readers

    One commenter stated it makes no sense to require American
transportation and maritime workers to comply with TWIC when no
hardware or readers exist to actually implement the program.
    While outside the scope of this rulemaking, the Coast Guard notes
that pilot testing of TWIC readers is currently underway.

H. The Scope of Sanctions

    One commenter recommended that sanctions in Sec.  160.320 be
applied only to operators and not to crewmembers, stating that ship
masters hold the passports of crewmembers on board and proposed Sec.
160.315 requires vessel operators to ensure that their crewmembers have
acceptable identification when the vessel is in U.S. waters.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the recommendation that sanctions
should only be applied to vessel operators. Section 160.315 requires a
crewmember subject to this rule not only to ``carry and present on
demand an acceptable identification'', but also provides that ``a
crewmember may secure his or her acceptable identification with the
vessel's master, so long as the identification can be presented on
demand.'' In discussing this section in the preamble of the NPRM, the
Coast Guard stated that the practice of crewmembers on a vessel
securing their acceptable identification with the master is consistent
with the proposed rule if the identification is aboard and can be
presented upon demand. 73 FR 27778, 27779, May 14, 2008. This rule is
not intended to change existing practices of masters securing
crewmember passports. If a crewmember was able to establish that he or
she did provide his or her acceptable identification to the master with
the understanding that it would be kept on board and made available
upon demand, then the Coast Guard would take this into account when
enforcing this regulation. We have made no changes from the proposed
rule based on this comment.

I. Seamen's Books

    One commenter stated that because seamen's books issued by foreign
governments under the Seafarers' Identity Document Convention, 1958
(ILO-108) are travel documents that are accepted in place of passports,
they should be included as an acceptable identification document for a
crewmember. The commenter further stated that even though the United
States has not ratified ILO-108, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) accepts ILO-108 seamen's books in place of passports. The
commenter concludes, that while the Sec.  160.310 definition of
passport would include ILO-108 seamen's books, it would be helpful to
specifically include ILO-108 seamen's books in the list of acceptable
identification.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the recommendation that what the
commenter refers to as ILO-108 seamen's books should be added to the
list of acceptable identification. The Coast Guard also disagrees that
such seamen's books meet the Sec.  160.310 definition of passport. CBP
may accept a seaman's book, in conjunction with a visa, as a passport
alternative for purposes of determining admissibility, but CBP does not
accept the book as a SID.
    Our crewmember identification document rule lists a specific SID as
an acceptable identification: one ``issued by or under the authority of
the government of a country that has ratified the International Labour
Organization Seafarers' Identity

Documents Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO 185), meeting all the
requirements of ILO 185.'' See 33 CFR 160.310. ILO-185 went into force
on February 9, 2005, and, as its title indicates, revised ILO-108,
Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958. The term ``seamen's
books'' does not appear in ILO-108. And, like ILO-185, the 1958
convention refers to the issuance of a seafarer's identity document,
not a seaman's book.
    Under the 1958 Convention, a SID had to conform to the provisions
of Article 4 of ILO-108, which include ``particulars concerning the
bearer.'' The list of ILO-108 particulars, however, is not as extensive
as those in ILO-185. As noted above, to be considered an acceptable
identification, a SID must meet all the requirements of ILO 185. And
while ILO-185 permits either ``a previous SID, or a seafarers'
discharge book'' to be used as proof an applicant for a SID is a
seafarer, neither convention uses the term ``seamen's book'' or
``seafarers' discharge book'' to label the document issued by or under
the authority of the government of a country that has ratified an ILO
SID convention as the document that must be recognized by other nations
that have ratified the convention.
    We have not found a valid formal definition of the term ``seamen's
book.'' In addition, the term ``seaman's book'' is not used in either
ILO-108 or ILO-185, and the somewhat similar term ``seafarers'
discharge book'' is used in ILO-185, but for the limited purpose of
providing proof that an applicant for an ILO-185 SID is a seafarer.
Accordingly, we do not interpret either term as meeting the 33 CFR
160.310 definition of passport. We have made no changes from the
proposed rule based on this comment.

J. Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Workers

    One commenter questioned the need for additional identification
documents for offshore workers located on the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. Another commenter inferred that the
Coast Guard does not consider a location on the OCS to be a ``foreign
port or place,'' and asked for confirmation that this term, used in 33
CFR 160.300(a)(2), refers to a port or place outside of U.S.
jurisdiction. A third comment added that crewmembers of a Mobile
Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) on the OCS should not have to present
anything other than what is currently applicable for transport to and
from a MODU.
    The Coast Guard does not consider a location on the OCS to be a
foreign port or place. See 43 U.S.C. 1333. Applicability provisions in
33 CFR 160.300(a)(2) would not be triggered by a U.S.-flag vessel
engaged in commercial service departing a place or MODU on the OCS
because it would not be coming from a foreign port or place of
departure. We have made no changes from the proposed rule based on this
comment.

K. Travel Outside U.S. Territorial Sea

    One commenter made a related request for assurances that the rule
would not apply to crewmembers of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels that
travel outside the U.S. territorial sea, but do not enter a foreign
port or place. This commenter provided examples of U.S.-flagged whale-
watching vessels or cruise-to-nowhere gaming vessels.
    As noted above, the requirements of this rule would apply to a
U.S.-flag vessel if it is engaged in commercial service and is coming
from a foreign port or place of departure. 33 CFR 160.300(a)(2). In the
definition section, Sec.  160.310, the term ``port or place of
departure'' is defined as ``any port or place in which a vessel is
anchored or moored.'' If a U.S.-flagged vessel travels beyond the U.S.
territorial sea but has not anchored or moored at a port or place in
the waters of a foreign country, then it would not trigger the
requirements of this rule because it would not be coming from a foreign
port or place of departure when it returns to U.S. waters. We have made
no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.

L. Navigable Waters of the United States

    One comment recommended that the Coast Guard more clearly define
the scope of the term ``navigable waters of the United States'' in the
final rule by including either a 3- or 12-mile-wide territorial sea as
measured from the baseline, and not rely on reference to 33 CFR
2.36(a), which contains an additional reference.
    In Sec.  160.310 of the proposed rule, the Coast Guard defined the
term ``navigable waters of the United States'' to mean ``the same as
this term is defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a).'' That definition in Sec.
2.36(a) identifies navigable waters as including U.S. territorial seas,
U.S. internal waters subject to tidal influence, and certain U.S.
internal waters not subject to tidal influence. In 33 CFR part 2, the
Coast Guard provides a separate definition of ``territorial sea.''
Under this Sec.  2.22 definition, the width of the territorial sea may
be 3- or 12-nautical miles depending on the statute or regulation being
enforced.
    This crewmember identification document rule is issued under MTSA
authority found at 46 U.S.C. 70111, as well as 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1231
from the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), Public Law 92-340 (July
10, 1972). Under both of these authorities, the territorial sea is 12
nautical miles wide. Under Sec.  2.22(a)(1)(v), we interpret the
territorial sea for regulations issued under MTSA, which was enacted
after the Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, to be 12
nautical miles wide. Also, the Coast Guard has already established that
it interprets the territorial sea to be 12-nautical-miles wide for the
PWSA. 33 CFR 2.22(a)(1)(i). In response to this comment, the Coast
Guard has revised its definition in Sec.  160.310 to read:

    Navigable waters of the United States means the same as this
term is defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a). This includes a 12-nautical-mile
wide U.S. territorial sea as measured from the baseline, U.S.
internal waters subject to tidal influence, and certain U.S.
internal waters not subject to tidal influence.

    This is one of only three changes from the regulatory text in the
proposed rule.

M. Change Based on MMC Final Rule Being Issued

    As noted above, on March 16, 2009, a final MMC rule was published
(74 FR 11196). In our NPRM, we stated that if an effective rule were
issued in the ``Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification
Credentials'' rulemaking before we issued this crewmember
identification final rule, we would add the MMC to the list of
acceptable identification documents. May 14, 2008, 73 FR 27780. Because
this condition has been met we have added the MMC to 33 CFR 160.310,
which defines acceptable identification for purposes of this
rulemaking.

N. Clarification of Force Majeure Exception

    In Sec.  160.305 of the NPRM, we stated that requirements of this
rule would not be ``enforced against crewmembers and operators on a
vessel bound for a U.S. port or place of destination under a claim of
force majeure.'' It is clearer, however, to state that the requirements
of this rule do not apply in those circumstances. Accordingly,
consistent with our NPRM preamble description of this section dealing
with forces beyond the ship master's control, we have revised Sec.
160.305 to clarify that 33 CFR part 160, subpart D requirements will
not apply to crewmembers and operators on a vessel bound for a U.S.
port or place of destination under force majeure.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Public comments on the NPRM are summarized in Part IV of this
preamble. We received no public comments that would alter our
assessment of impacts in the NPRM. We have adopted the assessment in
the NPRM as final. See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of the
NPRM for more details.
    We expect that most crewmembers, U.S. and foreign, already possess
an acceptable identification. Acceptable identifications in this rule
are consistent with current identifications accepted by the Coast Guard
and CBP to identify crewmembers. In addition, we expect that
crewmembers carry their identification with them and that vessel
operators examine the identification because carriers are required
under 19 CFR 4.7b(d) and 4.64(d) to view these documents when preparing
crew manifests, and because vessel operators are required to record the
document number on the notice of arrival under 33 CFR
160.206(a)(4)(iv).
    We provide estimates of burden and costs associated with this rule
in the ``Collection of Information'' section of this rule.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    Although the rule requires vessel operators to ensure that all
crewmembers on the vessel have acceptable identification, we expect
that vessel operators already look for an identification document from
each crewmember in order to record the document number on the notice of
arrival. Otherwise, the burdens proposed by this rule fall on
crewmembers and not on small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for a new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions.
    We received no public comment that would alter our assessment of
the respondents and burden in the NPRM. We have adopted the assessment
in the NPRM as final. See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of the
NPRM for more details. A summary of our respondent and burden estimates
follow.
    Title: Crewmember Identification Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0113.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection of
information comprises the recordkeeping necessary to possess, present
on demand, and ensure compliance with requirements for identification
of crewmembers on foreign and U.S. vessels in navigable waters of the
United States.
    Need for Information: In the MTSA, Congress directed the Secretary
of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to require all
crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports to carry and present on
demand any identification the Secretary decides is necessary. The
acceptable identification required by this rule will allow the Coast
Guard to authoritatively identify crewmembers on vessels within U.S.
waters.
    Use of Information: The information collected would be used to
authoritatively identify crewmembers on vessels within U.S. waters.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents include all
crewmembers on a foreign vessel in the navigable waters of the United
States en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at a U.S.
port or place, and all crewmembers on a U.S. commercial vessel in the
navigable waters of the United States coming from a foreign port or
place of departure to a U.S. port or place of destination. The
respondents also include the operators of those foreign and U.S.
vessels.
    Number of Respondents: We estimate the number of respondents is
838,084 persons, comprising crewmembers and vessel operators. This
figure is based on Coast Guard records of the number of affected
vessels that enter U.S. ports, Coast Guard estimates of the number of
crewmembers on vessels, and estimates of the frequency of crew
rotation. Using Coast Guard Notice of Arrival data, we estimate
10,649,843 responses per year from all crewmembers and operators. This
estimate varies somewhat by year.
    Frequency of Response: We estimate, on average, a typical
crewmember would respond 13 times per year. Vessel operators would
respond each time a vessel submits a notice of arrival.
    Burden of Response: Coast Guard records indicate the burden imposed
on the respondents is negligible. From our records, we expect nearly
all crewmembers already possess and carry an acceptable identification.
We also expect vessel operators already check crewmembers'
identifications since the type and number must be reported on the
Notice of Arrival.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We estimate there would be no more
than 320,851 potential annual responses involving a document other than
acceptable identification. Based on an average of 13 visits per
crewmember per year, this amounts to about 24,681 crewmembers that use
some other form of identification. We estimate the cost burden of
response for these crewmembers to be $2,714,910, using $97 as the cost
of obtaining an acceptable ID, and $13 as the opportunity cost of time.
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of the
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review of the collection of information. On November 20, 2008, OMB
approved the collection for a 3-year period, until November 30, 2011.

The OMB Control Number for this collection is 1625-0113.
    You are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This
publication of OMB's control number in the Federal Register will
constitute display of that number, see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3), as required
under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B).

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action
is one of a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2.
Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(d) of the Instruction, and neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required. This rule involves crewmember identification documents and
falls within the documentation portion of this categorical exclusion.
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 160

    Administrative practice and procedure, Harbors, Hazardous materials
transportation, Identification, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 160 as follows:

PART 160--PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY--GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is
also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 46 U.S.C.
3715.

0
2. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec. Sec.  160.300 through 160.320, to
read as follows:

Subpart D--Crewmember Identification

Sec.
160.300 Applicability.
160.305 Exceptions.
160.310 Definitions.
160.315 Crewmember identification requirement.
160.320 Sanctions and vessel control.

Sec.  160.300  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to crewmembers on the following vessels in
the navigable waters of the United States en route to a U.S. port or
place of destination or at a U.S. port or place:
    (1) A foreign vessel engaged in commercial service, and
    (2) A U.S. vessel engaged in commercial service and coming from a
foreign port or place of departure.
    (b) This subpart also applies to the operators of the vessels
listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

Sec.  160.305  Exceptions.

    Requirements in this subpart do not apply to crewmembers and
operators on a vessel bound for a U.S. port or place of destination
under force majeure.

Sec.  160.310  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, and only for purposes of this supbpart--
    Acceptable identification means a:
    (1) Passport;

    (2) U.S. Permanent Resident Card;
    (3) U.S. merchant mariner document;
    (4) U.S. merchant mariner credential;
    (5) Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) issued
by the Transportation Security Administration under 49 CFR part 1572;
or
    (6) Seafarer's Identification Document (SID) issued by or under the
authority of the government of a country that has ratified the
International Labour Organization Seafarers' Identity Documents
Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO 185), meeting all the requirements of
ILO 185.
    Commercial service means any type of trade or business involving
the transportation of goods or individuals, except service performed by
a combatant vessel.
    Crewmember means all persons carried onboard a vessel to provide:
navigation services; maintenance of the vessel, its machinery, or
systems; arrangements essential for propulsion or safe navigation; or
services for other persons onboard.
    Foreign vessel means a vessel of foreign registry or operated under
the authority of a country except the United States.
    Navigable waters of the United States means the same as this term
is defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a). This includes a 12-nautical-mile wide
U.S. territorial sea as measured from the baseline, U.S. internal
waters subject to tidal influence, and certain U.S. internal waters not
subject to tidal influence.
    Operator means any person including, but not limited to, an owner,
a charterer, or another contractor who conducts, or is responsible for,
the operation of a vessel.
    Passport means any travel document issued by competent authority
showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is
valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.
    Port or place of departure means any port or place in which a
vessel is anchored or moored.
    Port or place of destination means any port or place in which a
vessel is bound to anchor or moor.

Sec.  160.315  Crewmember identification requirement.

    (a) A crewmember subject to this subpart must carry and present on
demand an acceptable identification. An operator subject to this
subpart must ensure that every crewmember on the vessel has an
acceptable identification in his or her possession when the vessel is
in the navigable waters of the United States. For purposes of this
section, a crewmember may secure his or her acceptable identification
with the vessel's master, so long as the identification can be
presented on demand.
    (b) Compliance with the requirements in this section does not
relieve vessel crewmembers and operators of any requirements under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or INA implementing regulations.
Likewise, compliance with INA requirements does not relieve vessel
crewmembers and operators of the requirements in this section.

Sec.  160.320  Sanctions and vessel control.

    Failure to comply with this subpart will subject the crewmember and
operator to a civil penalty under 46 U.S.C. 70119 and the vessel to
control under 33 U.S.C. 1223(b).

    Dated: April 22, 2009.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-9634 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30356-30359]
[DOCID:fr27my08-27]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7783]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-
chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7783, to
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151 or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a
rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and
comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and do not fall under the APA.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced     Depth in feet above      Communities affected
                                            elevation **                ground
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Ellsworth County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoke Hill River....................  Approximately 0.65 mile         None        +1533  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of the                                  Ellsworth County.
                                       bridge on Douglas
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 0.50 mile         None        +1540
                                       upstream of the bridge
                                       on Douglas Avenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Ellsworth County
Maps are available for inspection at 210 North Kansas Street, Ellsworth, KS 67439.

                               Crittenden County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio River..........................  Approximately at                None         +355  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence with Deer                               Crittenden County.
                                       Creek (at upstream
                                       county boundary).
                                      Approximately at                None         +362
                                       confluence with
                                       Tradewater River (at
                                       downstream county
                                       boundary).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Crittenden County
Maps are available for inspection at 107 South Main Street, Marion, KY 42064.

                               Monmouth County, New Jersey, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brook...........................  Approximately 34 feet           None          +79  Township of Colts Neck.
                                       upstream of Boundary
                                       Road.
                                      At Boundary Road.......         None          +79
Burkes Creek........................  Approximately 957 feet          None         +100  Township of Howell.
                                       upstream of Rutgers
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 904 feet          None         +100
                                       upstream of Rutgers
                                       Road.
Deal Lake...........................  Entire shoreline.......         None          +10  Borough of Interlaken.
Deal Tributary 1....................  At Wickapecko Drive....         None          +11  Borough of Interlaken.
                                      Approximately 342 feet          None          +11
                                       downstream of
                                       Wickapecko Drive.
Doctors Creek.......................  Approximately 915 feet          None          +72  Township of Upper
                                       upstream of South Main                             Freehold.
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 2,565             None          +72
                                       feet upstream of South
                                       Main Street.
                                      At Breza Road..........         None          +60
                                      Approximately 57 feet           None          +60
                                       upstream of Breza Road.
Hollow Brook........................  Approximately 133 feet           +10          +13  City of Asbury Park.
                                       upstream of Ridge
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 176 feet           +10          +13
                                       upstream of Ridge
                                       Avenue.
Little Silver Creek Tributary 2B....  Approximately 95 feet            +15          +14  Borough of Little
                                       downstream of Harding                              Silver.
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 40 feet            +25          +24
                                       upstream of Harding
                                       Road.

Manalapan Brook.....................  At County boundary.....          +75          +76  Township of Manalapan,
                                                                                Township of Millstone.
                                      Approximately 510 feet          None         +181
                                       upstream of Moonlight
                                       Court.
Manalapan Brook Tributary A.........  At confluence with               +91          +87  Township of Manalapan.
                                       Manalapan Brook.
                                      Approximately 1,000              +92          +89
                                       feet upstream of
                                       confluence with
                                       Manalapan Brook.
Manalapan Brook Tributary B.........  At confluence with              +124         +123  Township of Manalapan.
                                       Manalapan Brook.
                                      Approximately 220 feet          +124         +123
                                       upstream of confluence
                                       with Manalapan Brook.
Musquash Brook......................  Approximately 3,350             None           +9  Borough of Neptune
                                       feet downstream of                                 City.
                                       Brighton Avenue.
                                      Approximately 40 feet           None          +23
                                       downstream of Brighton
                                       Avenue.
North Branch........................  At Railroad............         None           +8  Borough of Spring Lake
                                                                                Heights.
Wreck Pond..........................  Approximately 1,147             None           +8
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Highway 71.
Poly Pond Brook.....................  Approximately 944 feet          None          +17  Borough of Spring Lake
                                       downstream of State                                Heights.
                                       Highway 71.
                                      Approximately 1,563             None          +17
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Highway 71.
Raritan Bay.........................  Approximately 1,035             None          +11  Township of Hazlet,
                                       feet east of Rose Lane.                            Borough of Keansburg,
                                                                                Borough of Union
                                                                                Beach, Township of
                                                                                Middletown.
                                      Approximately 570 feet          None          +11
                                       northwest of the
                                       intersection of State
                                       Highway 36 and Laurel
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 480 feet          None          +11
                                       east of William Street.
                                      Approximately 1,570             None          +11
                                       feet south of the
                                       intersection of State
                                       Highway 36 and
                                       Thompson Avenue.
Shark River.........................  Approximately 235 feet          None           +9  Borough of Neptune
                                       downstream of Steiner                              City.
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 1,450             None           +9
                                       feet downstream of
                                       County Highway 17.
Still House Brook...................  At confluence with               +94          +93  Township of Manalapan.
                                       Manalapan Brook.
                                      Approximately 600 feet           +94          +93
                                       upstream of confluence
                                       with Manalapan Brook.
Swimming River......................  At Swimming River Road.         None          +22  Township of Colts Neck.
Thornes Creek.......................  At Raritan and Sandy              +4          +11  Township of Hazlet,
                                       Hook Bay Beach Erosion                             Borough of Union
                                       and Hurricane Project                              Beach.
                                       Closure Gate.
                                      At State Highway 36....           +4          +11
Waackaack Creek.....................  At Raritan and Sandy              +4          +11  Township of Hazlet,
                                       Hook Bay Beach Erosion                             Borough of Keansburg,
                                       and Hurricane Project                              Borough of Union
                                       Closure Gate.                                      Beach, Township of
                                                                                Holmdel.
                                      Approximately 800 feet           +10          +11
                                       downstream of Middle
                                       Road.
Watson Creek........................  Approximately 1,150             None          +20  Borough of Manasquan.
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Blansing Avenue
                                       Extension.
                                      Approximately 960 feet          None          +20
                                       downstream of Blansing
                                       Avenue Extension.
Whale Pond Brook....................  At Hope Road...........         None          +73  Borough of Tinton
                                                                                Falls.
                                      Approximately 54 feet           None          +73
                                       upstream of Hope Road.
Yellow Brook 2......................  Approximately 600 feet          None          +98  Township of Colts Neck.
                                       downstream of Hunt
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 124 feet          None          +98
                                       downstream of Hunt
                                       Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Borough of Interlaken
Maps are available for inspection at Interlaken Borough Hall, 100 Grasmere Avenue, Interlaken, NJ.

Borough of Keansburg

Maps are available for inspection at Keansburg Borough Municipal Building, 29 Church Street, Keansburg, NJ.

Borough of Little Silver
Maps are available for inspection at Little Silver Borough Hall, 480 Prospect Avenue, Little Silver, NJ.

Borough of Manasquan
Maps are available for inspection at Manasquan Borough Municipal Building, 201 East Main Street, Manasquan, NJ.

Borough of Neptune City
Maps are available for inspection at Borough of Neptune City Municipal Building, 106 West Sylvania Avenue,
 Neptune City, NJ.

Borough of Spring Lake Heights
Maps are available for inspection at Spring Lake Heights Borough Hall, 555 Brighton Avenue, Spring Lake Heights,
 NJ.

Borough of Tinton Falls
Maps are available for inspection at Tinton Falls Borough Municipal Building, 556 Tinton Avenue, Tinton Falls,
 NJ.

Borough of Union Beach
Maps are available for inspection at Union Beach Borough Municipal Building, 650 Poole Avenue, Union Beach, NJ.

City of Asbury Park
Maps are available for inspection at City of Asbury Park Municipal Building, One Municipal Plaza, Asbury Park,
 NJ.

Township of Colts Neck
Maps are available for inspection at Colts Neck Town Hall, 124 Cedar Drive, Colts Neck, NJ.

Township of Hazlet
Maps are available for inspection at Hazlet Township Municipal Building, 1766 Union Avenue, Hazlet, NJ.

Township of Holmdel
Maps are available for inspection at Holmdel Township Hall, 4 Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ.

Township of Howell
Maps are available for inspection at Howell Township Municipal Building, 251 Preventorium Road, Howell, NJ.

Township of Manalapan
Maps are available for inspection at Manalapan Township Municipal Building, 120 Route 522 & Taylors Mill Road,
 Manalapan, NJ.

Township of Middletown
Maps are available for inspection at Middletown Township Municipal Building, One Kings Highway, Middletown, NJ.

Township of Millstone
Maps are available for inspection at Millstone Township Municipal Building, 470 Stage Coach Road, Millstone, NJ.

Township of Upper Freehold
Maps are available for inspection at Upper Freehold Township Municipal Building, 314 Route 539, Cream Ridge, NJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 15, 2008.
David I. Maurstad,
Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-11692 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33708-33712]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R10-OW-2006-0409; FRL-9161-7]

Ocean Dumping; Correction of Typographical Error in 2006 Federal
Register Final Rule for Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site at Coos Bay, OR, Site F; Restoration of Coordinates for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site at Coos Bay, OR, Site H

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to correct a typographical
error in the Final Rule for the Ocean Dumping; De-designation of Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site and Designation of New Site near Coos
Bay, Oregon.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 16, 2010 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 15, 2010. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-
2006-0409 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to this
direct final rule and for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-088), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during
normal business hours for the regional library at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. For access to the
documents at the Region 10 Library, contact the Region 10 Library
Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between the hours of 9 a.m, to 12
p.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-088), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553-7369, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
this is a noncontroversial action and EPA anticipates no adverse
comment. The sites have been used as EPA intended and as described in
the preamble to the Federal Register and in the Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) and the typographical error was only brought to
EPA's attention in late April 2010. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposed rule to allow EPA to withdraw this
final rule and respond to comments on this action if adverse comments
are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on
this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material
into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. EPA's action would be
relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies
seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of the
Coos Bay, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
would be most affected by this action. Potentially affected categories
and persons include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        regulated persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government.....................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                          Civil Works Projects, and
                                          other Federal Agencies.
Industry and General Public............  Port Authorities, Marinas and
                                          Harbors, Shipyards and Marine
                                          Repair Facilities, Berth
                                          Owners.
State, local and tribal governments....  Governments owning and/or
                                          responsible for ports,
                                          harbors, and/or berths,
                                          Government agencies requiring
                                          disposal of dredged material
                                          associated with public works
                                          projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

III. What is the background for this action?

    In 1986, the Regional Administrator designated three disposal sites
(Site E, original Site F and Site H) off of Coos Bay, Oregon under the
MPRSA. Original Site F began to experience mounding and the Corps
selected a 103 Site F to enable the three Coos Sites to accommodate the
total volume of dredged material generated on an annual basis. The
Corps intended to seek designation of the 103 site as soon as
reasonable, however, the 103 Site F was too small for 102 designation
by EPA. Consequently EPA proposed a new Site F on March 31, 2000, which
was larger than the 103 site. In that proposal, EPA also proposed to
de-designate the original Site F. EPA published a final rule, 71 FR
27396 (May 11, 2006), to de-designate original Site F and to designate
new Site F. Figure 1, below, shows all of the Coos Sites, including
Sites E and H, the de-designated Site F, the 103 configured Site F and
the new Site F. The new Site F was designed to ensure that disposal of
dredged material into Site F would be managed to retain material in the
active littoral drift area to augment shoreline building processes and
to allow material placed in the corner of the site closest to the jetty
to continue augmentation toward the nearshore and toward the North
Jetty. The coordinates (North American Datum--NAD 83) for new Site F,
as finalized in the Final Rule preamble, were:

43[deg]22'54.8887'' N., 124[deg]19'28.9905'' W.
43[deg]21'32.8735'' N., 124[deg]20'37.7373'' W.
43[deg]22'51.4004'' N., 124[deg]23'32.4318'' W.
43[deg]23'58.4014'' N., 124[deg]22'35.4308'' W.

    These coordinates were the coordinates used in the final Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Coos Sites. These
coordinates were to be codified at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(3). However, a
typographical error in the final rule mistakenly allowed the
coordinates to be codified at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(4). This typographical
error led to the result on paper, but not in practice, of leaving the
Original Site F coordinates unchanged and inadvertently overwriting the
coordinates for Site H. The error did not result in any disposal taking
place at any of the Coos Sites in locations not described in the rule
preambles or in the SMMP. The error itself was not discovered until
late April 2010. At all times, disposals of dredged material suitable
for ocean disposal at the Coos Sites took place in the Sites as
described in the preamble to the Final Rule, 71 FR 27396 (May 11,
2006), and in the final SMMP for the Coos Sites.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN10.020

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    This action corrects the typographical error in EPA's final rule,
71 FR 27396 (May 11, 2006) to amend 40 CFR 228.15 by revising
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) to read as set forth in the regulatory
text of this final rule.
    This correction is an administrative action which replaces the
currently codified coordinates for Site F at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(3) with
the coordinates EPA inadvertently, through a typographical error, named
40 CFR 228.15(n)(4) at 71 FR 27396, (May 11, 2006). This correction
also restores the coordinates for Site H at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(4) which
were overwritten through EPA's typographical error.
    This correction does not require re-consultation under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.1531 to 1544, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389; the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465; or the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2. Consultations under
each of those acts were completed at the time EPA published the final
rule in the Federal Register in 2006. The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, does not apply to EPA
designations of ocean disposal sites under the MPRSA because the courts
have exempted EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural
requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine. EPA's
action to correct the placement of coordinates in the Federal Register
is not an action under EPA's ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for
Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63
FR 58045, (October 29, 1998), requiring the preparation of an
environmental review document.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    This rule corrects a typographical error by replacing the currently
codified coordinates for Site F at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(3) with the
coordinates EPA inadvertently, through a typographical error, named 40
CFR 228.15(n)(4) at 71 FR 27396, (May 11, 2006) and by restoring the
coordinates for Site H at 40 CFR 228.15(n)(4) which were overwritten
through EPA's typographical error. This action complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,
because this rule does not establish or modify any information or
recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on small entities because the final rule
will only have the effect of regulating the location of sites to be
used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of this final rule, I certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the correction of coordinates for Site F
and the restoration of the appropriate coordinates for Site H will not
have a direct effect on 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.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to the House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective sixty days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register if no adverse comment is received.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33
U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: June 3, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends chapter I, title 40
of the Code of Federal Register as follows:

PART 228--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4)
to read as follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
(3) Coos Bay, OR Dredged Material Site F
    (i) Location: 43[deg]22'54.8887'' N., 124[deg]19'28.9905'' W.;
43[deg]21'32.8735'' N., 124[deg]20'37.7373'' W.; 43[deg]22'51.4004''
N., 124[deg]23'32.4318'' W.; 43[deg]23'58.4014'' N.,
124[deg]22'35.4308'' W. (NAD 83).
    (ii) Size: 4.45 kilometers long and 2.45 kilometers wide.
    (iii) Depth: Ranges from 6 to 51 meters.
    (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material determined to be suitable for
ocean disposal.
    (v) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for unconfined disposal; Disposal shall be
managed by the restrictions and requirements contained in the
currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP);
Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
(4) Coos Bay, OR Dredged Material Site H
    (i) Location: 43[deg]23'53[sec] N., 124[deg]22'48[sec] W.;
43[deg]23'42[sec] N., 124[deg]23'01[sec] W.; 43[deg]24'16[sec] N.,
124[deg]23'26[sec] W.; 43[deg]24'05[sec] N., 124[deg]23'38[sec] W.
    (ii) Size: 0.13 square nautical mile.
    (iii) Depth: Averages 55 meters.
    (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (v) Period of Use: Continuing use.
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material in
the Coos Bay area of type 2 and 3, as defined in the site designation
final EIS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-14242 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P