[Federal Register: January 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 9)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2098-2100]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ja04-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 174
[USCG-2003-15708]
RIN 1625-AA75
Terms Imposed by States on Numbering of Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the number of conditions
that a State may require in order for owners to obtain vessel numbering
certificates in that State. Current Federal statutes and regulations
limit these conditions to proof of ownership or payment of State or
local taxes. The proposed rule would allow any State to impose proof of
liability insurance as a condition for obtaining vessel numbering
certificates in that State.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before April 13, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2003-15708 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Audrey Pickup, Project Manager, Office of Boating Safety,
Program Operations Division, Coast Guard, by e-mail at
apickup@comdt.uscg.mil or by telephone at 202-267-1077. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Andrea
M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Department of
Transportation, telephone 202-366-0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please
see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your
name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-
2003-15708), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may
submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
[[Page 2099]]
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using
the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one 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.
Background and Purpose
Title 46 of the United States Code contains provisions, in chapter
123, for the numbering of undocumented vessels equipped with propulsion
machinery of any kind. (Undocumented vessels primarily include
recreational boats and some types of commercial vessel.) Vessels must
carry an identification number issued in compliance with the Standard
Numbering System (SNS) maintained by the Coast Guard. States can
administer their own numbering programs if those programs comply with
SNS requirements and receive Coast Guard approval. SNS requirements
include a limitation on the conditions that States can impose on
applicants for vessel numbering. A State cannot impose any condition
unless it relates to proof of tax payment, or has been sanctioned by
Coast Guard regulations. The relevant Coast Guard regulation is 33 CFR
174.31. It permits States to impose only two conditions: Proof of tax
payment, and proof of title.
In recent years, States have expressed an interest in imposing an
additional condition--proof of liability insurance--which many people
think will promote public safety. Currently, however, a State cannot
impose such a condition without going beyond what 33 CFR 174.31
authorizes. As a result, a State imposing a liability insurance
condition would not be in compliance with the SNS requirements of
Federal law. This could threaten continued Coast Guard approval of the
State's numbering system. Loss of that approval could result in
decreased funding for the State's recreational boating safety program.
The Coast Guard views these as undesirable results in light of the
possible public safety benefit that could result from a State's
decision to add an insurance condition. To avoid those results, we wish
to remove any Coast Guard regulatory barrier to State imposition of an
insurance condition. To do that, we must amend 33 CFR 174.31.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 174.31 by expanding the number
of conditions a State may require in order for owners to obtain vessel
numbering certificates in that State. The proposed rule would allow any
State to impose proof of liability insurance as a condition for
obtaining vessel numbering certificates in that State.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). A Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory
policies and procedures of DHS follows:
Costs of Rule
This proposed rule would allow States to require proof of liability
insurance as a condition for vessel registration. Because this proposed
rule would simply allow, not require, States to incorporate proof of
liability as a condition of registration, this rulemaking would not
impose any direct costs on vessel owners in any State.
Benefits of Rule
This proposed rule expands the number of conditions States can
consider in administering vessel numbering programs.
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 proposed rule imposes no costs on the public but simply expands
the number of conditions States can consider. Therefore, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a
comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
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 proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with
[[Page 2100]]
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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.
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD (the ``Instruction''), which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that
there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded,
under Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule allows States to require proof
of liability insurance as a precondition for vessel numbering and
therefore concerns documentation of vessels. An ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' is available in the docket where indicated under
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble. Comments on this section will be considered before we make
the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically
excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 174
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 174 as follows:
PART 174--STATE NUMBERING AND CASUALTY REPORTING SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 174 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 6101 and 12302; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1 (92).
2. Amend Sec. 174.31 by revising the section heading,
redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding a new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 174.31 Terms imposed by States for numbering of vessels.
* * * * *
(b) Proof of liability insurance for a vessel except a
recreational-type public vessel of the United States; or
* * * * *
Dated: January 8, 2004.
David S. Belz,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-748 Filed 1-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P