Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-12513

Proposed Rule2023-12513

Marine Casualty Reporting on the Outer Continental Shelf

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 14, 2023

Issuing agencies

Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard

Abstract

The Coast Guard proposes changing the reporting criteria for certain casualties that occur on foreign floating outer continental shelf (OCS) facilities (FOFs), mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), and vessels engaged in OCS activities. In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), the Coast Guard revises the approach described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in 2014 and responds to public comments about the NPRM. The Coast Guard proposes this action to harmonize the casualty-reporting regimes that apply to foreign and U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in OCS activities and to account for the changes in technology on the OCS, since the casualty-reporting regulations were originally published in 1982. In addition, in response to public comment on the 2014 NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to raise the property damage dollar threshold that triggers a casualty report from $25,000 to $75,000 for fixed facilities on the OCS because the original regulation setting the property damage threshold amount was issued in the 1980s and has not since been updated. Through this SNRPM, the Coast Guard would update Coast Guard regulations to keep up with technology, improve awareness of accident trends on the OCS, improve safety on the OCS, and reduce the regulatory burden on operators of fixed OCS platforms.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38765-38789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 140 and 146

46 CFR Parts 4 and 109

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1057]
RIN 1625-AB99

Marine Casualty Reporting on the Outer Continental Shelf

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes changing the reporting criteria for
certain casualties that occur on foreign floating outer continental
shelf (OCS) facilities (FOFs), mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs),
and vessels engaged in OCS activities. In this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), the Coast Guard revises the approach
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in 2014
and responds to

[[Page 38766]]

public comments about the NPRM. The Coast Guard proposes this action to
harmonize the casualty-reporting regimes that apply to foreign and U.S.
FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in OCS activities and to account for
the changes in technology on the OCS, since the casualty-reporting
regulations were originally published in 1982. In addition, in response
to public comment on the 2014 NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to raise
the property damage dollar threshold that triggers a casualty report
from $25,000 to $75,000 for fixed facilities on the OCS because the
original regulation setting the property damage threshold amount was
issued in the 1980s and has not since been updated. Through this SNRPM,
the Coast Guard would update Coast Guard regulations to keep up with
technology, improve awareness of accident trends on the OCS, improve
safety on the OCS, and reduce the regulatory burden on operators of
fixed OCS platforms.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received before September
12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-1057 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in section IX.D. of this preamble both to the
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) using their website <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>.
Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must reach OMB
on or before the comment due date listed on their website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
supplemental proposed rule, call or email CDR Amanda Fahrig, Office of
Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), telephone 202-372-1035,
email, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#155478747b71743b593b53747d677c7255606676723b787c79"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="79381418171d185735573f18110b101e390c0a1a1e57141015">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Regulatory History
V. Background
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM
VIII. Differences between the NPRM and SNPRM
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To do so, go to
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2013-1057 in the search box and
click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results
column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you
cannot submit your material by using <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email
the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this SNPRM
for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
SNPRM as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in
the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related
Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be
placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions
on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) web page.
That FAQ page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts that will
notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule is published. We
review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-
topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket,
see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will
consider doing so if public comments indicate that a meeting would be
helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Collection of information
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FOF Floating OCS facility
FR Federal Register
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
ICR Information Collection Request
MCR Marine casualty reports
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NMA National Mariners Association
NOSAC National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer continental shelf
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOC Offshore Operators Committee
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

Through Title 43 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section
1333(d)(1), Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating to promulgate and enforce reasonable
regulations to promote safety of life and property on the outer
continental shelf (OCS), artificial islands, installations, and other
devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, and in
waters adjacent to such artificial islands, installations, or devices.
The Secretary delegates this authority to the Commandant of the Coast
Guard through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No.
00170.1 (90), Revision No. 01.2.
In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), the
Coast Guard revises the proposals detailed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 10, 2014 (79 FR 1780) to account
for public comment as well as to simplify our explanation of the

[[Page 38767]]

proposed regulatory changes. Through this SNPRM, we would collect more
comprehensive casualty data to help protect the safety of life and
property on the OCS, account for changes in technology, and improve the
Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness.
In addition, through this SNPRM, the Coast Guard seeks to reduce
the regulatory burden on fixed OCS facilities by raising the monetary
property damage threshold amount for reporting a marine casualty from
$25,000 to $75,000.

IV. Regulatory History

The Coast Guard published an NPRM titled ``Marine Casualty
Reporting on the Outer Continental Shelf'' on January 10, 2014 (79 FR
1780). In the NPRM, we explained our rationale for changing the
criteria under which foreign floating OCS facilities (FOFs), mobile
offshore drilling units (MODUs), and vessels engaged in OCS activities
report marine casualties. While we propose most of the same criteria
changes in this SNPRM, we utilize a different regulatory approach and
offer additional proposals in response to public comment. This SNPRM
completely replaces the 2014 NPRM and reference to the NPRM should not
be necessary to review and comment on the Coast Guard's proposed
supplemental changes.
In section VII of this SNPRM, we also address the comments received
in response to the NPRM.

V. Background

The Coast Guard's regulations for OCS activities appear in Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) subchapter N, parts 140
through 147. Regulations for reporting casualties on the OCS reside in
33 CFR part 146--Operations. The terms ``OCS facility,'' ``floating OCS
facility,'' ``mobile offshore drilling unit,'' and ``fixed OCS
facility'' are defined in 33 CFR part 140--General.
The owner, operator, or person in charge of a U.S. or foreign FOF,
fixed OCS facility, MODU, or vessel must submit marine casualty reports
(MCRs) in accordance with the applicable regulations. 33 CFR 146.30--
Notice of casualties, applies to U.S. and foreign OCS facilities
including MODUs affixed to the seabed. 33 CFR 146.301 and 33 CFR
146.303--Subpart D--Vessels--Notice of Casualty, apply to U.S. and
foreign vessels, including MODUs not affixed to the seabed, engaged in
OCS activities other than U.S. vessels already required to report
marine casualties under 46 CFR subpart 4.05--Notice of Marine
Casualties and Voyage Records. In 1987 (52 FR 47526, 47536, December
14, 1987), the Coast Guard amended 46 CFR 109.411--Notice and reporting
of casualty, to require the owner, operator, or person in charge of a
U.S. MODU must report accidents in accordance with 46 CFR part 4.
The criteria for reporting casualties are not identical between
titles 33 and 46 of the CFR. The differences in these regulations
result from the fact that the original title 33 CFR casualty reporting
regulations published in 1956 (21 FR 900, February 9, 1956) applied to
stationary artificial islands and fixed structures. In 1982 (47 FR
9366, March 4, 1982), the Coast Guard extended application of these
regulations to floating facilities and vessels engaged in OCS
activities to implement amendments to the Outer Continental Lands Act
(Pub. L. 95-372) and did not align the reporting criteria with 46 CFR
part 4. Table 1 shows the significant reporting differences between
titles 33 and 46 of the CFR. In particular, table 1 shows that, because
of the evolution of the casualty reporting requirements on the OCS,
U.S. MODUs are regulated by two different reporting regimes and that
the casualty reporting requirements for foreign MODUs are less
stringent than those for U.S. MODUs.

Table 1--Coast Guard Marine Casualty Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic 33 CFR part 146 46 CFR part 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory authority......... 43 U.S.C. 1333...... 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46
U.S.C. 2103, 2303a,
2306, 6101, 6301.
Applies to.................. U.S. and foreign U.S. vessels and
FOFs, fixed OCS MODUs in any
facilities, MODUs waters.
when in contact Foreign vessels in
with the seabed, U.S. waters.
and vessels engaged
in OCS activities.
Reportable casualties....... No similar Vessel in distress
requirement for or loss of
vessel in distress. communication with
vessel.
Death............... Death.
Injuries to 5+ Injury.
persons.
Incapacitation >72 No similar
hours. incapacitation
requirement.
Property damage Property damage
>$25,000. >$75,000.
Damage affecting the Grounding.
usefulness of Allision:
primary lifesaving
or firefighting
equipment.
Loss of--
<bullet> Main
propulsion.
<bullet> Primary
steering.
<bullet> Associated
systems or
components
affecting
maneuverability.
Impairment of--
<bullet> Vessel
operation.
<bullet> Vessel
components.
<bullet> Cargo.
Material or adverse
impact to vessel's--

<bullet>
Seaworthiness.
<bullet> Fitness for
service.
<bullet> Fitness for
route.
<bullet> Examples--
fire, flooding,
failure of or
damage to fire
extinguishing,
lifesaving,
auxiliary power,
and bilge pumping
systems.
Significant harm to
the environment.
When to report.............. As soon as possible. Immediately after
addressing
resultant safety
concerns.
Subsequent reports.......... Within 10 days, Within 5 days,
describe possible written casualty
contributing report required.
factors.
Alcohol/drug testing........ Required............ Required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38768]]

Under 33 CFR 146.30 (facilities) and 146.303 (vessels), the owner,
operator, or person in charge of an FOF, a fixed OCS facility, a MODU
(when in contact with the seabed of the OCS for exploration or
exploitation of subsea resources), or a vessel when engaged in OCS
activities, must report to the Coast Guard as soon as possible any
casualties involving:
<bullet> Death;
<bullet> Injury to five or more persons in a single incident;
<bullet> Injury causing any person to be incapacitated for more
than 72 hours;
<bullet> Damage affecting the usefulness of primary lifesaving or
firefighting equipment; and
<bullet> Certain other property damage in excess of $25,000.
The reporting party must follow the initial report in writing with
a description of the factors that may have contributed to the casualty,
including whether there is any evidence of alcohol or drug use by
individuals directly involved in the casualty. The written report must
be submitted on Coast Guard Form CG-2692 ``Report of Marine Casualty,
Commercial Diving Casualty, or OCS-Related Casualty'' or in a narrative
that supplies the same information as in the form. The CG-2692 form or
narrative can be supplemented, as necessary by appended Forms CG-2692 A
``Barge Addendum,'' CG-2692B ``Report of Mandatory Chemical Testing
Following a Serious Marine Incident Involving Vessels in Commercial
Service,'' CG-2693C ``Personnel Casualty Addendum,'' and/or CG-2692D
``Involved Persons and Witnesses Addendum.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The CG-2692 form and other CG-2692 addendum forms are
accessible at <a href="https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/2692-Reporting-Forms-NVIC-01-15/">https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/2692-Reporting-Forms-NVIC-01-15/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. vessels operating anywhere and foreign vessels operating
within the navigable waters of the United States are subject to the
marine casualty reporting requirements found in 46 CFR part 4. The
regulations in 46 CFR part 4 also apply to U.S. MODUs operating on the
OCS because 46 CFR 109.411 requires U.S. MODUs to report casualties in
accordance with 46 CFR part 4. U.S. FOFs also report casualties under
46 CFR part 4. Title 46 CFR part 4 does not apply to foreign vessels,
FOFs, or MODUs operating on waters beyond the navigable waters of the
United States, except for certain foreign tank vessels operating in the
Exclusive Economic Zone. See 46 CFR 4.05-2(b).
Under 46 CFR part 4, a vessel's owner, agent, master, operator, or
person-in-charge must report to the Coast Guard, casualties involving:
<bullet> Allision;
<bullet> Collision;
<bullet> Explosion;
<bullet> Failures or occurrences, regardless of cause, which impair
any aspect of a vessel's operation, components, or cargo;
<bullet> Fire;
<bullet> Flooding;
<bullet> Foundering;
<bullet> Grounding;
<bullet> Impacts to vessel seaworthiness or fitness for service or
route;
<bullet> Loss of life, or injury requiring professional medical
treatment;
<bullet> Loss of main propulsion or vessel maneuverability;
<bullet> Property damage in excess of $75,000;
<bullet> Reduction or loss of electrical power, propulsion, or
steering capability;
<bullet> Significant harm to the environment;
<bullet> Stranding; or
<bullet> Vessel in distress or loss of communication with vessel.
The initial MCR required under 46 CFR 4.05-1 must be followed
within 5 days by a written report on the CG-2692 form. See 46 CFR 4.05-
10. Additionally, under 46 CFR 4.05-12, the Coast Guard requires the
marine employer to determine whether there is any evidence of alcohol
or drug use by individuals directly involved in the casualty. This
information can be included on the CG-2692 form or, as necessary, on a
CG-2692B form. Reports for closed investigations of reportable marine
casualties investigated by the US Coast Guard from 2002 to present are
publicly available at the USCG Maritime Information Exchange.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ <a href="https://cgmix.uscg.mil/IIR/Default.aspx">https://cgmix.uscg.mil/IIR/Default.aspx</a>. Users should select
``Search IIR'' in the top left corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During their casualty analysis, the members of the marine board of
investigation for the foreign MODU Deepwater Horizon casualty \3\ noted
the inconsistencies between 33 CFR part 146 and 46 CFR part 4. In their
accident report, the board members emphasized the disparate casualty
reporting and chemical testing requirements between U.S. MODUs and
foreign MODUs operating beyond navigable waterways of the United
States. U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in OCS activities report
casualties under 46 CFR part 4, whereas foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels engaged in OCS activities report casualties under 33 CFR part
146. The reporting criteria in 33 CFR part 146 includes fewer types of
casualties than the reporting criteria in 46 CFR part 4. Thus, foreign
FOFs, foreign MODUs, and foreign vessels engaged in OCS activity have a
less comprehensive casualty-reporting regime than their U.S.
counterparts. These differences are important in the offshore oil and
gas exploration, development, and production industry because a lack of
casualty data could hamper early detection of risks. As the coastal
State with jurisdiction, we propose that it is the same casualty
reporting standards of foreign vessels, MODUs, and floating facilities
that engage in OCS activities as their U.S. counterparts. Additionally,
having a uniform reporting standard for both U.S. and foreign FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels that engage in OCS activities equalizes the
regulatory burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Report of Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding
the Explosion, Fire, Sinking and Loss of Eleven Crew Members Aboard
the MOBILE OFFSHORE DRILLING UNIT DEEPWATER HORIZON--In the GULF OF
MEXICO April 20-22, 2010. See docket USCG-2013-1057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the Coast Guard believes the casualty reporting
regulations in 33 CFR parts 140 and 146 lag both technological
developments and present-day operations in the OCS industry, because
the Coast Guard has not updated marine casualty reporting requirements
on the OCS since 1982. At that time, MODUs affixed to the seabed, such
as jack-up units, conducted most of the oil and natural gas exploration
on the OCS in waters to about 500 feet deep. Similarly, oil and gas
companies erected fixed facilities to produce oil and natural gas
because these types of facilities are feasible to the same 500-foot
water depth.
In the past 30 years, the use of floating MODUs and facilities has
become commonplace as exploration and production activities moved into
deeper waters of the OCS. Today, FOFs and MODUs operate in waters up to
8,000 feet deep, much further offshore, and distant from emergency
assistance. These floating facilities and MODUs are more like ocean-
going vessels than fixed OCS facilities and MODUs grounded to the
seabed.
Therefore, in this SNPRM, as in the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes
changing the criteria by which foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged
in OCS activities report casualties. This action would improve
collection and analysis of casualty information on the OCS to help the
Coast Guard and industry develop policies and procedures that prevent
future marine casualties.
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard also proposes raising the dollar
threshold for reporting property damage under 33

[[Page 38769]]

CFR part 146. The Coast Guard established the property damage threshold
of $25,000 in 33 CFR part 146 through a final rule that published on
March 4, 1982 (47 FR 9366). The $25,000 threshold has not been changed
in over 30 years and has not kept pace with inflation. Over time, this
has resulted in reports of a greater number of casualties involving
relatively minor property damage.
Until recently, a similar situation existed with reporting property
damage under 46 CFR part 4. In that case, to account for inflation, the
Coast Guard published a final rule titled ``Marine Casualty Reporting
Property Damage Thresholds'' on March 19, 2018 (83 FR 11889) (hereafter
the 2018 Final Rule). In that final rule, the Coast Guard raised the
property damage reporting criteria in 46 CFR part 4 from $25,000 per
incident to $75,000 based on the CPI-U increase between 1980 (82.408)
and 2016 (240.007).\4\ The Coast Guard sees no reason why the property
damage threshold in 33 CFR part 146 should be different than the
threshold in 46 CFR part 4. Accordingly, through this supplemental
proposed rule, we would raise the reportable monetary property damage
threshold amount to $75,000 in 33 CFR part 146. Raising the threshold
to $75,000 would only apply to fixed OCS facilities because, through
this supplemental proposed rule, FOFs, MODUs, and vessels operating on
the OCS would be required to report casualties under the criteria in 46
CFR part 4, which has already been raised to $75,000 for property
damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 2016 was the most recent full year of data available at the
time of the analysis for the final rule (83 FR 11889). See CPI
Detailed Report, Data for December 2016, Table 24, <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1512.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1512.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Discussion of the Supplemental Proposed Rule

Based on the comments we received to our 2014 NPRM, we are
proposing changes to that proposal requiring foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels engaged in an OCS activity to report casualties under 46 CFR
part 4.
The comments we received about the 2014 NPRM led us to decide on
two substantive changes to the proposals in the 2014 NPRM. First, we
decided not to propose changing the casualty reporting requirement for
fixed OCS facilities. Second, we decided to propose increasing the
property damage dollar threshold to $75,000 and align title 33 of the
CFR with title 46 of the CFR. These changes are fully discussed in
sections V, VI, and VIII of this SNPRM.
These substantive changes to our proposals in the 2014 NPRM
necessitate we re-propose our regulatory changes through this SNPRM. As
discussed above, this SNPRM completely replaces the 2014 NPRM and
reference to the NPRM should not be necessary to review and comment on
the Coast Guard's proposed supplemental changes. Consequently, the
Coast Guard proposes the following amendments to the CFR through this
SNPRM.

33 CFR 140.10--Definitions

We propose adding dynamically positioned floating facilities to the
definition of floating OCS facility. The dynamic positioning systems in
use on the OCS today did not exist when the current regulations were
published in 1982. At that time, secure anchoring was the only reliable
method of maintaining station. With modern controls, computers, and
Global Positioning Systems, FOFs can safely remain on station without
the need for complex anchoring systems. We did not propose this change
in the 2014 NPRM because, at that time, the Coast Guard was developing
two related rulemakings that addressed standards for dynamic
positioning systems. These were titled ``Outer Continental Shelf
Activities'' (USCG-1998-3868) (withdrawn on September 19, 2019, see 83
FR 47324) and ``Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting
Outer Continental Shelf Activities with Dynamic Positioning Systems''
(USCG-2014-0063) (withdrawn on May 20, 2022, see 87 FR 30849).

33 CFR 140.201--General

We propose removing the specific types of casualties listed in
paragraphs (a) through (c) and, instead, referencing 33 CFR 146.30 and
46 CFR part 4, which apply to all fixed OCS facilities and floating OCS
facilities, MODUs, and vessels, respectively. We retain the
requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) and re-designate them as (c) and
(d).

33 CFR 140.203--Investigations Procedures

We propose updating U.S. Geological Survey to U.S. Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement. This proposed change is an
administrative correction because the U.S. Geological Survey no longer
conducts investigations of casualties on the OCS.

33 CFR 146.30--Notice of Casualties

We propose applying the casualty reporting criteria listed in this
section to FOFs only. See the discussion of proposed 46 CFR 4.03-1
below, in which we propose to require the owner, operator, or person in
charge of FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS activity to report
casualties under 46 CFR part 4. We also propose to raise the dollar
threshold for reporting property damage from $25,000 per incident to
$75,000. In addition, we propose removing the phrase ``. . . drydocking
or demurrage . . .'' in paragraph (d), as these terms do not apply to a
fixed OCS facility.
Finally, in 33 CFR 146.30, we propose to require the owner,
operator, or person in charge of foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels
engaged in an OCS activity to include in the written casualty report
required under 46 CFR 4.05-12 information relating to alcohol or drug
involvement. This is not a new requirement as it is currently included
in 33 CFR 146.35 that applies collectively to FOFs and fixed OCS
facilities. We repeat it in the proposed 33 CFR 146.30 because this
section would now distinguish between reporting requirements for fixed
and floating facilities and to ensure FOFs reporting under 46 CFR part
4 are aware of their continued responsibility to include drug and
alcohol information.

33 CFR 146 Subpart D, Vessels--Notice of Casualty

We propose removing subpart D, Vessels--Notice of Casualty, in 33
CFR part 146 because, through this proposed change, the vessels
currently reporting under subpart D requirements would report
casualties under the provisions of 46 CFR part 4. Accordingly, we also
propose re-designating the current subpart E, Vessels--Safety and
Security Notice of Arrival as the new subpart D.

46 CFR 4.01-1--Scope of Regulation

We propose revising the existing text for clarity.

46 CFR 4.01-3--Reporting Exclusion

We propose exempting the owner, operator, or person in charge of
FOFs, and MODUs from casualty reporting requirements for deaths or
injuries of shipyard or harbor workers when the casualty does not
result from either a reportable casualty or a reportable equipment
failure and the incident is reportable to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) under 29 CFR part 1904.

Subpart 46 CFR 4.03--Definitions

We propose adding Sec. 4.03-0, Definitions in this subpart, to
explain that subpart 4.03 contains terms defined for purposes of part
4.

[[Page 38770]]

46 CFR 4.03-1--Marine Casualty or Accident

We propose amending the definition of Marine casualty or accident
to include casualties on an FOF, MODU, or vessel when they are engaged
in an OCS activity. We would also revise the existing list of events
included in the definition of Marine casualty or accident for clarity.

46 CFR 4.03-2--Serious Marine Incident

We propose amending the definition of Serious marine incident to
include incidents on an FOF, MODU, or vessel when they are engaged in
an OCS activity.

46 CFR 4.03-65--Significant Harm to the Environment

We propose amending the definition of Significant harm to the
environment to include incidents on an FOF, MODU, or vessel when they
are engaged in an OCS activity.

46 CFR 4.03-80--Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

In this new section, we propose adding the definition for Outer
continental shelf (OCS) from 33 CFR 140.10.

46 CFR 4.03-85--OCS Activity

In this new section, we propose adding the definition for OCS
activity from 33 CFR 140.10.

46 CFR 4.03-90--Floating OCS Facility

In this new section, we propose adding the revised definition for
Floating OCS facility from 33 CFR 140.10.

46 CFR 4.03-95--Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU)

In this new section, we propose adding the definition for Mobile
offshore drilling unit (MODU) from 33 CFR 140.10.

46 CFR Subpart 4.04--Notice of Potential Vessel Casualty

We propose broadening the applicability of reporting requirements
to include all FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS activity.

46 CFR Subpart 4.05--Notice of Marine Casualty and Voyage Records

We propose broadening the notice and record retention requirements
to include all FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS activity.

46 CFR Subpart 4.06--Mandatory Chemical Testing Following Serious
Marine Incidents Involving Vessels in Commercial Service

We propose broadening the post-casualty chemical testing
requirements to include all FOFs and MODUs when engaged in an OCS
activity. We also propose adding a new paragraph 4.06-15(b)(3) allowing
the owner, operator, or person in charge of an FOF, MODU, or vessel to
request an alternative drug testing process in lieu of the drug testing
requirements in 49 CFR part 40--Procedures for Transportation Workplace
Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs, referenced in 46 CFR 4.06-15.

46 CFR 4.07-45--Foreign Units of Coast Guard, Investigation by

We propose broadening the applicability to all FOFs and MODUs when
engaged in an OCS activity.

46 CFR 109.411--Notice and Reporting of Casualty

We propose amending the existing text to provide clarity regarding
the persons responsible for providing notice and the reporting of
marine casualties involving U.S. MODUs. This proposed change is also
consistent with the language in subpart 4.05 regarding the persons
responsible for the notice and reporting of marine casualties.

VII. Discussion of Comments on the 2014 NPRM

In the 2014 NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed requiring that the
owners, operators, or person-in-charge of all U.S. and foreign fixed
OCS facilities, FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS activity
report casualties under the criteria of 46 CFR part 4 instead of 33 CFR
part 146.
We received seven responses with comments about the NPRM including
one response from a Federal agency, one response from a Federal
advisory committee, four responses from industry organizations, and one
response from the general public. We summarize the comments and our
responses in the paragraphs that follow.
The Department of the Interior Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) and the Coast Guard share jurisdiction on the OCS.
After reviewing the NPRM, BSEE recommended we retain casualty reporting
for fixed OCS platforms in 33 CFR subchapter N. The Coast Guard concurs
and does not propose to change the reporting procedures for fixed OCS
facilities in this SNPRM except to raise the dollar threshold for
reporting property damage.
We received five comments from the National Offshore Safety
Advisory Committee (NOSAC). NOSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee,
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5 U.S.C.
Appendix). The Coast Guard regularly consults NOSAC on ``matters
relating to activities directly involved with, or in support of, the
exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources, to the extent
that such matters are within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.'' The
Coast Guard approved a task statement for NOSAC to address the NPRM and
NOSAC completed their report on September 24, 2014. A copy of the NOSAC
report is included in the rulemaking docket.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ A copy of NOSAC's report is included in the rulemaking
docket, <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2013-1057-0009">www.regulations.gov/document/USCG-2013-1057-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The members of NOSAC asserted that some of the vessel populations
we used in the NPRM's cost and benefit analysis were underestimated,
but not to a degree that would significantly affect the outcomes of our
cost and benefit estimates. The Coast Guard notes NOSAC's comment,
however, we do not plan to revise our estimate methodology because
vessel and facility populations fluctuate on the OCS depending on
industry dynamics and the number and frequency of new leases. The data
used in this SNPRM reflects changes in the population since 2014 that
make the data provided in NOSAC's comment out of date. In addition, we
added detail on the affected population to address concerns that the
population of industrial vessels in the Marine Information for Safety
and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database undercounts the affected
population. We believe the numbers in our analyses represent the
affected vessel and OCS facility populations because they are taken
from the most current information about FOFs, MODUs, and vessels
working on the OCS.
The members of NOSAC also asserted that we underestimated
collection of information costs by not including the effort of a
company's internal review of an accident report prior to submission.
NOSAC submitted a similar comment to the NPRM we published on raising
the property damage dollar threshold amount in 46 CFR part 4, which we
discussed in the subsequent 2018 Final Rule. The Coast Guard agrees
with this comment and, in this SNPRM, we increased our estimated
collection of information costs by 10 percent of the casualty reports
to account for internal company review required by some of the more
complex reports, as was done in the 2018 Final Rule.

[[Page 38771]]

The members of NOSAC also urged us to raise the property damage
reporting threshold from $25,000 per incident to at least $100,000. We
partially agree and propose in this SNPRM to raise the dollar threshold
amount in 33 CFR 146.30 to $75,000. As previously mentioned, through
our 2018 Final Rule, we raised the property damage reporting criteria
in 46 CFR part 4 from $25,000 per incident to $75,000 to account for
inflation. We do not see any reason why the property damage threshold
in 33 CFR part 146 should be different than the threshold in 46 CFR
part 4. Accordingly, for the same reasons that we increased the
property damage threshold amount in 46 CFR part 4, for consistency in
accident reporting, and in response to comments, we propose to make the
same increase to the dollar threshold amount in 33 CFR part 146.
In addition to the comments we received from BSEE and NOSAC, we
received six public comments on the NPRM. These comments came from two
industry groups, one company, one mariner's association, one student,
and one unaffiliated person.
The National Mariners Association (NMA) \6\ expressed its
longstanding concerns about the failures of employers to submit
accident reports in a timely manner. We understand the association's
concern as timely intervention is only possible when casualty reports
are promptly reported. It is for this reason that Coast Guard
regulations prescribe when casualty reports must be submitted.
Violations of the Coast Guard's casualty reporting regulations, whether
in 46 CFR part 4 or 33 CFR part 146, are subject to civil penalties, as
set forth in 46 U.S.C. 6103 and 43 U.S.C. 1350, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ <a href="https://www.nationalmariners.us">https://www.nationalmariners.us</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Offshore Operators Committee (OOC),\7\ generally supported the
proposed rule and noted that the Coast Guard did not seek to harmonize
accident reporting requirements between the Coast Guard and BSEE
through the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ <a href="https://www.theooc.org">https://www.theooc.org</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Coast Guard and BSEE are aware that some accidents lead to dual
investigations. These investigations are based on accident information
collected through separate Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approved Information Collection Requests (ICRs) that are not identical.
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard would update the ICR governing accident
information collection under 46 CFR part 4 to apply to foreign FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels operating on the OCS. However, this action would not
eliminate the possibility of dual investigations or address the
differences between the Coast Guard and BSEE's ICRs.
In a joint publication titled, ``United States Coast Guard & Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Joint Activity Summary 2017-
2018,'' \8\ the Coast Guard and BSEE describe how they collaborate on
OCS inspections and investigations. In 2017, the Coast Guard and BSEE
established a memorandum of agreement titled ``BSEE/USCG MOA: OCS-05''
regarding incident notification and investigations.\9\ This memorandum
details jurisdiction, responsibilities, enforcement, training,
regulatory coordination, and information sharing. While sharing
accident information is hampered by differences in information
technology infrastructure, software, and security requirements, the
memorandum explains how the Coast Guard and BSEE have agreed to
collaborate as much as possible. The BSEE and Coast Guard Prevention
Working Group also continues to seek solutions that would lead to
closer cooperation and reciprocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/bsee-uscg-joint-summary-final-5-1-2018.pdf">https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/bsee-uscg-joint-summary-final-5-1-2018.pdf</a>.
\9\ <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/interagency-agreements-mous-moas/bsee-uscg-moa-ocs-05-18jan2017.pdf">https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/interagency-agreements-mous-moas/bsee-uscg-moa-ocs-05-18jan2017.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its comments, the OOC also criticized the Coast Guard for
continued reliance on a burdensome paper-based accident reporting
system. The Coast Guard agrees that we do not have a fully online
accident reporting system. However, the fillable Coast Guard accident
report forms (CG-2692 series) are available online at <a href="http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/docs/CG_2692.pdf?ver=2019-07-24-113027-740">www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/docs/CG_2692.pdf?ver=2019-07-24-113027-740</a> and can be submitted via email to the appropriate Coast
Guard office. BSEE regulations in 30 CFR 250.190(b) also allow
submission of a CG-2692 form to fulfill its reporting requirements if
the narrative contains the required information.
The OOC, NMA, and International Association of Drilling Contractors
(IADC),\10\ also expressed concerns, from a resource standpoint, about
the Coast Guard's ability to adequately investigate marine casualties
on the OCS. These three organizations remarked that additional casualty
reports will overwhelm the Coast Guard's investigative resources. In
addition, they believe the Coast Guard's assignment practices lead to
frequent turnover and the lack of experienced personnel often results
in inconsistencies in enforcement actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ <a href="https://www.iadc.org">https://www.iadc.org</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe this SNPRM would not significantly affect our inspection
and investigation resources because we estimate the number of
additional casualty reports submitted for foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels under 46 CFR part 4 would be small, as shown in the regulatory
analysis below. Additionally, we estimate this increase in the number
of casualty reports would be offset partially by a decrease in reports
from fixed OCS facilities resulting from our proposed increase from
$25,000 to $75,000 as the threshold for reporting property damage.
While we note the commenters' concerns about Coast Guard training and
assignment practices, those issues are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, and we do not propose to address them in this SNPRM. The
Coast Guard addresses the potential for inconsistencies in enforcement
actions through our current employment policies and procedures. We hold
general training programs, maintain an extensive portfolio of guidance
and policy preferences, and conduct ongoing oversight. We also assign
qualified civilian personnel in lieu of uniformed members, who are
subject to transfers, as investigating officers to help maintain
consistency in accident investigation actions and analyses.
In addition to the comments discussed above, the IADC expressed
support for the 2014 proposed rule and commended the Coast Guard for
its continuing collaboration with BSEE to alleviate duplicate
reporting. The IADC also recommended the Coast Guard confirm that same
or similar Department of Labor exemption, which applies to health
information in ``Occupational Safety and Health Administration form
300, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses,'' should apply to
marine casualty reporting as well. The Coast Guard notes this concern
and confirms that we safeguard personal health information in
accordance with Coast Guard policy and the Department of Health and
Human Service's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Privacy regulations.\11\ In this SNPRM we are not proposing any changes
to the regulations related to this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 45 CFR part 160 and subparts A and E of 45 CFR part 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IADC also asked for clarification of the proposed 46 CFR 4.03-
1(b) in the NPRM because it implied that a marine casualty can occur
only when an event is caused by or involves a vessel and, in

[[Page 38772]]

that case, conflicts with the proposed 46 CFR 4.03-1(a).
We agree that the NPRM's language for proposed 46 CFR 4.03-1(b) was
confusing given our goal is to require FOFs and MODUs to report
casualties under the more comprehensive reporting criteria contained in
46 CFR part 4. In the NPRM, we proposed including FOFs and MODUs in the
definition of ``vessel'' for the purposes of that proposed rule. We
decided that this approach could cause confusion and we seek to resolve
that issue in this SNPRM by proposing revisions to 33 CFR 146.30 and
146.301 and 46 CFR 4.03-1 that distinctly delineate the regulation's
applicability to vessels, FOFs, and MODUs.
One public commenter expressed support for the Coast Guard's goal
of collecting better casualty information on the OCS. The Coast Guard
appreciates this support. Another public commenter expressed the
opinion that the proposed rule would have no significant use or benefit
because it does not help other important national interests such as
poverty or the national debt. The commenter stated that casualty
reporting to help measure the kind of marine life that is being killed
is important in certain respects, and the commenter further stated that
the Coast Guard should not undertake rules that collect casualty data
on marine life because the Coast Guard's mission is to provide
reasonably free, safe, and unobstructed passage for waterborne traffic
while considering the needs of land transportation. We believe the
commenter may be under a misimpression that the phrase ``marine
casualty'' in the NPRM refers to or includes the deaths of marine life.
The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment and wishes to clarify that
the definition of marine casualty does not include the death of marine
life.

VIII. Differences Between the NPRM and SNPRM

In this SNPRM, we no longer propose that fixed OCS facilities would
report casualties under the criteria of 46 CFR part 4 and instead we
propose they continue to report casualties in accordance with 33 CFR
parts 140 and 146. In the 2014 NPRM, we proposed to move all OCS
facilities marine casualty reporting requirements from 33 CFR
subchapter N to 46 CFR part 4. In this SNPRM, we have moved away from
that approach and instead use the term ``Floating OCS Facility'' to
differentiate between floating and fixed facilities.
The 46 CFR part 4 regulations are vessel casualty regulations for
floating entities and provide appropriate regulations for floating OCS
facilities but not necessarily for fixed OCS facilities for the
following reasons. Floating OCS facilities experience similar types of
accidents as other vessels, such as flooding, loss of stability, and
inability to maintain station. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate
to continue to propose that floating OCS facilities report casualties
under 46 CFR part 4. However, fixed OCS facilities do not experience
substantially similar casualties. In addition, as explained in Section
VII of this supplemental proposed rule, BSEE recommended we do not
change the reporting criteria for fixed OCS facilities because they are
sufficient. In agreement with BSEE's recommendation, the fixed
facilities marine casualty reporting requirements would remain in
subchapter N because the current accident reporting regime for fixed
OCS facilities is sufficient for collecting accident data and
responding to trends in that population. The 33 CFR part 140 and 146
are more relevant and tailored to fixed platforms and facilities. We
concur that the regulations in 33 CFR parts 140 and 146 are more
appropriate for fixed OCS facilities. Therefore, we proposed that fixed
OCS facilities would continue to report casualties under 33 CFR parts
140 and 146, and not 46 CFR part 4.
In this SNPRM, we propose revising the definition of Floating OCS
facility in 33 CFR 140.10 by adding language to include dynamically
positioned facilities. We propose this change to update our regulations
with technology changes on the OCS since the regulations were published
in 1982. At that time, complex anchoring systems were the only reliable
means of keeping floating facilities on location. Modern controls,
computers, and Global Positioning Systems have replaced anchoring
systems for station keeping.
In this SNPRM, we propose revisions to 33 CFR 146.30 to raise the
dollar amount threshold for reporting property damage from $25,000 to
$75,000 to account for inflation over the past 30-plus years and to
help reduce the regulatory burden on fixed OCS facilities.
In this SNPRM, we are not proposing to remove 33 CFR 146.30 through
146.45, because we are no longer proposing to combine them in 33 CFR
146.50.
In this SNPRM, we no longer seek to add a new 33 CFR 140.50,
because our SNPRM proposal to have FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in
OCS activities report casualties under 46 CFR part 4 makes it
unnecessary.
In the 2014 NPRM, we proposed adding to 46 CFR part 4 a new
definition for OCS unit that included any OCS facility, vessel, rig,
platform, or other vehicle or structure. We also proposed adding
another new definition in 46 CFR part 4 for the term vessel that
included OCS unit. We proposed this approach as a convenient device to
avoid writing ``facility, vessel, rig, platform or other vehicle or
structure'' each time they were needed in the regulatory text. However,
after reviewing the comments on the NPRM, we ultimately abandoned this
approach because the resulting definition of vessel in 46 CFR part 4
would conflict with the statutory definition found in 1 U.S.C. 3: of
``. . . every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on
water.'' Therefore, in this SNPRM, we propose, instead, adding in 46
CFR part 4 the title 33 of the CFR definitions for OCS activity,
floating OCS facility, and MODU and writing out how this SNPRM applies
to each.
In this SNPRM, we propose to revise the language in 46 CFR 109.411
to provide clarity regarding the persons responsible for providing
notice and reporting of marine casualties involving U.S. MODUs. We did
not propose this change in the NPRM.
The differences between the NPRM and SNPRM are summarized in table
2.

Table 2--Summary of Changes From NPRM to SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population......... Fixed OCS facilities Fixed OCS facilities
report under 46 CFR remain under 33 CFR
part 4. parts 140 and 146.
Affected Population NPRM created a term SNPRM separately
Description. ``OCS Units'' in an defines ``vessel
attempt to leverage engaged in OCS
a consolidated activity,''
definition. ``floating OCS
facility,'' and
``MODU.''

[[Page 38773]]

Property Damage Threshold... Threshold in title Threshold raised to
33 of the CFR $75,000 to be
listed as $25,000. consistent with
prior update to 46
CFR part 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this SNPRM after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based
on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
This SNPRM is a significant regulatory action, although not
economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed it under that
Executive order. Section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 requires an
assessment of potential costs and benefits. We fully explain our
assessment in the remaining paragraphs of this section.
In this SNPRM, as in the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to amend
regulations in which marine casualties, under 33 CFR subchapter N, are
reported for foreign vessels, MODUs, and floating facilities operating
on the OCS. The proposed amendments would align casualty reporting
requirements for U.S. and foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in
an OCS activity under the 46 CFR part 4 reporting requirements. In
addition to the change from the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes in this
SNPRM, to update the property damage threshold for reporting under 33
CFR part 146 to align with the threshold in 46 CFR part 4, which was
raised in the 2018 Final Rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ ``Marine Casualty Reporting Property Damage Thresholds''
(83 FR 11889, March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed threshold change addresses a concern raised by NOSAC
in its comment on the 2014 NPRM, that the property damage threshold for
casualty reporting should be increased from $25,000 to account for
inflation.\13\ Acting on that comment, the Coast Guard updated the
threshold under 46 CFR part 4 to $75,000 in the 2018 Final Rule and
would propose to do the same under title 33 of the CFR in this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ NOSAC Approved Final Report--Marine Casualty Reporting,
September 24, 2014, <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2013-1057-0009">www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCG-2013-1057-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2018 Final Rule also adjusted the burden hours of the ICR for
MCRs in response to NOSAC's comment, to account for review of a draft
MCR by company management and legal counsel. This SNPRM continues to
use the updated burden implemented in the 2018 Final Rule to account
for additional review of some casualty reports, this change was not
initially included in the 2014 NPRM.\14\ We added additional detail on
the affected population since the NPRM to address NOSAC's concerns that
the population of industrial vessels in the MISLE database undercounts
the affected population, particularly FOFs.\15\ The affected population
numbers have also been reviewed by the floating OCS facilities working
group to ensure accuracy. The impacts of the proposed changes of this
SNPRM are summarized in table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Ibid.
\15\ Ibid.

Table 3--Summary of the Impacts of the SNPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..................... Requires marine casualties,
involving foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels engaged in OCS activities,
to be reported under 46 CFR part 4
as consistent with U.S. FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels.
Raises the monetary reportable
marine casualty dollar threshold in
33 CFR part 146 from $25,000 to
$75,000 to align with 46 CFR part
4.
Affected Population............... For marine casualties on FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels currently
required to be reported under 33
CFR part 146:
<bullet> 588 foreign FOFs, MODUs,
and vessels would shift
reporting to 46 CFR part 4.
<bullet> 1,754 fixed platforms would
continue to report under 33 CFR
part 146.
Costs (2019 dollars, 7% Discount Cost for U.S. Government:
Rate). 10-Year: $25,806.
Annualized: $3,674.
Cost for Foreign Industry:
10-Year: $95,039.
Annualized: $13,531.
On average, we anticipate an
increase of 78 marine casualty
reports annually.
Cost Saving to Industry (2019 Savings for U.S. industry:
dollars, 7% Discount Rate). 10-Year: ($8,389).
Annualized: ($1,194).
Savings for Foreign Industry:
10-Year: ($11,542).
Annualized: ($1,643).
Reduced reporting from raising the
property damage threshold for a
reportable marine casualty.

[[Page 38774]]

Net Cost (2019 dollars, 7% Net Cost for U.S. Government and
Discount Rate). Industry:
10-Year: $17,417.
Annualized: $2,480.
Net Cost for Foreign Industry:
10-Year: $83,497.
Annualized: $11,888.
Unquantified Benefits............. Increases the Coast Guard's domain
awareness through harmonization of
marine casualty reporting
requirements across CFR parts.
Potential for risk mitigation if
problems are mitigated before they
develop into more serious
accidents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This SNPRM has been determined a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, in accordance with OMB Circular
A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of impacts associated with this SNPRM.\16\ The first A-4
in table 4 is the total U.S. cost, including the annualized cost to the
US government, $3,674, and the annualized cost saving to US industry,
$1,194 for a total annualized monetized cost of $2,480. The second A-4
shown in table 5 is the total cost of the rule including net annualized
foreign costs $11,888, for an annualized monetized cost of $14,368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf</a>.

Table 4--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement for U.S. Costs to Industry and Government 2021-2031 Period of Analysis--2019 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Primary estimate
Minimum estimate
High estimate Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized monetized benefits........... None 7% None 7% None 7% RA.
None 3% None 35 None 3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but non- None RA.
monetized, benefits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantifiable Benefits................. Increased domain awareness from additional MCRs. Potential for risk RA.
mitigation by increasing awareness of early accident indicators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost:
Annualized monetized cost............... $2,480 7% None 7% None 7% RA.
$2,480 3% None 3% None 3% RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but non- None RA.
monetized, cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) cost......... RA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:

...........
Annualized monetized transfers: ``on Not calculated
budget''.
Not calculated
Not calculated RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From who to whom?....................... RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers (``off- None
budget'').
None
None
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From who to whom?....................... None
None
None
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Analyses/Category:

...........
Effects on State, local, and tribal None
governments.
None
None
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on small businesses............. Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small RA.
entities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on wages........................ None
None
None
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on growth....................... No determination
No determination
No determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement for All Costs Including Foreign 2021-2031 Period of Analysis--2019 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38775]]

Cost:
Annualized monetized cost............... $14,368 7% None 7% None 7% RA.
$14,368 3% None 3% None 3% RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but non- None RA.
monetized, cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) cost......... RA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:

...........
Annualized monetized transfers: ``on Not calculated
budget''.
Not calculated
Not calculated RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From who to whom?....................... RA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers (``off- None
budget'').
None
None
From who to whom?....................... None
None
None
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Analyses/Category:

...........
Effects on State, local, and tribal None
governments.
None
None
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on small businesses............. Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small RA.
entities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on wages........................ None
None
None
Effects on growth....................... No determination
No determination
No determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
As in the NPRM,\17\ the affected population comprises all foreign
FOFs identified in the MISLE database as floating production systems
and floating production storage offloading vessels, as well as various
types of industrial vessels,\18\ MODUs, and lift boats. Table 6 shows
detail on the affected population to address concerns that the
population of industrial vessels in the MISLE database undercounts the
affected population. Since the 2014 NPRM, MISLE now distinguishes FOFs,
so we listed those separately from industrial vessels to show that the
population is not undercounted. We excluded types that did not have an
ocean-going route under the assumption that they would not operate on
the OCS. In table 5, U.S. fixed OCS facilities are listed as an
affected population only because of SNPRM proposal to update the
property damage threshold for reporting a marine casualty, no other
trigger for reporting a casualty would change under 33 CFR part 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ ``Marine Casualty Reporting on the Outer Continental
Shelf'' (79 FR 1780, January 10, 2014).
\18\ The following vessel types are excluded: cable laying,
dredger, dredger barge, factory ship, fishing support vessel,
floating dry dock, orbital launch, offshore service vessel, pilot
vessel, radio ship, and seabed mining vessel. Supply vessels not
listed as offshore service vessels and operating on an ocean route
are included.

Table 6--Affected Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM (2014) SNPRM (2020)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moved to Report under 46 CFR part 4:
Industrial Vessels (Foreign)........ 310 310
Oil Supply Vessels (Foreign)........ 9 0
MODUs (Foreign) *................... 73 257
Lift Boats (Foreign)................ N/A 13
Floating OCS Facilities (Foreign)... 28 8
-------------------------------
Total Foreign Vessels........... 420 588
Updated Property Damage Threshold:
Fixed Platforms (All U.S.).......... N/A 1,754
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This number reflects active MODUs as reported by MISLE. It does not
necessarily show how many are actively drilling, or in contact with
the seabed.

Baseline Reporting
Table 7 describes the different events that prompt reporting of a
marine casualty under 33 CFR part 146 and 46 CFR part 4. Title 46 CFR
part 4 has more casualty reporting triggers than 33 CFR part 146.
Therefore, an FOF, MODU, or vessel would report more casualties under
46 CFR part 4 than under 33 CFR part 146.

Table 7--Current Coast Guard Marine Casualty Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR part 146 46 CFR part 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death.................................. Death.
Injuries to 5+ persons................. Injury.
Incapacitation >72 hours; Property Property damage >$75,000.
damage >$25,000 (fixed facilities
only).
Grounding.

[[Page 38776]]

(33 CFR 146.30 and 146.303.)
Allision.
Vessel in distress or loss of
communication with vessel.
Loss of--
<bullet> Main propulsion.
<bullet> Primary steering.
<bullet> Associated systems or
components affecting
maneuverability.
Impairment of--
<bullet> Vessel operation.
<bullet> Vessel components.
<bullet> Cargo.
Material or adverse impact to
vessels'--
<bullet> Seaworthiness.
<bullet> Fitness for service.
<bullet> Fitness for route.
<bullet> Examples--fire,
flooding, failure of or
damage to fire
extinguishing, lifesaving,
auxiliary power, bilge
pumping systems.
Significant harm to the
environment (defined in 46 CFR
4.03-65).
(46 CFR 4.04-1, 4.04-2, and
4.05-1.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The transfer of marine casualty reporting of FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels to 46 CFR part 4 would require an increase in the types of
reportable casualties, including injury to fewer than five persons,
grounding, stranding, foundering, flooding, collision, allision,
explosion, fire, loss of propulsion, loss of steering, and impaired
operations. There are already some voluntary submissions of MCRs for
incidents on foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels involving the above
criteria, although they are not required under 33 CFR part 146. Even
with a count of active foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels each year, we
are unable to determine the number of incidents that were non-
reportable under 33 CFR part 146, but would have been reportable under
46 CFR part 4. Without aligned reporting, we are unable to compare how
often one type of incident occurs on foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels
compared to their U.S. counterparts, while accounting for differences
in the total population sizes, how much of those populations actively
report, and general risk levels between the two populations.
The reports for non-fatal types of incidents described as voluntary
for foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels are mandatory for U.S. FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels and would become mandatory for all flags with this
SNPRM. We show the number of voluntary and mandatory MCR by flag type
in table 8. From 2015 to 2019, MISLE recorded 188 total voluntary
reports of casualties that met the reporting criteria under 46 CFR part
4 from a total of 114 uniquely identified foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels reporting under title 33 of the CFR.\19\ Table 8 shows the
number of MCRs from foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels that met the
criteria for a reportable casualty under title 46 of the CFR but not
under title 33 of the CFR, meaning those reports were submitted
voluntarily. Table 9 shows the number of unique foreign FOFs, MODUs,
and vessels that submitted voluntary reports in each year. These
reports are unique only within each year; across the entire range from
2015 to 2019, there were 78 unique entities meaning 36 foreign FOFs,
MODUs, or vessels submitted reports in multiple years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Voluntary reports are identified by keywords included in
the activity title that match a reporting criterion, such as
``grounding'' or ``ground.'' Subjectivity or error in the entry of a
casualty into MISLE or overlapping reporting criteria may cause
error in identifying the cause of a report.

Table 8--Casualty Reports by Type From Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Annual
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 total average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reportable Under Title 46 of the CFR but Not Under Title 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury <5 & >0............................................... 47 23 24 43 21 ........... ...........
Grounding.................................................... 0 4 6 0 0 ........... ...........
Allision..................................................... 0 2 3 1 0 ........... ...........
Stranding.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Loss of Propulsion........................................... 1 1 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Loss of Steering............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Impaired Operation........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Foundering................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Flooding..................................................... 0 0 3 0 0 ........... ...........
Collision.................................................... 1 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Explosion.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Fire......................................................... 5 1 1 1 0 ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 54 31 37 45 21 188 37.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38777]]

Reportable Under Title 33 of the CFR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality..................................................... 3 0 1 1 0 5 1.0
Injury >5.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9--Number of Unique Reporting Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 19 20 23 20 114 22.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, from 2015 to 2019, MISLE recorded 803 total reports from
498 identified U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels that matched the reporting
criteria for voluntary reports from foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels,
although those types of reports are mandatory for U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels. Table 10 shows the number of MCRs from U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels that met the criteria for a reportable casualty under title 46
of the CFR but not under title 33 of the CFR. Table 11 shows the number
of unique U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels that submitted reports in each
year. These are unique only within each year, across the entire range
from 2015 to 2019, there were 382 unique entities meaning 116 U.S.
FOFs, MODUs, or vessels submitted reports in multiple years.

Table 10--Casualty Reports by Type From U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Annual
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 total average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reportable Under Title 46 of the CFR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury <5 & >0............................................... 118 94 116 115 99 ........... ...........
Grounding.................................................... 8 20 16 6 10 ........... ...........
Allision..................................................... 23 15 16 12 13 ........... ...........
Stranding.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Loss of Propulsion........................................... 4 3 12 5 3 ........... ...........
Loss of Steering............................................. 1 1 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Impaired Operation........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Foundering................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Flooding..................................................... 14 12 10 6 10 ........... ...........
Collision.................................................... 8 5 9 3 3 ........... ...........
Explosion.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ........... ...........
Fire......................................................... 5 3 1 2 2 ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 181 153 180 149 140 803 160.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reportable Under Title 33 of the CFR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality..................................................... 3 1 1 2 0 7 1.4
Injury >5.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11--Number of Unique Reporting U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107 95 114 102 80 498 99.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For MCRs involving fatalities, which are mandatory for everyone, an
average 0.04 fatality reports from 2015 to 2019 were submitted for
foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels, compared to an average of 0.01
fatality reports submitted for U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels.\20\ Table
13 shows the 5-year average number of MCRs per unique FOF, MODU, and
vessel. The averages presented were rounded to two decimal places for
presentation, but were not rounded in the calculations for the
estimates in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The 5-year average of fatality reports per reporting
foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels is 0.04 ((3 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0) / (32
+ 19 + 20 + 23 + 20)) or ((0.09 + 0.00 + 0.05 + 0.04 + 0.00)/5) as
shown above. The 5-year average of fatality reports per reporting
U.S. FOF, MODU, and vessel is 0.01 ((3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 0) / (107 + 95
+ 114 + 102 + 80)) or ((0.03 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.00)/5).

[[Page 38778]]

Table 13--5-Year Average Casualty Reports per Unique FOF, MODU, and
Vessel, From 2014-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number of FOF, MODU, and vessels 22.80 99.60
reporting annually.....................
Average number of non-fatality reports.. 37.60 160.60
Average number of fatality reports...... 1.00 1.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ratios are sensitive to rounding and were not rounded in the
calculations for the analysis.

Currently, fatal MCRs are mandatory for both populations while, in
this sample, non-fatal MCRs are voluntary for foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels.
Costs From Increased Reporting
Under this SNPRM, the Coast Guard would require that owners and
operators of foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS
activity report marine casualties using the CG-2692 form under the
reporting requirements of 46 CFR part 4 instead of the requirements
under 33 CFR part 146. All U.S. entities already comply with these
requirements. To estimate the potential increase in non-fatal MCRs
generated by foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels, the Coast Guard
estimates how many MCRs would be generated if the average number of
non-fatality MCRs for the foreign population matched those of the U.S.
population. Coast Guard estimates this by taking the proportion of US
non-fatality reports to fatality reports and foreign non-fatality
reports to fatality reports and solving for foreign non-fatality
reports as shown in equation (A). Coast Guard believes that this is the
best approximation available, given uncertainty about differences in
the total population sizes, differences in the percentage of the active
populations that report MCRs, and differences in general risk levels of
operations between the two populations. The Coast Guard welcomes any
suggestions or data that may better account for these uncertainties.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JN23.000

Using the figures for average annual reports from Table 12, we then
apply the formula shown in (A), assuming that the total value of
foreign non-fatality reports is unknown and that the 37.60 non-fatality
reports from foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels are voluntary but not
equal to the total number of reports that would be realized under this
proposed rule. The result is 114.71 foreign non-fatality reports, the
total number of non-fatality reports that would have been reported, if
the proportion of foreign fatality reports was the same as US fatality
reports. The calculation of this 114.7 is shown in the equations (B),
(C), and (D).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JN23.001

In (B), we assume that the U.S. non-fatality reports is equal to
160.60 as shown in Table 12, that U.S. fatality reports is equal to
1.40, and that foreign fatality reports is equal to 1.0. In (C), we
begin solving the proportion for x by multiplying 160.60 by 1.0 and
multiplying 1.40 by x, which results in 160.67 = 1.40x. Finally, in
(D), we divide 160.60 by 1.40, which equals 114.71, the total number of
foreign non-fatality reports.
Then, we subtract the number of voluntary reports already received
from the foreign population to get the marginal increase in MCRs. This
is the total of 114.71 foreign non- fatality reports minus the 37.60
voluntary foreign non-fatality reports, for an increase of 77.11
reports. Therefore, Coast Guard assumes that by making the requirements
for reporting non-fatal casualties by foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels
the same as for US FOFs, MODUs, and vessels, that foreign FOFs, MODUs,
and vessels would report an average of 78 more non-fatality reports per
year, rounding 77.11 up to the nearest whole number.
Table 14 summarizes the annual cost of additional MCRs submitted
for foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels. The time burden and wage cost of
generating MCRs comes from the collection of information (COI) ``OMB
Control No. 1625-0001, Report of Marine Casualty and Chemical Testing
of Commercial Vessel Personnel.'' It lists the burden hour per response
for an MCR as 1 hour, with a corresponding loaded hourly wage of $30,
which is equivalent to the 2019 GS-3 Outside Government Wage.\21\ In
this SNPRM, we use the 2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wage
for captains, mates, and pilots of water vessels, which is a loaded
hourly wage of $64.14,\22\ instead of the 2019

[[Page 38779]]

Commandant Instruction 7310.1T, Reimbursable Standard Rates \23\ wage
used in the NPRM because we believe it is a closer match to the
occupation of the submitter and, therefore, more accurate. In the 2018
Final Rule updating the property damage threshold for 46 CFR part 4,
the Coast Guard acknowledged industry comments that some particularly
complex reports require additional review before submission to the
Coast Guard. Thus, the Coast Guard uses the same adjustment for MCRs
under 33 CFR and assumes that 10 percent of MCRs have an additional
burden-hour response of 10 hours, to account for internal company
review conducted by lawyers or upper management. This assumption does
not increase the number of MCRs but increases the burden time for each
MCR, the total increase in reports is 78 and 8 of those reports will
take 11 hours to prepare instead of 1 hour. The current collection
lists a corresponding wage rate of $110, equivalent to the 2019 GS-14
Outside Government Wage.\24\ As above, for this SNPRM, we use the BLS
wage for lawyers, which is a loaded hourly wage of $106.61,\25\ instead
of the Commandant Instruction wage, because we believe it more
accurately reflects who is performing this review of the more complex
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201903-1625-001">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201903-1625-001</a>.
\22\ The 2019 mean wage for captains, mates, and pilots of water
vessels is $42.03 (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/oes535021.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/oes535021.htm</a>). The load
factor is equal to the ratio of total compensation
(CMU2010000520000D) over wages and salaries (CMU2020000520000D) from
2019 or $33.20 divided by $21.76, or 1.526. The loaded wage is the
mean wage multiplied by the load factor. The loaded wage, $64.14,
equals $42.03 multiplied by 1.526. Series are from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Employer Cost for Employee Compensation for
Private Industry Workers, Transportation and Material Moving.
\23\ <a href="http://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/7310/Cl_7310_1T.pdf?ver=2019-01-28-080829-207">www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/7310/Cl_7310_1T.pdf?ver=2019-01-28-080829-207</a>.
\24\ Ibid.
\25\ The 2019 mean wage for lawyers is $69.86 (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/oes231011.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/oes231011.htm</a>). The load factor is equal to the ratio of
total compensation (CMU2010000520000D) over wages and salaries
(CMU2020000520000D) from 2019 or $33.20 divided by $21.7676, or
1.526. The loaded wage is the mean wage multiplied by the load
factor. The loaded wage, $106.61, equals $69.86 multiplied by 1.526.
Series are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation for Private Industry Workers, Transportation
and Material Moving.

Table 14--Annual Cost of Additional Casualty Reports From Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Burden hours Annual hour Annual cost
responses per response burden Wage rate burden
(A) (B) (C) = (A) x (B) (D) (E) = (C) x (D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Casualty Report...... 78 1 78 $64.14 $5,003
Additional Burden for 10% of 8 10 80 106.61 8,529
Respondents *..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost....... .............. .............. ................ .............. $13,531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note that these increased review times do not constitute separate MCRs. Rather, they increase the total burden
time of a single report. We have only 78 new reports, 8 of which will require 11 total hours to prepare.

Table 15 shows the annual costs across a 10-year period of
analysis. This annual cost of $13,531 generates a total cost of $95,039
over 10 years in 2019 dollars discounted at 7 percent, or $13,531
annualized.

Table 15--Cost to Industry Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total, discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
cost 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $13,531 $12,646 $13,137
2............................................................... 13,531 11,819 12,755
3............................................................... 13,531 11,046 12,383
4............................................................... 13,531 10,323 12,023
5............................................................... 13,531 9,648 11,672
6............................................................... 13,531 9,017 11,332
7............................................................... 13,531 8,427 11,002
8............................................................... 13,531 7,875 10,682
9............................................................... 13,531 7,360 10,371
10.............................................................. 13,531 6,879 10,069
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 135,315 95,039 115,426
Annualized.................................................. .............. 13,531 13,531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
Through this SNPRM, the Coast Guard would update our casualty
reporting regulations under 33 CFR part 146, issued in 1955, to keep up
with technology and recognize that floating OCS facilities and MODUs
are more like ocean-going vessels than the fixed OCS facilities the
regulations were originally written to address. We would also harmonize
reporting requirements for all foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels to the
same reporting standards as their U.S. counterparts. These proposed
changes would help provide consistency on the OCS and increase our
maritime domain awareness by creating the mechanism for more complete
casualty data that leads to planning contingencies, evaluating risks,
and identifying trends.
Coast Guard District, Area, Headquarters, Area, District, and local
offices, and the OCS National Center of Expertise analyze and share
accident information. In addition, the Coast Guard ``Marine Safety
Manual'' \26\ contains guidance about broad distribution of accident
and inspection information when potentially hazardous or systemic
problems are found with a vessel, operator, or type of equipment. This
data helps the Coast Guard identify and address safety issues
proactively while improving the accuracy of Coast Guard's decision
making and policy

[[Page 38780]]

development. Therefore, we believe a qualitative benefit of this
proposed supplemental rule would come from the Coast Guard receiving
reports of casualties that we would not otherwise receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ <a href="http://www.uscg.mil/guidance">www.uscg.mil/guidance</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Savings From Property Damage Threshold Update
As a supplement to the reporting change for foreign FOFs, MODUs,
and vessels in this SNPRM, the Coast Guard would also align reporting
by updating the property damage threshold for reporting a marine
casualty under 33 CFR 146.30 from $25,000 to $75,000 to align with the
threshold listed in 46 CFR 4.05-1. The threshold in 46 CFR part 4 was
previously updated to $75,000 in the 2018 Final Rule.\27\ Raising the
threshold for reportable property damage would decrease the number of
marine casualties reported, since more damage would have to be incurred
to meet the reportable threshold. The decrease in reports from the
threshold update would mitigate the increase in reports generated by
the cost section of this supplemental proposed rulemaking. In the
following analysis, we apply the updated damage threshold of $75,000 to
reports submitted for fixed OCS facilities under 33 CFR part 146 as
well as to the estimated increase of 66 MCRs, which used the $25,000
threshold when reported. Fixed OCS facilities were not included in the
analysis of the 2018 Final Rule. So, the reduction in reports from
fixed OCS reporting facilities was never estimated.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ ``Marine Casualty Reporting Property Damage Thresholds''
(83 FR 11889, March 19, 2018).
\28\ See page 11891 of 83 FR 11889 under ``E. Amending the
Dollar Amount Thresholds for Outer Continental Shelf Casualty
Reporting in Title 33 of the CFR.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate the decrease in reports, the Coast Guard identified
MCRs submitted in the last 3 years that were generated because of
property damage alone and would no longer meet the updated higher
damage threshold for reporting. These are MCRs with property damage
between the threshold of $25,000 and the proposed threshold of $75,000.
We did not include fatality or injury, as these types of incidents are
reportable regardless of property damage.
The Coast Guard identified 41 total reports submitted for FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels currently reporting under 33 CFR part 146, generated
because of property damage between $25,000 and $75,000 for a 5-year
average of 9 reports annually. We then apply the same assumption that
10 percent of MCRs have an additional burden hour response of 10 hours
to account for additional review time. We use the same assumed burden
hour and wage used above for MCRs, with a corresponding loaded wage
rate of $64.14. Table 16 shows how these assumptions generate a total
annual saved cost of $1,643 that can be applied to the increased costs
described in the Costs from Increased Reporting section to reduce net
costs.

Table 16--Decreased Reporting Costs for Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels Moving to Title 46 of the CFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
responses that
would no Burden hours Annual hour Annual cost
longer meet per response burden Wage rate saved
reporting
threshold
(A) (B) (C) = (A) x (B) (D) (E) = (C) x (D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease from Property -9 1 -9 $64.14 $577
Damage Threshold...........
Additional Burden for 10% of -1 10 -10 106.61 1,066
Respondents................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Saved........ .............. .............. ................ .............. 1,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 17--shows how this annual savings of $1,643 generates $11,542
in cost savings over 10 years in 2019 dollars, discounted at 7 percent,
or $1,643 annualized.

Table 17--Cost Savings to Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total, discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
cost 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... -1,643 -$1,536 -$1,595
2............................................................... -1,643 -1,435 -1,549
3............................................................... -1,643 -1,341 -1,504
4............................................................... -1,643 -1,254 -1,460
5............................................................... -1,643 -1,172 -1,418
6............................................................... -1,643 -1,095 -1,376
7............................................................... -1,643 -1,023 -1,336
8............................................................... -1,643 -956 -1,297
9............................................................... -1,643 -894 -1,259
10.............................................................. -1,643 -835 -1,223
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... -16,433 -11,542 -14,018
Annualized.................................................. .............. -1,643 -1,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38781]]

For fixed OCS facilities, we identified three reports generated
because of property damage between $25,000 and $75,000, and applied the
same assumption that 10 percent of MCRs have an additional burden hour
response of 10 hours to account for additional review time. Since we
assume any fraction of a report would be a whole report, we round the
5-year average of 0.15 up to one report. Table 18 shows how we use the
same burden hour and wage assumptions as above to generate an annual
cost savings of $1,194, which reduces the net cost of this rule.

Table 18--Decreased Reporting Costs for Fixed OCS Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
responses that
would no Rounding up to Burden hours Annual hour Annual cost
longer meet nearest whole per response burden Wage rate saved
reporting number
threshold
(A) (B) (C) = (A) x (B) (D) (E) = (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease from Property Damage Threshold............. -2 -2 1 -2 64.14 128
Additional Burden for 10% of Respondents............ -0.15 -1 10 -10 106.61 1,066
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Saved................................ .............. .............. .............. ................ .............. 1,194
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19 shows how this annual savings of $1,194 generates $8,389
in cost savings over 10 years discounted at 7 percent, or $1,194
annualized.

Table 19--Cost Savings to Fixed OCS Facilities Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total, discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
cost 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... -$1,194 -$1,116 -$1,160
2............................................................... -1,194 -1,043 -1,126
3............................................................... -1,194 -975 -1,093
4............................................................... -1,194 -911 -1,061
5............................................................... -1,194 -852 -1,030
6............................................................... -1,194 -796 -1,000
7............................................................... -1,194 -744 -971
8............................................................... -1,194 -695 -943
9............................................................... -1,194 -650 -915
10.............................................................. -1,194 -607 -889
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... -11,944 -8,389 -10,188
Annualized.................................................. .............. -1,194 -1,194
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Together, these cost savings to industry total $2,838 ($1,643 +
$1,194) annually. Table 20 shows how these annual savings generate
$19,931 in cost savings to industry over 10 years discounted at 7
percent, or $2,838 annualized.

Table 20--Total Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total, discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
savings 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... -$2,838 -$2,652 -$2,755
2............................................................... -2,838 -2,479 -2,675
3............................................................... -2,838 -2,316 -2,597
4............................................................... -2,838 -2,165 -2,521
5............................................................... -2,838 -2,023 -2,448
6............................................................... -2,838 -1,891 -2,377
7............................................................... -2,838 -1,767 -2,307
8............................................................... -2,838 -1,652 -2,240
9............................................................... -2,838 -1,544 -2,175
10.............................................................. -2,838 -1,443 -2,112
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... -28,377 -19,931 -24,206
Annualized.................................................. .............. -2,838 -2,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38782]]

Cost to Government
The increase of 78 MCRs would be mitigated by a total decrease of
11 reports; 9 from the increased property damage threshold for FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels, and 2 from the update to fixed OCS facilities.
Following the methodology in appendix B of the COI number 1625-0001, we
do not assume that the 10 percent of reports that take longer to
prepare for submission would take longer for the Coast Guard to review.
The burden hour established in the COI already accounts for variance in
the time to review MCRs of differing complexity and severity.
We assume that there is 1 hour of processing time at a GS-9 wage of
$54.84 for each MCR.\29\ For the 67 additional responses, there is a
total annual cost of $3,674, as shown in table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Casualty reports are reviewed at Coast Guard Headquarters
and the 2020 Washington, DC locality wage of $32.33 for a GS-9, Step
5, employee is used (<a href="http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf">www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf</a>). The load factor is
1.70 (rounded) estimated by dividing $67.00 average total
compensation per hour by $39.50 average hourly wage from tables 4
and 2, respectively, of the 2017 Congressional Budget Office report,
``Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees
2011-2015'' (<a href="http://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf">www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf</a>). The loaded wage is the mean
wage multiplied by the load factor. The loaded wage, $54.84, equals
$32.33 multiplied by 1.6962.

Table 21--Cost to Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden hours
Cost category Responses per response Annual hours Wage rate Annual cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing MCR.................. 67 1 67 $54.84 $3,674
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost........... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,674
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 22 shows how the annual cost of $3,674 generates a total cost
of $25,806 over 10 years in 2019 dollars, discounted at 7 percent, or
$3,674 annualized.

Table 22--Cost to Government Over 10 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total, discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
cost 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $3,674 $3,434 $3,567
2............................................................... 3,674 3,209 3,463
3............................................................... 3,674 2,999 3,362
4............................................................... 3,674 2,803 3,264
5............................................................... 3,674 2,620 3,169
6............................................................... 3,674 2,448 3,077
7............................................................... 3,674 2,288 2,987
8............................................................... 3,674 2,138 2,900
9............................................................... 3,674 1,999 2,816
10.............................................................. 3,674 1,868 2,734
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 36,742 25,806 31,341
Annualized.................................................. .............. 3,674 3,674
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Cost

The net annualized costs of this rule would be $14,368 [($13,531 +
$3,674)--$2,838], discounted at 7-percent. Table 23 shows the sum of
the net costs over 10 years for a total net cost of $100,914 in 2019
dollars discounted at 7 percent, or $14,368 annualized.

Table 23--Total Net Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, discounted
Year Cost to Cost to Cost savings Net cost -------------------------------
industry government to industry 7% 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $13,531 $3,674 $(2,838) $14,368 $13,428 $13,949
2....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 12,550 13,543
3....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 11,729 13,149
4....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 10,961 12,766
5....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 10,244 12,394
6....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 9,574 12,033
7....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 8,948 11,682
8....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 8,362 11,342
9....................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 7,815 11,012
10...................................................... 13,531 3,674 (2,838) 14,368 7,304 10,691
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. 143,680 100,914 122,562

[[Page 38783]]

Annualized.......................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 14,368 14,368
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Considered
(1) No Action.
Keeping current reporting requirements would perpetuate reporting
requirement inconsistencies between foreign and U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels engaged in an OCS activity. The resulting information asymmetry
prevents the Coast Guard from maintaining domain awareness on the OCS.
Under the status quo, near misses on foreign FOFs, MODUs, and vessels
would continue to not be reported to the Coast Guard, unlike they are
on U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels.
Although there is no increased reporting cost with this
alternative, it perpetuates information asymmetry in the maritime
domain. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not choose this alternative.
(2) Lower Reporting Requirements for U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and Vessels
to Harmonize.
Rather than alter foreign reporting to harmonize with reporting in
46 CFR part 4, the Coast Guard could alter all U.S. reporting in 46 CFR
part 4 to harmonize with 33 CFR part 146. This would reduce the types
of triggers that generate a reportable marine casualty and likely
decrease the number of reports submitted to the Coast Guard. While
reduced reporting could be a cost saving to industry, it could also
reduce the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness and increase risk to
maritime safety and the marine environment as suggested in the
Deepwater Horizon accident report. For instance, under this alternative
Coast Guard would not receive reports from vessels about casualties
involving allision, collision, grounding, or significant harm to the
environment, etc. These types of casualties are often associated with
injury, fatality, and property damage and losing awareness of these
incidents would likely decrease safety on the outer continental shelf.
This alternative would also undermine the Coast Guard's efforts to keep
up with technology as the energy development industry moved further
offshore. In this environment, floating OCS facilities are typical and,
as explained in section V. of this preamble, the current regulations in
33 CFR part 146 were originally developed and applied to fixed OCS
facilities operating closer to land. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not
choose this alternative.
(3) Alter Reporting Requirements on Foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
Vessels to Harmonize with Reporting Requirements under 46 CFR part 4
(Proposed).
The impact of altering the reporting requirements on foreign FOFs,
MODUs, and vessels engaged in an OCS activity to harmonize with 46 CFR
part 4 is demonstrated in the analysis above. The Coast Guard chooses
this alternative over no action or reducing reporting because it
increases domain awareness at relatively little cost to industry while
not losing situational awareness on particular casualty types as with
alternative two.

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we
have considered whether this SNPRM would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This interim RFA
updates the analysis done in the 2014 NPRM to account for changes in
revenues during the intervening period. The Coast Guard did not receive
comments on the previous small entity analysis. 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.
Operations on the OCS encompass many different North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. In a random sample of 80
foreign entities taken from a population of 99 operators for this
regulatory analysis, 15 different NAICS codes applied.\30\ Therefore,
the standard for a small business in this sample has a wide range, with
revenue thresholds ranging from $16.5 million to $1,250 million, and
employee thresholds ranging from 100 to 1,000 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Not all operators had an available NAICS code; those that
did not were assumed to be small entities.

Table 24--Applicable NAICS Codes of Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
NAICS code Description operators Size standard
classified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114111.............................. Finfish Fishing........................ 1 * 1,000
212111.............................. Oil & Gas Exploration and Services..... 1 * 1,000
213111.............................. Drilling Oil and Gas Wells............. 11 * 1,000
213112.............................. Support Activities for Oil and Gas 4 $41,500,000
Operations.
236115.............................. New Single-Family Housing Construction 1 $39,500,000
(Excludes For-Sale Builders).
237110.............................. Water and Sewer Line and Related 8 $39,500,000
Structures Construction.
238910.............................. Site Preparation Contractors........... 1 $16,500,000
333132.............................. Oil and Gas Field Machinery and 2 $1,250,000,000
Equipment Manufacturing.
423990.............................. Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods 1 * 100
Merchant Wholesalers.
424460.............................. Fish & Seafood Merchant Wholesalers.... 1 * 100
441222.............................. Boat Dealers........................... 2 $35,000,000
524298.............................. All Other Insurance Related Activities. 4 $16,500,000
541330.............................. Engineering Services................... 2 $16,500,000

[[Page 38784]]

999990.............................. Unclassified........................... 1 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Employees.

In this sample of 80 foreign entities, 63 had a known revenue or
employee count. Of these 63 foreign entities, 24 had annual revenues
less than the threshold for a small business of that NAICS code. Five
entities had fewer employees than the threshold for a small business of
that NAICS code. In total, 29 entities of the 80 (36 percent) were
small businesses.
The primary cost of this rule would be the additional MCR reports
submitted by foreign businesses operating foreign FOFs, MODUs, and
vessels on the OCS. The Coast Guard estimates the total annual cost
would be $13,531 from an increase of 78 reports. While this cost would
be distributed across the entire industry, we do not know the exact
distribution, since the number of MCRs per operator depends on that
operator's specific behavior, which can change over time. In the last
10 years, the average number of reports per owner was 1.03 (compared to
the 5-year average of 1.64 from table 6). Assuming that trend
continues, no single operator would generate more than two additional
reports (rounding up) under the proposed change. For this small entity
analysis, we show the possible impact of two reports per operator at
$346.96. This assumes the total average cost per report is $173.48
($13,531 divided by 78 reports) to account for variance in the
complexity of a report. To have a significant impact on an individual
company under SBA standards, the cost would need to represent more than
1 percent of an individual company's total revenue. In this scenario,
the company's total revenue would have to be $35,500 or less. In the
sample of 62 operators with known revenues, none had a revenue smaller
than $34,696.

Table 25--Entities Where Cost Represents More Than 1 Percent of Total
Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With revenue
less than Total
$34,696
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Operators................... 0 80
% of small entities with known revenue 0 24
% of entities with known revenue...... 0 62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary cost savings of this SNPRM would be the reduced
reporting by U.S. businesses operating fixed OCS facilities, who would
report under the higher damage threshold of 33 CFR part 146. The Coast
Guard estimates the total annual cost savings would be $2,838 in 2019
dollars, discounted at 7 percent for the entire industry. As this is a
cost savings that helps mitigate the impact of the cost of this rule,
we do not consider this SNPRM would have a significant negative impact
on small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this SNPRM, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are interested in
the potential impacts from this SNPRM on small businesses and request
public comment on these potential impacts. If you think that your
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic
impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment,
explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this
SNPRM would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this SNPRM so that they can better evaluate
its potential effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
SNPRM would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this SNPRM. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this SNPRM or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may also send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 requires
that the Coast Guard consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. An agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
This action contains proposed amendments to the existing
information collection requirements previously approved under OMB
Control Number 1625-0001.\31\ This amendment would increase the number
of affected facilities and the burden for the existing COI number as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=1625-0001">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=1625-0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Report of Marine Casualty Information and Chemical Testing
of Commercial Vessel Personnel.

[[Page 38785]]

OMB Control Number: 1625-0001.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection requires
responses such as the preparation of written notification by completing
a CG-2692 (series) form and the processing of records. We use this
information to identify pertinent safety lessons and to initiate
appropriate steps for reducing the likelihood of similar accidents in
the future. The collection of information will aid the regulated public
in assuring safe practices.
Need for Information: These reporting requirements permit the Coast
Guard to investigate marine casualties, as required by 46 U.S.C. 6301,
to determine the causes of casualties and whether existing safety
standards are adequate or new laws or regulations need to be developed.
Receipt of a marine casualty report is often the only way in which the
Coast Guard becomes aware of a marine casualty. It is, therefore, a
necessary first step that provides the Coast Guard with the opportunity
to determine the extent to which a casualty will be investigated.
Proposed Use of Information: In the short term, the information
provided in the report may also trigger corrective safety actions
addressing immediate hazards or defective conditions, further
investigations of mariner conduct or professional competence, or civil
or criminal enforcement actions by the Coast Guard, other Federal
agencies, or State and local authorities. In the long term, the
information contained in the report becomes part of the Coast Guard's
MISLE database. The Coast Guard uses the information in the MISLE
database to identify safety problems and long-term trends, publish
casualty summaries and annual statistics for public use, establish
whether additional safety oversight or regulation is needed, measure
the effectiveness of existing regulatory programs, and better focus the
Coast Guard's limited marine safety resources.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are the owners,
agents, masters, operators, or persons in charge that notify the
nearest Sector Office, Marine Inspection Office, or Coast Guard's Group
Office whenever a vessel or facility is involved in a marine casualty.
Number of Respondents: We estimate an increase of 55 respondents
for a written report of marine casualty. This increases the total
number of respondents for reporting marine casualties from 5,617 to
5,684.
Frequency of Response: The notification response is required only
if a marine casualty occurs as defined in 46 CFR 4.03-2 and 46 CFR
4.05-1.
Burden of Response: For each response, we estimate that it takes 1
hour for a vessel crewmember to complete all of the necessary forms
(CG-2692 series). In addition, some marine casualty forms may undergo
additional processing by the respondents. To account for this
additional time, 10 percent of the forms submitted have 10 hours of
additional burden.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The Coast Guard estimates that it takes up to 1 hour to
complete the necessary CG-2692 (series) form. However, we received
public comments in 2013 on COI number 1625-0001 stating that some
submitters take more time--up to 8 to 12 hours--to complete the
form. See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2011-0710">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG-2011-0710</a>. The reason
for this difference is that some entities have the form(s) reviewed
by shore-side personnel, such as an attorney, prior to submission to
the Coast Guard. The practice of having a form reviewed by an
attorney is not required by Coast Guard regulation. While we believe
that this does not typically occur, we have adjusted our burden
estimate to account for the added review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We estimate an increase of 675
respondents for the 1-hour response of a written report of marine
casualty. This increases the total burden hours for reporting marine
casualties from 5,617 to 5,684.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
SNPRM to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine, among other things--
<bullet> How useful the information is;
<bullet> Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
<bullet> How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
<bullet> Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
<bullet> How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
<bullet> How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
<bullet> How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to both the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
SNPRM, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect
this information.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
Congress specifically granted the authority to regulate artificial
islands, installations, and other devices permanently or temporarily
attached to the (OCS) and in the waters adjacent thereto as it relates
to the safety of life to the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating. Title 43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1) states that the
Secretary ``shall have the authority to promulgate and enforce such
reasonable regulations with respect to lights and other warning
devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion
of safety of life and property on the artificial islands,
installations, and other devices . . . as he may deem necessary.'' As
this SNPRM would improve the Coast Guard's ability to collect and
analyze casualty data for incidents on the OCS in order to maintain and
improve safety of life on OCS installations, it falls within the scope
of authority Congress granted exclusively to the Secretary. This
authority has been delegated to the Coast Guard and is exercised in
this rulemaking, and the States may not regulate within this category
of marine casualty reporting. Therefore, the rule is consistent with
the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive
Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this SNPRM would have implications for
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

[[Page 38786]]

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 million (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Although this SNPRM would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this SNPRM
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

This SNPRM would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

This SNPRM 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 SNPRM under Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This
SNPRM is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This SNPRM 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.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this SNPRM 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 likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, 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 SNPRM does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

We have analyzed this SNPRM under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
This SNPRM is likely to be categorically excluded under paragraphs
L54 and L57 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1.\33\ Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are
editorial or procedural. Paragraph L57 pertains to regulations
concerning the manning, documentation, admeasurement, inspection, and
equipping of vessels. This rule involves changing the reporting
criteria for certain casualties that occur on the OCS for foreign
floating facilities, MODUs, and vessels engaged in OCS activities, and
better harmonizes the casualty reporting requirements with those in
place for similar U.S. FOFs, MODUs, and vessels. These proposed changes
would promote the Coast Guard's marine safety mission. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_InstructionManual023-01-001-01Rev01_508compliantversion.pdf">www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_InstructionManual023-01-001-01Rev01_508compliantversion.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 140

Continental shelf, Investigations, Marine safety, Occupational
safety and health, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 146

Continental shelf, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and procedure, Drug testing,
Investigations, Marine safety, National Transportation Safety Board,
Nuclear vessels, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

46 CFR Part 109

Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Oil and gas
exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 140 and 146 and 46 CFR parts 4 and 109 as
follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 140--GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 140 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333, 1348, 1350, 1356; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Amend Sec. 140.10 by revising the definition of ``Floating OCS
facility'' to read as follows:

Sec. 140.10 Definitions.

* * * * *
Floating OCS facility means a U.S. or foreign buoyant OCS facility
that is dynamically positioned on location or securely and
substantially moored so that it cannot be moved without a special
effort. This term includes tension leg platforms and permanently moored
semisubmersibles or shipshape hulls, but does not include mobile
offshore drilling units and other vessels, as defined in this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 140.201 to read as follows:

Sec. 140.201 General.

The Coast Guard investigates casualties occurring on the OCS
including:
(a) Casualties on floating OCS facilities, MODUs, and vessels as
described in 46 CFR part 4;
(b) Casualties on fixed OCS facilities as described in 33 CFR
146.30;

[[Page 38787]]

(c) Oil spillage exceeding 200 barrels of oil in one occurrence
during a 30-day period; and
(d) Other injuries, casualties, accidents, complaints of unsafe
working conditions, fires, pollution, and incidents occurring as a
result of OCS activities as the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection,
deems necessary to promote the safety of life or property or protect
the marine environment.

Sec. 140.203 [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec. 140.203 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the text ``Geological
Survey'' and add, in its place, the text ``Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement''.
0
b. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the text ``examing'' and add, in its
place, the text ``examining''.

PART 146--OPERATIONS

0
5. The authority citation for part 146 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333, 1348, 1350, 1356; Sec. 109, Pub. L.
109-347, 120 Stat. 1884; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
6. Revise Sec. 146.30 to read as follows:

Sec. 146.30 Notice of casualties.

(a) The owner, operator, or person in charge of a fixed OCS
facility must ensure that the Coast Guard is notified as soon as
possible after a casualty occurs, and by the most rapid means
available, of each casualty involving the facility which results in:
(1) Death;
(2) Injury to five or more persons in a single incident;
(3) Damage affecting the usefulness of primary lifesaving or
firefighting equipment;
(4) Injury causing any person to be incapacitated for more than 72
hours;
(5) Damage to the facility exceeding $75,000 resulting from a
collision by a vessel with the facility; or
(6) Damage to the facility exceeding $75,000.
(b) The notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must
identify the person giving the notice and the facility involved and
describe, insofar as practicable, the nature of the casualty and the
extent of injury to personnel and damage to property.
(c) Damage costs referred to in paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of
this section include the cost of labor and material to restore the
facility to the service condition which existed prior to the casualty,
but does not include the cost of salvage, cleaning, or gas freeing
facility.
(d) The owner, operator, or person in charge of any floating OCS
facility, mobile offshore drilling unit, or vessel engaged in an OCS
activity must report casualties in accordance with 46 CFR part 4.
(e) The owner, operator, or person in charge of a foreign floating
OCS facility, mobile offshore drilling unit, or vessel engaged in an
OCS activity must include in the written casualty report required under
46 CFR 4.05-12 information relating to alcohol or drug involvement.

Subpart D [Removed]

0
7. Remove subpart D, comprising Sec. Sec. 146.301 and 146.303.

Subpart E [Redesignated as Subpart D]

0
8. Redesignate subpart E, comprising Sec. Sec. 146.401, 146.402 and
146.405, as subpart D.

Title 46--Shipping

PART 4--MARINE CASUALTIES AND INVESTIGATIONS

0
9. The authority citation for part 4 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2303a, 2306, 6101,
6301, 6305, 56311, and 70034; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. Subpart 4.40 issued under
49 U.S.C. 1903(a)(1)(E).

0
10. Revise Sec. 4.01-1 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.01-1 Scope of regulation.

The regulations in this part govern marine casualty reporting,
investigations of marine casualties, and submission of reports designed
to increase the likelihood of timely assistance to vessels in distress.
0
11. Revise Sec. 4.01-3(c) to read as follows:

Sec. 4.01-3 Reporting exclusion.

* * * * *
(c) Vessels, floating OCS facilities, and MODUs are excluded from
the requirements of Sec. 4.05-1(a)(5) and (6) with respect to the
death or injury of shipyard or harbor workers when such accidents are
not the result of either a reportable casualty (e.g., collision) or a
reportable equipment casualty (e.g., cargo boom failure) and are
subject to the reporting requirements of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) under 29 CFR part 1904.
* * * * *
0
12. Add Sec. 4.03-0 to subpart 4.03 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-0 Definitions that apply to this subpart.

This subpart contains terms defined for purposes of this part.
0
13. Revise Sec. 4.03-1 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-1 Marine casualty or accident.

Marine casualty or accident means--
(a) Any casualty or accident involving any vessel other than a
public vessel that--
(1) Occurs upon the navigable waters of the United States, its
territories or possessions;
(2) Involves any U.S. vessel wherever such casualty or accident
occurs; or
(3) With respect to a foreign tank vessel operating in waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), involves significant harm to the
environment or material damage affecting the seaworthiness or
efficiency of the vessel.
(b) Any casualty or accident involving a vessel, floating OCS
facility, or MODU as defined in 33 CFR part 140, when they are engaged
in an OCS activity.
(c) The term ``marine casualty or accident'' applies to events
including, but not limited to:
(1) Any fall overboard, injury, or loss of life of any person;
(2) Grounding;
(3) Stranding;
(4) Foundering;
(5) Flooding;
(6) Collision;
(7) Allision;
(8) Explosion;
(9) Fire;
(10) Reduction or loss of electrical power, propulsion, or steering
capabilities;
(11) Failures or occurrences, regardless of cause, which impair any
aspect of operation, components, or cargo;
(12) Any other circumstance that might affect or impair
seaworthiness, efficiency, or fitness for service or route;
(13) Any incident involving significant harm to the environment;
(14) Any occurrences of injury or loss of life to any person while
diving from a vessel, and using underwater breathing apparatus; or
(15) Any incident described in Sec. 4.05-1(a).

Sec. 4.03-2 [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec. 4.03-2 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the text, ``in commercial
service'', and add in its place, ``, floating OCS facility, or MODU as
described in Sec. 4.03-1(a) and (b)''.
0
b. In paragraph (a) introductory text, add the text ``(c)'' following
the text, ``Sec. 4.03-1''.

[[Page 38788]]

0
c. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the text ``a vessel in commercial
service, which renders the individual unfit to perform routine vessel
duties;'', and add, in its place the text, ``, which renders the
individual unfit to perform routine duties;''.
0
d. In paragraph (a)(4), add the text ``, floating OCS facility, or
MODU'' following the text ``vessel''.
0
15. Revise Sec. 4.03-65(c)(1), (6), and (7), to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-65 Significant harm to the environment.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU location and proximity
to land or other navigational hazards;
* * * * *
(6) The nature of damage to the vessel, floating OCS facility, or
MODU; and
(7) Failure or breakdown aboard the vessel, floating OCS facility,
or MODU, its machinery, or equipment.
0
16. Add Sec. 4.03-80 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-80 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Outer Continental Shelf or OCS means all submerged lands lying
seaward and outside of the area of ``lands beneath navigable waters''
as defined in section 2(a) of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1301(a)) and of which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United
States and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.
0
17. Add Sec. 4.03-85 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-85 OCS Activity.

OCS activity means any offshore activity associated with
exploration for, or development or production of, the minerals of the
Outer Continental Shelf.
0
18. Add Sec. 4.03-90 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-90 Floating OCS facility.

Floating OCS facility means a U.S. or foreign buoyant OCS facility
that is dynamically positioned on location or securely and
substantially moored so that it cannot be moved without a special
effort. This term includes tension leg platforms and permanently moored
semisubmersibles or shipshape hulls, but does not include mobile
offshore drilling units and other vessels, as defined in 33 CFR part
140.
0
19. Add Sec. 4.03-95 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.03-95 Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU).

Mobile offshore drilling unit or MODU means a vessel, other than a
public vessel of the United States, capable of engaging in drilling
operations for exploration or exploitation of subsea resources.
0
20. Revise the heading of subpart 4.04 to read as follows:

Subpart 4.04--Notice of Potential Casualty

0
21. Revise Sec. 4.04-1 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.04-1 Reports of potential casualty.

(a) An owner, charterer, managing operator, or agent of a vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU to which this part applies must
immediately notify either of the following Coast Guard officers if
there is reason to believe the vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU
is lost or imperiled:
(1) The Coast Guard district rescue coordination center (RCC)
cognizant over the area the vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU was
last operating; or
(2) The Coast Guard search and rescue authority nearest to where
the vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU was last operating.
(b) Reasons for belief that a vessel, floating OCS facility, or
MODU is in distress include, but are not limited to, lack of
communication with or nonappearance of the vessel, floating OCS
facility, or MODU.
0
22. Revise Sec. 4.04-3 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.04-3 Reports of lack of communication.

The owner, charterer, managing operator or agent that is required
to report to the United States Flag Merchant Vessel Location Filing
System under the authority of section 212(A) of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1122a), must immediately notify the Coast
Guard if more than 48 hours have passed since receiving communication.
This notification must be given to the Coast Guard district RCC
cognizant over the last known operating area.
0
23. Amend Sec. 4.04-5 by revising the introductory paragraph and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 4.04-5 Substance of reports.

The owner, charterer, managing operator or agent, notifying the
Coast Guard under Sec. 4.04-1 or Sec. 4.04-3, must:
(a) Provide the name and identification number of the vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU, the names of the individuals on board,
and other information that may be requested by the Coast Guard (when
providing the names of the individuals on board for a passenger vessel,
the list of passengers need only meet the requirements of 46 U.S.C.
3502); and
* * * * *

Sec. 4.05-1 [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec. 4.05-1 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
b. In paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3), adding the text ``, floating OCS
facility, or MODU'' following the text, ``vessel'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4), after the text ``adversely affecting'',
removing the text ``the vessel's''; and
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(6).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 4.05-1 Notice of Marine Casualty.

(a) Immediately after addressing resultant safety concerns, the
owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge, shall notify any
one of the nearest Coast Guard units, to include Sector, Marine Safety
Office, Coast Guard District or Area Offices, whenever a vessel,
floating OCS facility or MODU to which this part applies is involved in
a marine casualty consisting in--
* * * * *
(6) An injury that requires professional medical treatment
(treatment beyond first aid) and, if the person is engaged or employed
on board a vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU in commercial
service, that renders the individual unfit to perform their routine
duties; or
* * * * *
0
25. Revise Sec. 4.05-5 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.05-5 Substance of marine casualty notice.

The notice required in Sec. 4.05-1 must include the name and
official number of the vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU involved,
the name of the owner or agent, the nature and circumstances of the
casualty, the locality in which it occurred, the nature and extent of
injury to persons, and the damage to property.
0
26. Revise Sec. 4.05-15(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 4.05-15 Voyage records, retention of.

(a) The owner, agent, master, or person in charge of any vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU involved in a marine casualty must
retain such voyage records as are normally maintained, such as both
rough and smooth deck and engine room logs, bell books, navigation
charts, navigation work books, compass deviation cards, gyro records,
stowage plans, records of draft, aids to mariners, night order books,
radiograms sent and received, radio logs, crew and passenger lists,
articles of shipment, official logs and other material which might be
of assistance in investigating and determining the cause of the
casualty. The owner, agent, master, other officer or person responsible
for the custody thereof, shall make these records available upon

[[Page 38789]]

request, to a duly authorized investigating officer, administrative law
judge, officer or employee of the Coast Guard.
* * * * *
0
27. Revise Sec. 4.05-20 to read as follows:

Sec. 4.05-20 Report of accident to aid to navigation.

Whenever a vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU collides with a
buoy, or other aid to navigation under the jurisdiction of the Coast
Guard, or is connected with any such collision, the person in charge
must report the accident to the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection. No report on Form CG-2692 is required unless one or more of
the results listed in Sec. 4.05-1 occur.
0
28. Revise the heading of subpart 4.06 to read as follows:

Subpart 4.06--Mandatory Chemical Testing Following Serious Marine
Incidents Involving Vessels, Floating OCS Facilities, or MODUs in
Commercial Service

0
29. Amend Sec. 4.06-1 by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 4.06-1 Responsibilities of the marine employer.

* * * * *
(b) When a marine employer determines that a casualty or incident
is, or is likely to become, a serious marine incident, the marine
employer must take all practicable steps to have each individual
engaged or employed on board the vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU
who is directly involved in the incident chemically tested for evidence
of drug and alcohol use as required in this part.
* * * * *
(e) The marine employer must ensure that all individuals engaged or
employed on board a vessel, floating OCS facility, or MODU are fully
indoctrinated in the requirements of this subpart, and that appropriate
vessel personnel are trained as necessary in the practical applications
of these requirements.

Sec. 4.06-3 [Amended]

0
30. Amend Sec. 4.06-3 in paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and
(b)(1) introductory text, by adding the text ``, floating OCS facility,
or MODU'' following the text, ``vessel''.
0
31. Amend Sec. 4.06-5 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 4.06-5 Responsibility of individuals directly involved in
serious marine incidents.

(a) Any individual engaged or employed on board a vessel, floating
OCS facility, or MODU who is determined to be directly involved in an
SMI must provide a blood, breath, saliva, or urine specimen for
chemical testing when directed to do so by the marine employer or a law
enforcement officer.
(b) If the individual refuses to provide a blood, breath, saliva,
or urine specimen, this refusal must be noted on Forms CG-2692 and CG-
2692B and in the vessel's official log book, if a log book is required.
The marine employer must remove the individual as soon as practical
from duties that directly affect the safe operation of the vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU.
* * * * *
0
32. Amend Sec. 4.06-15 by:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (b)(2), adding the text ``,
floating OCS facility, or MODU'' following the text, ``vessel''; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 4.06-15 Accessibility of chemical testing devices.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The owner, operator, or person in charge of a foreign vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU who is unable to meet the drug testing
requirements of 49 CFR part 40 may request approval for an alternative
drug testing process from the U.S. Coast Guard Drug and Alcohol
Prevention and Investigation Program Manager via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#571316071e1702041410791a1e1b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="541015041d14010717137a191d18">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

Sec. 4.06-30 [Amended]

0
33. In Sec. 4.06-30 amend paragraph (a) by adding the text ``,
floating OCS facility, or MODU'' following the text, ``vessel'' in the
first sentence.
0
34. Revise Sec. 4.06-60(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 4.06-60 Submission of reports and test results.

(a) Whenever an individual engaged or employed on a vessel,
floating OCS facility, or MODU is identified as being directly involved
in a serious marine incident, the marine employer must complete Form
CG-2692B (Report of Mandatory Chemical Testing Following a Serious
Marine Incident Involving Vessels in Commercial Service).
* * * * *

Sec. 4.07-45 [Amended]

0
35. In Sec. 4.07-45, add the text ``, floating OCS facility
(facilities), or MODU(s)'' following the text, ``vessel(s)''.

PART 109--OPERATIONS

0
36. The authority citation for part 109 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101, 10104;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3.

0
37. Revise Sec. 109.411 to read as follows:

Sec. 109.411 Notice and reporting of casualty.

The owner, operator, or person in charge of a MODU regulated under
this part must provide notice and report marine casualties in
accordance with 46 CFR part 4.

Dated: June 4, 2023.
Linda Fagan,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2023-12513 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 14, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.