Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

68134

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Reporting of reason for termination of guaranty by a guarantor: We estimated that it will take 5 minutes 0.08 hours for the guarantor to add the reason why the guaranty was terminated to the information they already provide to the Coast Guard when they terminate a guaranty.
Number of terminations per year
number of hours per submission
labor cost per hour:
4,000 submissions per year 0.08 hours per submission $36.64 per hour =
$11,725 per year Reporting Vessel Name Change and Increased Reporting on Location of Vessel When There is a Change in Ownership on Date of Change: We estimated that it takes an additional 5
minutes 0.08 hours per submission to provide additional information that is not already required under the current rule.
Number of submissions per year
number of hours per submission
the labor cost per hour:
1,000 submissions per year the 0.08
hours/submission the $36.64 per hour 15 = $2,931 per year Present Value Regulatory Costs Low Range: We estimated that the 10-year present value of the rule, at a 3-percent discount rate, is $1.6 million. We estimated that the 10-year present value of the rule, at a 7-percent discount rate, is $1.3 million. The estimated annualized discounted cost of the rule, at a 3-percent discount rate, is $189,100.
The estimated annualized discounted cost of the rule, at a 7-percent discount rate, is $191,100.
Present Value Regulatory Costs High Range: We estimated the 10-year present value of the rule, at a 3-percent discount rate, to be $4.5 million. We estimated the 10-year present value of the rule, at a 7-percent discount rate, to be $3.7 million. The estimated annualized discounted cost of the rule, at a 3-percent discount rate, is $525,800.
The estimated annualized discounted cost of the rule, at a 7-percent discount rate, is $527,800.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

4. Regulatory Benefits There are four qualitative benefits identified for this rule:
Regulatory Benefit 1: Require Tank Vessels Greater than 100 Gross Tons to 300 Gross Tons to Establish and Maintain Evidence of Financial Responsibility statutory requirement.
Regulatory Benefit 2: Require additional information from the COFR
Operator and guarantor discretionary requirement.
15 See
footnote 8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:06 Nov 30, 2021

Jkt 256001

Regulatory Benefit 3: Conform Regulations to Current Practice discretionary requirement.
Regulatory Benefit 4: Removal of 33
CFR part 135 and subpart D of 33 CFR
part 153 discretionary requirement.
Discussion of Regulatory Benefit 1
Oil pollution removal costs and damages for incidents have substantially increased since 1990, even for relatively small-sized discharges. When there is no evidence of financial responsibility, it becomes more likely that the OSLTF
will have to pay for at least some of the costs resulting from the incident.16
When vessels have COFRs, the incident cost amount paid by the responsible party is higher than for vessels that do not have COFRs. This rule adds tank vessels greater than 100 gross tons but less than or equal to 300 gross tons to the vessels that are already required to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility.
Of the 10,000 incidents sampled from the Coast Guards CIMS database during the 1990 to 2020 period, 4.99 percent were COFRed vessels and 30.27 percent were non-COFRed vessels.17 Coast Guard CIMS data show that the Coast Guard recovers 88.64 percent of costs when a vessel was COFRed, and only 17.45 percent of costs when it was not COFRed.
The requirement ensures that the costs are internalized because parties responsible for oil spills are more fully responsible for moving from less than 13 to nearly 100 percent paying for the oil pollution removal costs and damages and help correct this market failure.18
Increased recovered cost rates shift the risk and actual costs from the OSLTF to the polluting responsible party.
Discussion of Regulatory Benefit 2
Reporting of Gross Tonnage Measurement Systems Used and Submission of copy of Tonnage Certifying Document, upon request:
COFR Operators must submit a copy of the tonnage certifying document upon request.
Providing this additional information with respect to gross tonnage allows the Coast Guard to determine more effectively the limit of liability and applicable amounts of financial 16 Lawrence I. Kiern, Liability, Compensation, and Financial Responsibility Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A review of the Second Decade. 36 Tulane Maritime Law Journal. 2324
2011.
17 The remaining 64.74 percent of incidents were either facility incidents or incidents where the Coast Guard could not identify the source.
18 See OMB Circular A4, page 4 dated September 17, 2003 for a short discussion on market failures and externalities such as environmental problems.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

responsibility for the incident. In some cases, vessels have tonnage determined under more than one measurement system, depending on a variety of factors, including the vessels flag, length, voyage type, keel laid, or substantial alteration date, and whether it is self-propelled. This has caused confusion with respect to which measurement system to use to determine the limit of liability and amount of financial responsibility.
Regardless of the tonnage reported on the Application, the tonnage certifying document governs the required evidence of financial responsibility and the limit of liability at the time of the incident except when the responsible parties or guarantors knew or should have known that the tonnage certificate information was incorrect. Using the tonnage certifying document provides the following benefits: 1 It ensures that the Coast Guard has the most accurate tonnage measurements; 2 it provides the method used to determine tonnage, as well as the tonnage amount; 3 it provides information for foreign flagged vessels that is oftentimes difficult to obtain; and 4 without the applicable tonnage certifying document, if an incident occurred, a re-measurement of tonnage could alter the already determined financial responsibility and limit of liability.
Electronic submissions: The rule allows COFR Operators, guarantors, and agents for service of process to submit signed scanned images, emails, or faxes instead of hard copy signed-in-ink originals. The Coast Guard receives approximately ten of the CG5586 forms by mail annually. Allowing electronic submissions creates minimal cost savings; however, it provides increased flexibility to COFR Operators, and enhances Coast Guards recordkeeping goals. This works towards the OMBs goal to maximize the use of electronic technology for collection of information from the public, demonstrated in OMB
memorandum M1921.
Reporting of reason for termination of guaranty by guarantor: The rule requires the guarantor to include the reason for termination, if known, with the notification for termination of the guaranty. This information provides the Coast Guard with new information about the COFR Operator in the event there is an incident.
Reporting vessel name change and increased reporting on location of vessel when there is a change in ownership on date of change: The rule ensures that the Coast Guard has the most current information when initially issuing a COFRespecially concerning vessels that, over time, become derelict while in
E:FRFM01DER1.SGM

01DER1