# Marine Vapor Control Systems > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-15808 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** July 16, 2013 - **Citation:** 78 FR 42596 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 154, 155, and 156 46 CFR Parts 35 and 39 [USCG-1999-5150] RIN 1625-AB37 Marine Vapor Control Systems AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising existing safety regulations for facility and vessel vapor control systems (VCSs) to promote maritime safety and marine environmental protection. The revisions promote safe VCS operation in an expanded range of activities now subject to current Federal and State environmental requirements, reflect industry advances in VCS technology, and codify the standards for the design and operation of a VCS at tank barge cleaning facilities. They increase operational safety by regulating the design, installation, and use of VCSs, but they do not require anyone to install or use VCSs. DATES: This final rule is effective August 15, 2013, except as additional collection of information requirements that appear in several regulations added or revised by this rule and which have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may not be enforced by the Coast Guard pending OMB approval which, if granted, will be noted by the Coast Guard in a subsequent Federal Register document. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 15, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-1999-5150 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov , inserting USCG-1999-5150 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Jodi Min, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1418, email Jodi.J.Min@uscg.mil . If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History, Basis, and Purpose III. Background IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations API American Petroleum Institute ASTM ASTM International CAA 90 U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CE Certifying entity CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee DHS Department of Homeland Security EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IED Inerting, enriching, or diluting MOCC Minimum oxygen concentration for combustion MSC Coast Guard Marine Safety Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFPA National Fire Protection Association NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget PIC Person-in-charge SBA Small Business Administration TBCF Tank barge cleaning facility UL Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. USCG United States Coast Guard VCS Vapor control system VOC Volatile organic compound II. Regulatory History, Basis, and Purpose The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject in the Federal Register , 75 FR 65152 (Oct. 21, 2010). The legal basis for this final rule is 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2), 33 U.S.C. 1231, and 46 U.S.C. 3703. Under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2), enacted as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA 90), the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating must regulate the safety of equipment and operations used to control vapor emissions. Under 33 U.S.C. 1231, the Secretary may issue regulations to implement port and waterways safety requirements, among which are the requirements in 33 U.S.C. 1225 to act as necessary to prevent damage to land and structures on or along U.S. navigable waters and to protect these navigable waters and their resources. Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, the Secretary must regulate vessels and their liquid bulk dangerous cargo operations to protect life, property, and the marine environment against the risk of casualty or accident involving those operations. The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated this authority under these statutes to the Coast Guard. Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(70), (86), and (92.b). The purpose of this rule is to revise our marine vapor control system (VCS) regulations to promote safe VCS operation in an expanded range of activities now subject to current Federal and State environmental requirements, to reflect industry advancements in VCS technology, and to codify the standards for the design and operation of a VCS at tank barge cleaning facilities (TBCFs). These revisions are intended to increase operational safety and marine environmental protection by regulating the design, installation, and use of VCSs, but they do not require anyone to install or use VCSs. III. Background This final rule amends 1990 Coast Guard regulations for the safety of facilities and vessels that voluntarily engage in vapor control activities, or that do so in compliance with regulatory requirements imposed by the Federal Government or by the States. The Coast Guard regulations themselves do not require any facility or vessel to control vapor or be equipped with a VCS, nor do they require a vessel to take away vapor from facilities. During marine tank vessel loading and other operations, the liquid loaded into a cargo tank displaces vapors within the tank. Vapors are also generated because of vapor growth from liquid evaporation. The emitted vapors of certain cargoes contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other air pollutants. CAA 90 requires that these vapors be controlled in air quality non-attainment areas. Under CAA 90, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues national standards for control of VOCs and other air pollutants emitted during marine tank vessel operations. 40 CFR 63.560- 63.568. CAA 90 also authorizes Federal and State regulations to set vapor emission standards and to require that marine terminals and tank vessels be equipped with VCSs. These systems are used to collect and process VOCs and other air pollutants emitted during loading and other operations of marine tank vessels. Today, VCS design and technology are more advanced than they were in 1990, and VCSs control more types of vapor than the crude oil, gasoline blend, or benzene vapors to which they were limited in 1990, and the EPA and States now permit or require the control of vapor emissions from many other cargoes. See current EPA regulations in 40 CFR subpart Y, 40 CFR 63.560-63.568. In addition, EPA regulations now require marine tank vessels operating at major terminals that control VOC vapors to be vapor-tight and equipped with vapor collection systems. 40 CFR 63.562. Current Coast Guard practice is to accommodate these design and technology improvements by using the exemption and equivalency determination provisions of 33 CFR 154.108 and 46 CFR 30.15-1 to approve individual applications by VCS owners or designers who can show that their improvements provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by our regulations. Reliance on individual exemptions or equivalency determinations involves extra risk for VCS owners and designers, and extra review time for the Coast Guard. This rulemaking will reduce the need for individual exemptions and equivalency determinations, and therefore reduce Coast Guard administrative work, by updating our regulations to reflect more recent VCS design and technology. This is consistent with the principles of retrospective review outlined in section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 18, 2011). For cargo types and tank barge cleaning facility VCS applications that have emerged since 1990, we have provided safety guidance in the form of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 1-96 (included in our docket), developed in close consultation with the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), a Coast Guard advisory committee that operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. However, safety guidance is not legally binding on industry, and reliance on exemption and equivalency reviews involves extra risk for VCS owners and designers and extra review time for the Coast Guard. Therefore, our goal has been to update our regulations to apply in a wider range of circumstances, and at the same time to eliminate a risk for industry and an administrative burden for ourselves. Our new regulations: • Reflect the expanded number and scope of Federal and State regulations for VCSs since 1990; • Reflect advances in VCS technology and operational practices since 1990, particularly in vapor-balancing operations, cargo line clearing operations, and multi-breasted tandem barge-loading operations; • Incorporate safety guidance and reflect VCS regulatory exemptions and equivalency approvals; • Provide new regulations for cargoes and operations, such as TBCFs, that have become subject to Federal or State regulatory expansion since 1990; • Provide for periodic operational reviews to ensure that VCSs are properly maintained and operated after they are certified; • Provide an alternate test program for analyzers and pressure sensors, in addition to existing 24-hour pre-transfer/cleaning instrument testing requirements, to provide greater regulatory flexibility; • Require certifying entities (CEs) to be operated by currently licensed professional engineers to ensure that certification is conducted by properly qualified professionals, and clarify the role of the CE in VCS design, installation, and hazard reviews; • Remove 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix B, which provides specifications for flame arresters and requires flame arresters to meet third-party standards, because of apparent lack of public demand for these devices; • Attempt to achieve greater clarity through the use of tabular presentation; • Update industry standards that are incorporated by reference into our regulatory requirements; • Phase in requirements for existing VCSs to moderate the economic impact of new requirements for those VCSs; • Make conforming changes in regulations other than 33 CFR Part 154, Subpart E and 46 CFR Part 39; and • Make nonsubstantive changes in the wording or style of existing regulations, either to improve their clarity or to align them with current Federal regulatory style guidance. IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes Except as noted in the following discussion, we are adopting as final all the changes we proposed in our 2010 NPRM. We received comments on our NPRM from 15 individuals or entities. One commenter submitted two separate comments. We heard from one person whose affiliation was not disclosed, five engineering firms, seven companies that operate equipment or facilities that would be regulated under the proposed rule, and two industry associations. Overall, the comments were of very high quality and specificity, and on engineering questions especially, they were very detailed and difficult to summarize for purposes of this discussion. However, in most cases the comments provided valuable information that resulted in our revising regulatory text to take that information into account. In many cases, commenters offered to provide more information about their concerns and we followed up with them in telephone conversations. Where those follow-ups led to modifications of the regulatory text, we mention this in Table 1 of this preamble. Table 1 sets out all the substantive changes we have made in this final rule to the NPRM's proposed regulatory text and indicates whether a change was made in response to a public comment. It excludes minor non-substantive changes we made, on our own, to clarify some of the NPRM's wording. Where we received a comment on the NPRM regulatory text, Table 1 indicates what each commenter had to say about that section or topic. Commenter numbers (“Commenter 4,” “Commenter 5,” etc.) refer to the docket number assigned to a set of comments by the regulations.gov staff; comments from “Commenter 4,” for example, can be found in regulations.gov as docket number USCG-1999-5150-0004. 1 When we made a substantive change on our own and without the prompting of a public comment, an “n/a” (not applicable) appears in the “Comment” column. 1 The first commenter is “Commenter 3,” docket numbers USCG-1999-5150-001 and -002 having been assigned to the NPRM and supporting analysis. Commenter 3 and Commenter 9 are the same person. Table 1—Discussion of Comments and Changes Topic Comment Coast Guard response or action General Commenters 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12 expressed general satisfaction with our proposals We acknowledge this comment. More information Commenters 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 asked to obtain or provide additional detailed information about technical aspects of the NPRM In many cases, we followed up with these commenters, and this table indicates where the follow-up contact had a bearing on this final rule. The docket contains memoranda of two such follow-ups. Phasing-in and grandfathering Commenters 7, 10, and 12 approved of our phasing in new requirements and asked us to clarify whether existing exemption and equivalency approvals will continue in force We confirm that existing VCS exemptions, equivalencies, clarifications, and exceptions will continue to be honored. Tank barge cleaning facilities (TBCFs) Commenters 11, 12, and 13 asked us to recognize factors that are unique to TBCFs We agree and reviewed the NPRM with this in mind. We have made some adjustments in our TBCF requirements as a result. Costs Commenter 5 asked us to recognize that engineering costs during dry runs and witnessed wet loads should take into account the time spent waiting for items to be corrected and for the vessel to dock and prepare for loading We have adjusted the cost estimates for certifications and recertifications to reflect labor necessary for dry runs and the witnessing of wet loads. 33 CFR part 154 (references in the “Topic” column are to sections as they appeared in the NPRM, and brackets are used to identify where the provision appears in this final rule) 106(d)(6) n/a We substituted the latest available (2007) reapproval of ASTM International (ASTM) 1273-91 for the 1996 reapproval. 106(g)(2), (g)(3). Commenter 4 asked why we incorporate two older versions of the same standard in 33 CFR We substituted the latest available (2011) edition for the 2002 edition in 154.106(g)(3). The incorporation of an older edition of the standard in 154.106(g)(2) is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 310(b)(1)(ii) Commenter 5 said we should clarify our use of “balances” in this paragraph We changed “balances vapor” to “balances or transfers vapor” to cover 154.2000(d) and (e). 500 Commenters 12, 13, and 18 asked us to revise the substance of this section As noted in the NPRM, the changes in this section were intended only to conform its style to current requirements for incorporation by reference. Substantive changes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the commenters' suggestions are noted for possible regulatory action in the future. 740(i) n/a We substituted the text “33 CFR 154 2020 through 2025” for “33 CFR 154.2023,” because all those new sections are derived from existing 154.804, not just 154.2023. 2000(b) Commenters 4, 5, 7, and 8 asked for clarification of this paragraph. One of Commenter 5's questions required follow-up We agree that this language requires clarification and have revised it accordingly. After following up with Commenter 5, who said that recertification is necessary only every 5 years, not 3, we clarified that he referred to operational reviews, and because we agree with the comment in that context, we have amended 154.2021(a) accordingly. We also added a sentence to confirm the ongoing validity of existing certifications, approvals of alternatives, and grants of exemption, in accordance with whatever terms they impose. 2000(e) Commenter 5 pointed out that transfer of vapors from a facility to a marine vessel that is not offloading is difficult unless the vessel is under a hard vacuum or is a pressure vessel We acknowledge this and, although no change in the wording of this paragraph is needed, this is a factor we would take into account in reviewing requests for approval. 2001—Diluting Commenter 5 said the diluting gas must also be non-reactive We agree and revised this definition accordingly. 2001—Existing VCS Commenter 7 said the definition should apply not only to a complete VCS, but to a portion of a VCS We infer that this commenter's concern is with a marine vapor collection system connecting to a facility's main VCS. However, when a system is certified, it is certified as a VCS, not a portion of VCS. A vapor collection system with a facility main vapor processing unit is still a VCS, except that the portion after the connection point is not required to be certified. To address this concern, we added “a marine vapor collection system” in addition to “a marine VCS” in 154.2111(a). We also revised this definition to clarify that it applies to existing TBCF VCSs. 2001—Facility main VCS Commenter 8 said we should replace “refinery” with “facility” to show the definition is not limited to refineries We agree and revised this definition accordingly. 2001—Flame arrester Commenter 4 said this definition should include Factory Mutual Research-approved arresters, which we have previously accepted on an exemption basis The Factory Mutual Research test procedure has been approved under specific circumstances and on an exemption basis, but as a regulatory standard it would not be adequate by itself because it lacks significant details that are covered by the ASTM and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards. 2001—Inerted [now “Inert condition or inerted”] Commenter 14 said we should change this to “inert condition” which more clearly separates the term from the operation of inerting We agree and revised this definition accordingly. 2001—Inerting or padding or purging [now “Inerting,” “Padding,” and “Purging”] Commenters 4 and 14 said this definition needs revision. Purging usually means reducing hydrocarbon or other vapor concentrations by introducing air or inert gas, not lowering oxygen content by introducing an inert gas We agree and replaced this definition with separate and revised definitions for inerting, padding, and purging. 2001—Line clearing or pigging [now “Line clearing” and “Pigging”] Commenter 14 said we should break this into separate definitions because some lines are cleared without the use of pigs We agree and replaced this with separate definitions. 2001—Padded or partially inerted [now “Padding” and “Partially inerted”] Commenter 14 said we should break this into separate definitions; they are not interchangeable We agree and replaced this with separate definitions. 2010(g) Commenter 15 said that because it typically takes about a year to be certified as a professional engineer, compliance with this paragraph should have a 1-year phase-in; and asked us to clarify that a CE can meet this requirement if the person-in-charge (PIC) is a licensed professional engineer in any one U.S. state or territory, and need not be licensed in all states where the CE does business We agree and revised this provision accordingly. 2011 Commenter 10 asked whether a class society can be a CE if it otherwise complies with this section Yes. A class society can be a CE provided that it meets the CE qualifications of 154.2010 and is accepted by the Commandant per 154.2011. 2011(e) Commenter 9 said this should be modified to prevent a CE from recertifying or performing operational reviews on systems where the CE had operational or design input. Without referring to this section, Commenter 17 asked us to clarify whether a CE that was responsible for the VCS design may recertify a unit or perform an operational review after its initial certification We agree with Commenter 9 and added new paragraph 154.2011(f) and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. The clarification that Commenter 17 sought is provided by this paragraph (e), which makes it clear that a CE that was responsible for designing a VCS may not recertify or perform operational reviews on that VCS. 2011(e)(1) Commenter 4 said that prohibiting a CE from “performing calculations” is overly broad and restrictive We followed up with this commenter and confirmed that by revising this paragraph to specify “system design calculations,” we would meet his concern. 2011(f) n/a We added text per comment on 154.2011(e). 2020(b) Commenter 10 asked us to confirm that we will continue to recognize existing approvals and that recertification will be required only for VCSs that entered operation after July 23, 1990, and then only if the VCS meets one of the five subparagraphs We confirm. 2020(b)(1) Commenter 16 said TBCFs should undergo a single review, not a separate review for each vapor the TBCF controls The TBCF should be reviewed for each new chemical it handles and can, at its option, either recertify all its chemicals at one time or recertify only for the new chemical. 2020(b)(4) Commenters 13 and 18 said that “multi-breasted loading” is not a barge industry term We acknowledge that several terms are used within the industry, but our 154.2001 definition of “multi-breasted loading” is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all of the suggested terms. 2020(b)(5), (d)(5) n/a Changed references to cargo line clearance systems so that they clarify their applicability only to those systems that use pigging. 2020(c) Commenter 11 said this should not apply to TBCFs because the TBCF only extracts liquid and vapors from the vessel and transfers nothing to the vessel; Commenters 13 and 18 proposed revisions for the paragraph to clarify this Commenter 11 correctly infers that the paragraph does not apply to TBCFs, and we revised the paragraph in line with the suggestions made by Commenters 13 and 18. 2020(d) Commenter 4 asked us to revise this paragraph's reference to suggested guidance We revised this paragraph by restating information that appears as a “Note” to existing 154.804(d). 2020(e)(4) n/a We added this paragraph to emphasize that this section supplements and does not negate the recordkeeping requirements of 154.740. 2021 Commenter 4 agrees we should require regular operational reviews We acknowledge this comment. 2021(a) Commenters 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18 asked us to lengthen the interval between required operational reviews from 3 years to 5 years due to cost. Some of these commenters said operational reviews should only be needed when major changes are made We do not agree that operational reviews are needed only after major changes. Major changes should be the subject of a VCS recertification. Periodic operational review is routine. We are lengthening the interval between operational reviews to 5 years, as requested, and also in response to the comment on 154.2000(b). 2022 [now 2022 through 2024] Commenter 4 pointed out several areas where the proposed section failed to clarify adequately between requirements for certification, recertification, and operational review We followed up with Commenter 4 and have extensively revised these provisions in line with his comments. We have simplified language and divided NPRM 154.2022 into separate final rule sections 154.2022 through 154.2024, each of which covers certification, recertification, or operational review. The following chart shows where provisions of 154.2022, as it appeared in the NPRM, have been placed in this final rule. NPRM section 154.2022 Final rule (a)(1) 2022(a) (a)(2) 2022(d) (a)(3) 2022(b) (a)(4) 2022(c) (a)(5) 2023 (a)(6) 2022(d), 2023 (a)(7) 2022(e) (a)(8) 2022(f) (a)(9) 2022(g) (b) introduction 2024 (b)(1) 2024(a) (b)(2) 2024(e) (b)(3) 2024(g) (c) introduction 2022(d) (c)(1) 2022(d)(2) (c)(2) 2022(d)(6) (c)(3) 2022(d)(7) (c)(4) 2022(d)(8) (c)(5) 2022(d)(10) (c)(6) 2022(d)(10) (c)(7) 2022(d)(1) (c)(8) 2022(d)(4) (c)(9) 2022(h) (c)(10) 2022(d)(13) (d)(1) 2022(c)(1) (d)(2) 2022(c)(2) (d)(3) 2022(c)(3) (d)(4) 2022(c)(4) (d)(5) 2022(c)(5) (e) introduction 2022(d), 2023 (e)(1) 2022(d)(5) (e)(2) 2022(d)(9) (e)(3) 2022(d)(12) (e)(4) 2022(d)(11) (e)(5) 2022(d)(3) (e)(6) 2022(d)(14) (e)(7) 2022(g), 2023 (f)(1) 2022(e)(1) (f)(2) 2022(e)(2) (f)(3) 2022(e)(3) (f)(4) 2022(e)(4) Topic Comment Coast Guard response or action 2022(a)(5) [now 2023(b)] n/a We added the last two sentences to provide better guidance for the recertification of older VCSs. 2022(b) [now 2024] Commenters 3, 4, and 14 asked us to add additional factors for operational review We agree and added new 154.2024(b) through (d) and 154.2024(f). In NPRM section 154.2024(b)(2), now 154.2024(e), we added marking and labeling as items to be verified. 2022(d)(2) [now (c)(2)] Commenter 4 asked why we would require the maximum vacuum to be maintained during testing of the vacuum breaker We revised the paragraph to clarify that the goal of the vacuum breaker testing is to ensure that the maximum vacuum cannot be exceeded instead of maintaining the maximum vacuum at one level. 2022(e) [now(d) and, for added cargoes, 2023] Commenter 16 said TBCFs should undergo a single review, not a separate review for each vapor the TBCF controls The TBCF should be reviewed for each new chemical it handles and can, at its option, either recertify all its chemicals at one time or recertify only for the new chemical. 2022(e)(3) [now (d)(12] Commenter 4 asked us to clarify this provision After a follow-up with this commenter, we clarified this provision. [NEW 2022(i)] n/a We added this paragraph to ensure the VCS training program is reviewed for compliance with 154.2030 and 154.2031. This change responds to Commenter 4's comment on 154.2030 and 154.2031. 2023 [now 2025] n/a We redesignated this section in light of the subdivision of NPRM section 154.2022 into three sections. 2030, 2031 Commenter 4 asked if the CE is supposed to check the facility's compliance with section 2030. Commenter 10 asked if a facility can self-certify compliance or must it show other documentation that training requirements have been met. Commenter 11 said section 2030 should not apply to TBCFs. Commenter 12 said that facilities should document the training of their PICs and that, because of fragmentation in the TBCF industry, it may make sense to develop a standardized training program In response to these comments, we added 154.2022(i) to require a CE to review the facility's VCS training program for compliance with sections 154.2030 and 154.2031. We also added 154.2030(c) to specify that facility personnel must meet the designation and qualification requirements of 154.710, and that training documentation must be maintained at the facility in accordance to 154.740(b). We added language to these sections to clarify that 154.2030 is for transfer facilities and 154.2031 is for TBCFs. At this time, we have no plan to develop a standardized training program. Instead, we will rely on industry to develop its own training programs that comply with our regulatory requirements. 2100(f) Commenter 4 said this requirement is essential We acknowledge this comment. 2100(h)(2) Commenter 14 said we should add “must be fitted” to improve clarity We agree and revised this provision accordingly. 2100(k) n/a We added “equipment” to this paragraph and specified valves, flanges, and fittings to ensure that the “suitability” requirement extends to equipment that is needed for proper functioning of the VCS but that may not be considered a VCS “component.” 2101(a)(6) Commenter 4 said we should allow a valve to be fire safe in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) 607, which is more rigorous than 46 CFR 56.20-15 and more familiar to industry 46 CFR 56.20-15 was amended in 2008 to incorporate API 607 by reference. 2101(e) Commenters 4 and 14 said that additional safeguards are needed We agree and revised this paragraph to make it clear that it prohibits contact with metal either on the facility or on the vessel, and that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent unintentional electrical bypassing. 2101(g) Commenters 5, 13, and 18 expressed concerns about the installation, inspection, and testing of insulating flanges and hoses We added language to this paragraph to address the commenters' concerns. 2101(h) Commenter 4 said we should change “mechanism” to “means” so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based on negative differential pressure across the detonation arrester (currently used by most facilities) We agree and revised the provision accordingly. [NEW 2101(i)] n/a We added this paragraph to make it clear that electrical bonding must comply with 46 CFR 35.35-5. 2102 introductory paragraph Commenter 4 said we should clarify by inserting “and not loading cargo on the vessel” after “while inerting the cargo tanks” We agree and revised this provision accordingly. We also added “padding or purging” after “inerting” to reflect the separation of these three definitions in section 2001. 2102(a) Commenter 4 asked if this requirement is necessary, because he has not seen a barge with a 120-volt system We think it is necessary because 46 CFR 39.2009(a)(1)(iii) allows a tank barge to have a liquid overfill protection system that receives power from a facility and is fitted with a shore tie cable and a 120-volt, 20-ampere explosion-proof plug. 2102(a)(2) n/a We corrected erroneous references in the NPRM to the relevant sections of the incorporated industry standard. 2102(b) Commenter 5 asked us to review this provision with respect to grounding of the shielded wire in the overfill system We reviewed this provision in light of the comment but concluded no changes are needed. However, we revised 46 CFR 35.35-5 to address vessel/shore electrical bonding cable or wire. 2103(a) Commenter 3 said we should rewrite this provision to take variability of vapor pressure into account, and Commenter 5 said we should substitute his recommended formula for our formula, which is too complicated and inaccurate for estimating vapor growth We revised this provision in accordance with the suggestions of Commenter 3. Commenter 5's formula is valid but, we think, more complicated than ours, which is more generally adaptable for VCS design. 2103(f) Commenter 4 said that if this paragraph requires cargo loading to be shutdown on high-high pressure, while allowing the VCS to continue to receive vapors, it is a good change. Commenter 5 raised concerns about accidents that could result from activation of a shutdown system Commenter 4 correctly interpreted this paragraph. The equipment and procedures we require should not result in the type of shutdown that concerns Commenter 5. Paragraph (d) of this section requires activating an alarm meeting 154.2100(e), which requires audible and visible alarm. Paragraph (f) of 154.2100 requires only activating the emergency liquid cargo shutdown system required by 154.550, which is for liquid loading. 2103(j)(1) Commenter 3 said we should revise this provision to account for pressure changes at different altitudes We agree and revised this provision accordingly. 2103(k) Commenter 14 said we should define “extensive length” more clearly We cannot provide a clearer and more specific definition that would be workable, but we added a reference to undersea piping as an example of extensive length. 2103(n), introductory paragraph n/a We expanded the reference to “inerting,” in accordance with the commenter-suggested change in section 2001 definitions. 2103(n)(3) Commenter 5 said we should revise this provision so that the placement of the pressure sensors always allows for sensing the pressure We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2104 n/a We changed references in this section from cargo line clearance to pigging, in accordance with the commenter-suggested change in section 2001 definitions. We also specified that the compressed gas we refer to is inert, and redesignated paragraphs. 2104(c) [now (a)(3)] Commenter 5 said we should require the automatic shutoff valve to close within 2 seconds because the marine vessel can be over-pressurized in 4 seconds while pigging We revised this provision to specify that it refers to a fast-action automatic shutoff valve like a solenoid valve. We think specifying 2 seconds would be too restrictive. 2104(d) [now (a)(4)] Commenter 5 said a valve position sensor on the manual cargo bloc valve or the automatic cargo block valve would serve the same purpose as the interlock we proposed We agree, but an interlock is still needed for the valve position sensor. 2104(e) [now (a)(5)] Commenter 5 said the means to detect the pig arrival must be an automatic detection device as well as specifically trained personnel to operate a manual quick closing valve We agree and revised this provision accordingly. Personnel training is covered in sections 154.2030(a)(6) and 154.2150(j)(2). [NEW 2104(b)] n/a We added this provision to take account of those cargo lines that are cleared without pigging, in response to commenter-suggested change in section 2001 definitions. 2105(a)(1), (b)(1), (f)(1) Commenter 5 said a 6-meter requirement would require nearly all gas injecting facilities to rework vapor piping and perhaps the detonation arrester size We disagree with this comment for 154.2105(a)(1). The 6-meter requirement is not new—see current 154.820(a)(2). New 154.2105(a)(1) combines current 154.820(a)(1), 154.820(a)(2), and 154.820(a)(3), and new 154.2105(a)(1) and 154.2105(a)(2) allow for installation of a detonation arrester as an alternative, as recommended by CTAC. We agree with this comment for 154.2105(b)(1), which requires meeting 154.2105(a)(1) and having a detonation arrester installed. We revised 154.2105(b)(1) and 154.2105(f)(1) to allow the oxygen analyzer to be located 4 meters downstream of the detonation arrester. 2105(a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e), (f)(1), (g)(1), (h)(1) Commenter 4 said we should base distance on a number of diameters of the vapor line instead of a fixed 18 meters. Commenters 11, 13, and 18 also suggested alternatives to the 18 meter distance, for example requiring items to be placed as close as practicable, as is common industry practice Most dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests approved have been for 18 meters or less. The 18 meters distance is less restrictive than Commenter 4's proposed alternative. An alternative “place items as close as practicable” standard would be too subjective to provide good guidance and would be hard to enforce. We have clarified these provisions by specifying that the vapor piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock detonation arrester must be protected from any possible internal and external ignition source. 2105(d)(2) Commenter 18 said this provision is too restrictive and not always effective We disagree. New 154.2105(d)(2) is the same requirement imposed by current 154.820(d)(2), and CTAC recommended against any relaxation of that requirement. 2105(f), (g), (h) Commenter 5 said that for inerted, partially inerted, or combination cargoes, we should require the facility to use the lowest minimum oxygen concentration for combustion (MOCC) of all cargoes being transferred Section 154.2105(f) allows an inerting, enriching, or diluting system meeting 154.2107 as an option. Sections 154.2107(k)(3), 154.2107(n), and 154.2107(o)(1) already specify the use of either the cargo's MOCC or the enriching gas's MOCC, whichever is lower. Alternatively, the mixture's MOCC may be used. 2105(h) Commenter 3 asked if (h)(3) is an alternative only to (h)(2) or to (h)(1) and (h)(2) combined The former. We inserted “either” and combined 154.2105(h)(2) and 154.2105(h)(3) to make this clearer. 2105(j)(2) [now (j)(2) and (j)(3)] Commenter 5 said we should insert “end-of-line” before “flame arrester,” because an in-line flame arrester may not be effective We agree and revised 154.2105(j)(2) and new 154.2105(j)(3) accordingly. 2105(j)(2)(i) [now (j)(3)(i)] Commenter 4 said that a flame arrester meeting ASTM F-1273 does not need a proving device, and Commenter 5 proposed revisions to this provision We agree and split 154.2105(j)(2) into 154.2105(j)(2) and 154.2105(j)(3) and revised this paragraph accordingly. 2105(j)(2)(ii) [now (j)(3)(ii)] Commenter 5 proposed a revision to this paragraph We agree and revised this paragraph accordingly. former 2106(a) Commenters 3, 4, and 14 raised questions about the meaning of this provision We removed this paragraph as it appeared in the NPRM because it was confusing. As we think was clear from the NPRM's 154.2106(b) [now 154.2106(a)], the questions raised by these comments should be answered by guidelines outlined in the arrester manufacturer's Coast Guard acceptance letter. 2106(c) [now (b)] Commenters 3 and 14 asked if the reference is to components upstream of the detonation arresters, downstream, or both This paragraph is intended to apply on either side of the detonation arrester, because there may be a potential ignition source on either side; we revised it to make that clearer. 2107 Commenter 13 said we should apply gas inerting and enriching requirements only to loading facilities and not to TBCFs CTAC recommended no relaxation of this general requirement, which is taken from NVIC 1-96. We acknowledge that under some conditions and with suitable alternative arrangements (see 154.107 and 154.108 with respect to alternatives and exemptions), it may not be necessary to apply it to all TBCFs. 2107(a) Commenter 5 proposed a clarifying revision We agree and changed “vapor collection line” to “vapor collection system” and specified “two system volume exchanges” accordingly. 2107(b) Commenters 4, 5, 13, and 18 suggested various alternatives for the 22 meter provision of this paragraph, with Commenter 4 suggesting a specific pipe-diameter standard, and Commenter 18 saying we need to provide flexibility for existing methods of operation like systems equipped with detonation arresters at the facility vapor connection and vapor destruction unit With respect to Commenter 18, we think the regulations as drafted provide the necessary flexibility. The gas injection point should be after the dock detonation arrester, and this paragraph provides that while also allowing the use of 154.2105(a), which requires an analyzer at 6 meters from the facility vapor connection, as an exception. With respect to these comments in general, this provision is in line with currently approved exemptions and is less restrictive than the pipe-diameter standard suggested by Commenter 4. We have clarified these provisions by specifying that the vapor piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock detonation arrester must be protected from any possible internal and external ignition source. 2107(b) n/a In addition to the changes made in this paragraph to respond to Commenters 4, 5, 13, and 18, we have also clarified the location of the gas injection and mixing arrangement relative to the vapor processing unit or the vapor-moving device, as recommended by CTAC in 1997 to maintain a minimum size of non-flammable vapor slug in the vapor piping (to prevent a flashback from an ignition source). The minimum piping distance is also approximately the difference between the maximum piping length of the arrangement from the facility vapor connection as required by this paragraph and the minimum distance of a vapor destruction unit from any tank vessel berth as required by 154.2109(c). 2107(c)(2) Commenter 4 proposed clarifying what must be “downstream.” We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2107(d) Commenter 18 said we should add calorimeters as approved devices In general, a calorimeter is a device used to measures heat, while what we want analyzed is oxygen or hydrocarbon concentrations. A facility wishing to use a calorimeter can submit an alternative or exemption request with information for review. 2107(d)(2), (d)(4), (d)(6) Commenters 4 and 14 asked us to define what we mean by “majority pair” The “majority pair” requirement is from NVIC 1-96, Enclosure (1), Part A. Sec 9, and we have used “voting system” language from a draft of that NVIC to revise our text for clarity. 2107(h)(3), (i)(3), (j)(2), (k)(2)(ii), (l)(3), (m)(4) Commenter 4 said the vapor moving device should not be shut down for high-high oxygen or low-low hydrocarbons, and Commenters 5 and 14 proposed revisions to these paragraphs We agree with the changes offered by Commenters 5 and 14 and deleted “shut down any vapor moving device” accordingly. With respect to Commenter 4, a vapor mover is considered an ignition source, but it can continue to operate so that multi-dock operations will not be disrupted and so that the vapor mover can help draw more inerting, enriching, or diluting (IED) gas into the VCS. 2107(o) Commenter 4 proposed allowing an alternative for simultaneously controlling inert and non-inert vapors, where the inerted vapor stream is lowered by 1% from normal levels We followed up with Commenter 4 on this and learned of his interest in a specific vapor, for which an exemption could be the appropriate solution. In general, the more conservative approach of this provision is appropriate. 2109(b)(2)(i) Commenter 4 said that if this requires quick closing valves at the vapor destruction device or where the VCS connects to a facility's main VCS to close on any dock shutdown, it is not necessary In light of this comment, we revised this provision to clarify that it applies only when a condition is detected that requires the closing of the quick-closing stop valves, and not under other VCS shutdown conditions like overpressurization. 2109(b)(2)(iv) Commenter 4 said that quick closing valves should be fire resistant We agree and accordingly specified that the valve must also be a Category A valve as defined in 46 CFR 56.20-15. 2109(b)(3)(i) Commenter 4 said we should substitute “accepted” for “approved” We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2110(a)(1) Commenter 4 asked if the tank high level alarm system and overfill control system are required to have independent level sensing systems We have revised the provision to clarify that these should be independent, like other alarm and shutdown systems. 2110(a)(2) Commenter 4 said we should base distance on a number of diameters of the vapor line (e.g. 40 pipe diameters) instead of setting it at 18 meters, and Commenters 11, 13, and 18 proposed other alternatives to the 18-meter distance, for example, requiring items to be placed as close as practicable, as is common industry practice. Commenter 7 asked if this paragraph merely repeats 2105(a)(2) The 18-meter or less distance has been approved for most dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests, and 18 meters is less restrictive than Commenter 4's proposed alternative. An alternative “place items as close as practicable” standard would be too subjective to provide good guidance and would be hard to enforce. We clarified these provisions by specifying that the vapor piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock detonation arrester must be protected from any possible internal and external ignition source. The two provisions are not duplicative; see the different introductory language in 154.2105(a) and 154.2110(a)(2). 2110(a)(4) Commenter 4 said that there is no need for an oxygen analyzer for vapor balancing of inert cargo systems when loading a vessel We agree and revised this provision so that inert cargo systems can comply with either 154.2105(a)(1) or 154.2110(a)(2). 2110(b)(1) Commenter 4 said we should change “mechanism” to “means,” so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based on negative differential pressure across the detonation arrester (currently used by most facilities) We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2111(a), introductory paragraph n/a We added “a marine vapor collection system” in response to the comment on 154.2001's definition of “existing VCS.” 2111(a)(2) Commenter 4 said that if this requires quick closing valves at the vapor destruction device or where the VCS connects to a facility's main VCS to close on any dock shutdown, it is not necessary We agree with this comment and revised this provision by substitute “a VCS shutdown condition occurs” for “vapor back flow to the marine vapor line is detected” and split 154.(a)(2) into 154.(a)(2) and 154.(a)(2)(i)-(iii). 2111(a)(3) Commenter 4 said we should change “mechanism” to “means,” so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based on negative differential pressure across the detonation arrester (currently used by most facilities) We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2111(c) [now 2111(d)] Commenter 5 asked if this provision would require a facility to get an exemption if it wanted to pass vapors to the dock flare from a truck or railcar loading, and used the flare antiflashback burner part of the marine VCS We do not think an exemption would be necessary. After contacting the commenter and discussing this provision with him, we clarified it by adding a new paragraph 154.2111(d) to allow for sharing a marine vapor destruction unit as an exception to 154.2111(c). 2111(d) n/a We added new paragraph 154.2111(d) in response to Commenter 5's comment on 154.2111(c). 2112(a) Commenter 5 said that after loading is complete, the system that controlled polymerizing vapors must purge/clean the VCS, including hoses or vapor arms, with at least two system-volumes of non-reactive gas or air. This should be a standard procedure for all cargoes so that the VCS is left in a safe condition for any potential maintenance or incompatible cargoes We agree with this comment. However, this is an operational requirement. Incompatible cargoes are addressed in 154.2150(p). For maintenance and other concerns, we added a new 154.2150(q) so that after each transfer operation, the VCS piping and equipment must be purged with at least two system volume exchanges of non-reactive gas or air so the VCS is left in a safe condition. 2112(a)(3) Commenter 4 said we should also require the differential pressure instrument to alarm on high differential pressure across the detonation arrester, to warn of polymerization We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2113 Commenter 18 provided circumstances under which special requirements for alkylene oxides are not needed We agree that special requirements are not needed for pressure cargoes and added language in the introductory paragraph to make that clear. 2113(b) [now 2113(a)(2)] Commenter 13 said that this requirement is unnecessary for safety and will likely have the effect of shutting down some facilities and forcing others to perform expensive retrofits We revised this section to exclude pressure cargoes. In addition, instead of complying with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(b) and is now 154.2113(a)(2), a facility can comply with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(c) and is now 154.2113(b). 2113(c) [now 2113(b)] Commenter 5 said that in addition to the CE, a marine chemist or properly trained third-party surveyor should be allowed to determine if the VCS has been adequately cleaned. Commenter 13 said that this requirement is unnecessary for safety and will likely have the effect of shutting down some facilities and forcing others to perform expensive retrofits We agree with Commenter 5 and have revised this provision accordingly. With respect to Commenter 18, we have revised this section to exclude pressure cargoes. In addition, instead of complying with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(b) and is now 154.2113(a)(2), a facility can comply with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(c) and is now 154.2113(b). 2150(c) Commenter 7 said we should clarify that the required system testing does not extend to shutdown of operating systems that may be serving other portions of the facility The point made by Commenter 7 is in line with the guidance we currently provide to CEs. We do not agree and the regulatory text does not need to be changed in this respect because we are not changing that guidance. 2150(c)(1) Commenter 14 said we had misstated where exceptions to this paragraph are provided. Commenter 7 said electronic testing should be permitted for complying with this paragraph We agree with Commenter 14 and revised this provision accordingly. Commenter 7 already uses electronic testing under existing exemptions that remain in place; it is appropriate for the unique characteristics of Commenter 7's VCS but would not be appropriate for VCSs in general. 2150(c)(4) Commenter 4 said that if this requires testing of the flammability analyzer required by 154.2105(j)(2)(i), the combustible gas indicator used for this application does not usually have the means to check with a sample gas and does not need calibration as often as an oxygen or hydrocarbon analyzer. Commenter 5 said that to properly calibrate an analyzer, a “zero gas” must be used in addition to a span gas After following up with Commenter 4, we agree with his point and with Commenter 5's point, and we revised 154.2150(c)(4) and 154.2150(c)(5) accordingly. 2150(c)(5) n/a We revised this paragraph per the comment on section 154.2150(c)(4). 2150(c)(6) Commenters 4 and 5 said that this provision is impracticable. Commenter 7 said we should modify it so that checking requires only visual checking, not an operational check of the relief devices, which should be allowed annually, consistent with present practice We agree in part with Commenters 4 and 5 and revised this provision to clarify our intent, which is not to conduct technical capacity or lift pressure testing of the valves, but rather to make sure the valve travel is not constrained and that the flame arrester is not damaged. Under an existing exemption suiting the unique characteristics of Commenter 7's VCS, visual-only testing is permitted, but it would be inappropriate for VCSs in general. 2150(f) Commenter 14 asked us to clarify whether this applies upstream or downstream of the facility vapor connection It applies downstream and we clarified this provision accordingly. Note that 154.2103(h) requires pressure sensors to be located in the vapor line between the facility vapor connection and any isolation valve. 2150(g) Commenters 13 and 18 said many facilities lack the ability to make an accurate determination of liquid cargo transfer rates and that therefore we should require instrumentation We agree in part but do not think it is necessary to require instrumentation in this provision. Existing regulations (154.525, 156.120(aa)) require monitoring devices under certain conditions and verification that the initial loading rate and the maximum transfer rate are determined, and provide adequate control of the problem cited by these commenters. 2150(i) Commenters 13 and 18 said we should clarify what is meant by “gas” We agree with these commenters and revised this provision to clarify that a compressed inert gas such as nitrogen can be used to clear cargo lines if a pigging system that meets 154.2104 is provided. 2150(j) n/a We revised this paragraph to take account of those cargo lines that are cleared without pigging, in response to commenter-suggested change in 154.2001 definitions. [New 2150(q)] n/a To address the comment on 154.2112(a), we added this new paragraph. After each transfer operation, the VCS piping and equipment must be purged with at least two-system volume exchanges of non-reactive gas or air so the VCS is left with a safe condition. 2150(q) [now 2150 (r)] n/a We added “or 156.170(i),” to take account of this rule's addition of that alternative to 156.170(g). 2180(b)(4) Commenter 3 said we should revise this to refer to placement at “or near” the sampling probe We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2180(c), (d) Commenter 4 asked what “safety system function tested” means The relevant tests are in 154.2181. We revised these paragraphs to make that clearer. 2180(e)(3), (e)(4) Commenter 4 asked us to clarify these standards We agree and revised these provisions accordingly. 2180(g) n/a We inserted “zero gas” in light of the comment on 154.2150(c)(4). 2181(b), (c), (d), (e) Commenter 7 said that annual calibration should be sufficient We disagree. This section and 154.2180 provide a compliance alternative to the 24-hour pre-transfer or pre-tank cleaning testing of 154.2150 and 154.2250. Also, 156.170(g)(4) requires analyzers to be calibrated either within the previous 2 weeks or within 24 hours prior to operation when the VCS is operated less frequently than once a week. 2181(d)(4)(i) Commenter 4 said that most existing systems inject the span gas at the analyzer box and do not use sample tubing, and asked if those systems would need to be modified We revised this provision to make it clear that we do not intend for those systems to need modification. 2200 Commenter 4 said that because proposed 154.6001(f)(3) references the requirement of proposed 46 CFR 39.2009 to have a connection with the facility for the overfill control system, 154.2200 should require the facility to be able to accept the barge connection if they are using liquid displacement After following up with Commenter 4, we agree and added new 154.2200(b) accordingly. 2200(b) n/a We added this paragraph in response to the comment we received on 154.2200 and on 46 CFR 39.6001(f)(3). 2200(c) [now (d)] Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and enriching requirements for TBCFs We disagree. These IED requirements are from NVIC 1-96 and are based on recommended safety standards developed by CTAC in 1994 and 1995. In 1998, CTAC reviewed NVIC 1-96 and did not recommend eliminating the IED requirement for TBCFs. 2203(c), (d) Commenter 4 asked why we would require correcting for a pressure drop from the cargo tank to the pressure sensor at the gas injection point, when it is more conservative not to correct and correction could allow for a higher alarm set point than 80% of the relief valve set point and a higher shutdown set point than 90% of the relief valve set point We agree and modified 154.2203(d) to clarify that the remotely operated shutoff valve required by 154.2203(c) must be closed when the pressure at the fluid injection connection reaches a corresponding 90% of the lowest setting of any pressure relief valve on the barge. 2203(g) Commenter 18 said that tank barges do not need individual cargo tank pressure sensors because one sensor can detect pressure throughout the barge via the common vapor system We agree and modified this provision to allow for the use of a common vapor sensor as an alternative. 2204 Commenter 18 said we should remove the distance requirement or allow existing facilities to maintain current locations as long as the detonation arrester is located as close as practicable to the facility connection Most dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests approved have been for 18 meters or less. An alternative “place items as close as practicable” standard would be too subjective to provide good guidance and would be hard to enforce. We have clarified this section by specifying that the vapor piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock detonation arrester must be protected from any possible internal and external ignition source. 2204(a)(2), (b)(2), (d)(2) Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and enriching requirements for TBCFs We disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of the commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c). 2250(c)(1) Commenter 4 asked us to clarify our wording about exemptions We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2250(c)(4), (f) Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and enriching requirements for TBCFs We disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of the commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c). However, we revised 154.2250(c)(4) per the comment on 154.2250(c)(5). 2250(c)(5) Commenter 4 said that if this requires testing of the flammability analyzer required by 154.2105(j)(2)(i), the combustible gas indicator used for this application does not usually have the means to check with a sample gas and does not need calibration as often as an oxygen or hydrocarbon analyzer. Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and enriching requirements for TBCFs After following up with Commenter 4, we agree with his point and revised 154.2250(c)(4) and 154.2250(c)(5) accordingly, as we did in 154.2150(c)(4) and 154.2150(c)(5). With respect to Commenter 13's comment, we disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of the commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c). 2250(c)(6) Commenter 5 said that this provision is impracticable We agree in part with Commenter 5 and revised this provision to clarify our intent, which is not to conduct technical capacity or lift pressure testing of the valves, but rather to make sure the valve travel is not constrained and that the flame arrester is not damaged. 2250(d)(5) Commenter 4 asked us to clarify this provision so that the gas-freeing rate may not exceed the maximum allowable rate during—but not before—operations We agree and revised the provision accordingly. 2250(e) Commenter 12 said that annual inspection of detonation arresters may be difficult for some facilities, and asked us to specify whether compliance documentation is required Exemptions may be available to facility operators for whom annual inspection is difficult. We revised 154.2250(e) so that it is worded like 154.2150(q) [now 154.2150(r)] and makes clear how documentation requirements are established. 33 CFR part 156 170(g)(3) n/a We added two more references that need updating to the amendatory instruction for this paragraph. 170(g)(4) n/a We updated the reference to 46 CFR 39.40-3(a) so that it now refers to 46 CFR 39.4003. 170(i) Commenter 8 said that approval by the local Captain of the Port (COTP) is adequate and less burdensome than approval by the Commandant You may propose alternative arrangements under 156.107, but generally the Commandant and not the COTP will have the necessary expertise. 46 CFR part 35 35.35-4 n/a We added this section per the discussion of the comments on 35.35-5. 35.35-5 Commenter 5 said the shielded wire in the overfill system of 33 CFR 154.2102(b) is attached to a ground connection pin which is grounded by the facility but should not be grounded to the marine vessel; this would then comply with the proposed requirement in 46 CFR 35.35-5 for not grounding the marine vessel to the dock. Commenter 11 said the prohibition against using external bonding cables or straps to achieve electrical bonding is unnecessary, and the rule should allow barge-to-dock cable bonding as is the current and safe industry practice. Commenter 13 said we should continue allowing the use of bonding cables between a barge and a dock. Commenter 18 asked us to clarify that this section does not apply to ship-to-barge and barge-to-barge transfers We agree with these commenters and added new 35.35-4 and rewrote this section. Together, the two sections take into account all of these commenters' remarks. 46 CFR part 39 1005(h)(1) n/a In line with the comment on 33 CFR 154.106(g)(3), we revised this paragraph to incorporate the latest available (2011) edition of the National Fire Protection Association's National Electric Code (NFPA 70). 1013(b) Commenter 4 said our proposed language could be interpreted as requiring the vessel VCS to have been operational by July 23, 1990 We agree and revised this provision so that it applies only to VCSs that began operating on or after that date. 1017 Commenter 4 said the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center (MSC) may not be able to review all the vessels that conduct multi-breasted loading operations or gas-freeing or cleaning operations between the publication of the final rule and its effective date Vessels currently conducting multi-breasted loading operations are already approved by MSC and Commandant (CG-ENG-5) and will not need reapproval. Section 39.1001(a)(2) allows a tank barge conducting gas-freeing or cleaning operations to comply at the time of its next inspection but no later than 5 years after the effective date. 1017(b)(1), (b)(2) n/a We revised these paragraphs per the comment on section 39.1017(c). 1017(c) Commenter 18 said existing VCSs should not be required to apply for new approval when the final rule takes effect We agree and revised 39.1017(b)(1) and 39.1017(b)(2) to exclude those already approved by the MSC. 2001(m) Commenter 4 pointed out a miscited reference We agree and changed the citation at the end of the provision. 2007(b)(4) Commenter 4 said we should continue to require checking, or testing, but not inspection We agree and changed “be inspected” to “be verified.” 2009(a)(1)(iii)(B) n/a In line with the comment on 33 CFR 154.106(g)(3), we revised this paragraph to reference provisions in the latest available (2011) edition of NFPA 70. 2009(a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii) Commenters 13 and 18 said this is unattainable because accurate flow rate instrumentation is not available on unmanned barges and some facilities do not have calibrated instrument flow rates available for use during their cargo transfer to vessels We disagree. This is not a new requirement but is the same as appears in 46 CFR 39.20-9(b)(2). Barges and facilities have successfully complied with this requirement since 1990. However, we did correct an erroneous reference in 39.2009(a)(2)(iii): the alarm and shutdown system needs to be activated on the cargo discharging vessel, not the cargo receiving vessel. 2009(b) Commenter 4 pointed out a miscited reference We agree and corrected the citation at the end of this provision. 2011(d) Commenter 4 asked what methods are approved by the Coast Guard for calculating vapor growth We revised this provision to identify where guidance is available for free and to specify that, alternatively, submitters may calculate the vapor growth rate using any recognized standard and following good engineering practice. 2013, introductory paragraph Commenter 4 asked why we would require the pressure sensor to be located as close as practicable to the vessel vapor connection, when it is more accurate to have the sensor located closer to the tanks We do not disagree that the pressure sensing devices could be located at the cargo tanks. However, to prevent over-pressurization of cargo tanks, current prevention guidance includes submittal of pressure drop calculations from the cargo tank to the vapor connection. Pressure drop calculations coupled with the location of the pressure sensing device should be provided such that the operator is made aware of the actual tank pressure and can ensure the safety of the system. With sensors located at the vapor connection additional calculations would not be necessary. 2014(b) Commenter 18 said that annual inspection is not needed for pressure valves; they are already checked frequently and the test lever is sufficient for determining proper operation We disagree. This requirement was recommended by CTAC. Pressure-vacuum valves used with polymerizing cargoes are subject to polymer buildup on the internal structure of the valve which would reduce the flow capacity of the valve. This could cause a potentially dangerous situation should the tank be overpressurized and the valve not be able to handle the required flow rate due to polymer buildup. Annual inspections are already conducted by many operators. 2015 Commenters 13 and 18 asked us to clarify whether multiple pressure indicating devices will be required on tank barges to deal with the multiple cargo tank valves that control cargo transfer on unmanned tank barges Multiple devices are not required. We have revised the section to clarify that a pressure sensing device, not a pressure indicator, is required. A sensor takes the measurement, whereas the indicator provides a visual indication of what that measurement is. Therefore, the indicator should be located at the location from which the cargo can be controlled. For a vessel that does not have a pump room, this would typically be where the cargo pump shutdown controls are located. We have refrained from mandating a specific location because barges come in a wide variety of designs and the current language provides discretion for the vessel owner or operator to place the pressure indicating device in the most practical location. 3001(g) Commenters 13 and 18 asked us to include a requirement for accurate flow rate instrumentation to be provided at facilities and on manned tank vessels The industry standard incorporated by reference in this provision provides the requirement. Subpart 5000 Commenter 4 said it was not clear how to deal with the extra pressure drop from multi-breasted vapor control. The transfer procedures should have the means to determine the additional pressure drop from the inboard vessel's vapor header We currently require calculations for multi-breasted loading that take the additional pressure drop into consideration, and the calculations must be approved by the MSC. We added a new 39.5001(e) to clarify these requirements. 5001(a) Commenters 13 and 18 objected to the proposed language requiring both barges engaged in two barge doubled-up loading to be owned and operated by the same entity, saying this is not relevant to safe tank barge loading or safe use of marine VCSs The proposed language was recommended by CTAC. We acknowledge that some barges can be owned by one company and operated by another company, and have changed “and” to “or” in this provision. Most of the barges currently approved for this operation are owned and operated by the same company. Several are owned by one company but operated by another company. There are specific calculation, equipment, and operational requirements for this operation. 5001(b) Commenters 13 and 18 said that a hose length limitation in 39.5001(b)(3) is not needed and that hoses longer than 25 feet present little additional risk The 25-foot length is standard and, for safety, these hoses should be as short as possible. However, we revised 39.5001(b)(3) to permit use of longer hoses with MSC approval, and we made other (non-substantive) changes in 39.5001(b). [New 5001(e)] We added new 39.5001(e) in response to Commenter 4's comment on subpart 39.5000. 5001(e) [now (f)] Commenters 13 and 18 said that requiring compliance with additional COTP conditions and requiring identification and certification of facilities at which doubled-up cargo transfer loading operations will be conducted is unnecessary, and also that if additional safety precautions are needed, they should be specified in the initial documents Both of these requirements are standard conditions of our current dual barge loading exemption approval letters, and align with CTAC recommendations. We agree that the identification of specific facilities is not necessary and have revised this paragraph to delete that proposed requirement. 6001(c) Commenters 13 and 18 said that complying with the proposed labeling requirement will be costly and difficult, and that it is not needed because stripping lines already are identified in easily accessible barge piping diagrams We disagree. The labeling requirement for individual stripping lines comes from NVIC 1-96, is based on CTAC recommendations, and is important for safety reasons because it prevents confusion with cargo lines. Facilities can use stencils and spread-paint the lines. 6001(f)(1) Commenter 4 asked for clarification of this provision We have revised this provision to explain that “flanged flexible hoses” are “flexible hoses flanged to a connection.” This is provided as an alternative to a fixed vapor header or fixed liquid cargo header. 6001(f)(3) Commenter 4 made an observation with respect to the joint interpretation of this provision and 39.2009 We followed up with Commenter 4. Because this paragraph requires overfill protection according to 39.2009, we added new 33 CFR 154.2200(b) to address his comments. 6003(a) Commenter 4 said this sounds like an operational requirement because it does not make sense for a cargo tank venting system's design pressure to be less than that of cargo tank We followed up with Commenter 4. We have revised this paragraph to clarify that this is an operational requirement and that it does not require a cargo tank venting system's design pressure to be less than that of cargo tank. 6003(b) Commenter 18 said that tank barges do not need individual cargo tank pressure sensors because one sensor can detect pressure throughout the barge via the common vapor system We agree and revised this provision as we did for 39.2015. We also specified the relevant paragraphs of the referenced section in 33 CFR, and changed the wording of the required label to avoid confusion between sensors and indicators. V. Incorporation by Reference The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 33 CFR 154.106 and 46 CFR 39.1005 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in those sections. VI. Regulatory Analyses We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that E.O. A final Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is available in the docket as indicated under ADDRESSES . A summary of the Regulatory Analysis follows: The final rule revises the existing regulations (33 CFR parts 154, 155, and 156, 46 CFR parts 35 and 39) regarding the safety of facility and vessel VCSs. The final rule amends the regulations to make VCS requirements more compatible with other Federal and State environmental requirements and reflect industry advances in VCS technology, and codifies the voluntary standards for VCSs at TBCFs. The final rule increases the safety of operations by regulating the design, installation, and use of VCSs, but will not require anyone to install or use VCSs. The final rule provides additional requirements for VCS equipment, compliance documentation, training, and operations. In general, the final rule: • Adds new requirements for certifications, recertifications, periodic operational reviews, and approval processes for certain operations concerning VCSs to promote maritime safety and marine environmental protection. These various requirements mainly affect facilities with VCSs, including TBCFs; • Requires new training or amends training requirements to improve safety. These training requirements affect facilities with VCSs (including TBCFs) and tank barge owners and operators; • Permits pigging; however, there will be some requirements to receive Coast Guard permission to do so; • Provides foreign-flagged tank barges some flexibility for certification procedures; • Adds new requirements for certain equipment on U.S.-flagged tank barges and at TBCFs and other facilities with VCSs to improve safety and environmental protection; and • Removes certain requirements in order to offer cost savings. This change mainly impacts facilities with VCSs. The final rule is necessary to reflect the expansion of Federal and State regulations for VCSs since the current regulations were adopted in 1990, and to reflect technological advances over that period. Without revisions to these regulations by the Coast Guard, market failures persist in creating situations of uncompensated risk. In the case of this final rule, the uncompensated risks accrue to the public, maritime commerce, and mariners in the form of safety and environmental hazards and potential losses to equipment and cargo as well as the opportunity cost resulting from equipment, parts of facilities, or vessels being temporarily out of operation due to accidents. The Regulatory Analysis provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this final rule. Table 2 below provides a summary of the final rule's costs and benefits. Table 2—Summary of the Final Rule's Impacts Category Summary Applicability Owners of U.S.-flagged tank barges and foreign-flagged tank barges as defined by 46 CFR Subchapter D; CEs for VCSs; TBCFs. Affected Population 280 facilities with VCSs, 24 CEs, 15 TBCFs, 216 U.S.-flagged tank barge owners, and owners of 338 foreign-flagged tank barges. 10-Year Costs (7% discount rate) $6.86 million. 10-Year Quantified Benefits and Cost Savings (7% discount rate) Benefits: $2.79 million. Additional Cost Savings: $5.956 million (regulated public). Additional Cost Savings: $0.164 million (Government). Total Benefits and Other Savings: $8.914 million. 10-year Net Benefits of Final Rule (7% discount rate) $8.914—$6.86 = $2.054 million. Unquantified Benefits * Update industry practices. * Aid to quality control. * Preclusion of diminution of safety. * Provide for an opportunity for more competition. The costs, quantified benefits, and cost savings are the totals for the 10-year period of analysis. These costs include industry costs plus the Government's costs. Table 3 shows the changes in costs, benefits, and additional cost savings from the NPRM to the Final Rule. As can be seen, costs have been reduced, benefits increased and cost savings increased as a result of the changes delineated in Table 1. Few comments questioned cost estimates from the NPRM, and thus the original regulatory assessment is largely retained. Table 3—Comparison of Final Rule and NPRM Impacts (7% Discount Rate) Cost Benefits Additional cost savings NPRM $8,822,113 $1,944,359 $5,228,965 Final Rule 6,864,404 2,791,303 6,120,064 The final rule amends several existing regulations and these amendments permit cost savings to the regulated public. Cost savings would result from the removal of the requirement on standards for flame arresters (33 CFR part 154, Appendix B). Additionally, the various changes preclude the need for the regulated public to continue to file exemption requests, which saves administrative labor and research. The final rule removes the requirement for a separate overfill control panel on the dock (33 CFR 154.2102, 46 CFR 39.2009). The provisions include an alternative test program for compliance with the VCS analyzer and pressure sensor safety testing requirements. The final rule allows an alternative method of compliance with testing and inspection requirements of 33 CFR 156.170. The final rule's changes on enrichment requirements would benefit the regulated public by necessitating the use of less enriching gas. As well, the Coast Guard estimates the final rule would benefit the public by preventing marine casualties. Affected Population Based on Coast Guard data, we estimate that this final rule affects 280 facilities with VCSs, 24 CEs, 15 TBCFs, 216 U.S.-flagged tank barge owners, and owners of 338 foreign-flagged tank barges. Costs The final rule requires several actions by affected parties. These actions include training, periodic operational reviews, and recertifications. Over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the total present value cost of the final rule to be $6.86 million at a 7 percent discount rate, and $8.08 million at a 3 percent discount rate. Over the same 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the annualized cost of the final rule to be $977,000 (rounded to nearest thousand) at 7 percent and $947,000 (rounded) at 3 percent. The following table presents, by year, the costs of the final rule. Table 4—Estimated Costs of Final Rule Year Discounted 7% Discounted 3% Undiscounted 1 $2,219,312 $2,305,498 $2,374,663 2 657,334 709,380 752,581 3 614,330 688,718 752,581 4 574,141 668,659 752,581 5 548,859 664,039 769,803 6 512,952 644,698 769,803 7 479,394 625,920 769,803 8 448,032 607,689 769,803 9 418,722 589,990 769,803 10 391,329 572,806 769,803 Total 6,864,404 8,077,397 9,251,224 Annualized 977,337 946,917 925,122 We estimate the requirements for facilities as the primary cost driver throughout the 10-year period of analysis. The requirements for facilities range from certifications, recertifications, and periodic operational reviews. Table 5 shows a summary of annualized costs by requirement category. Table 5—Summary of the Annualized Costs of the Final Rule [$] Category Annualized * 7% 3% Facility Costs $751,190 $ 738,358 TBCF Costs 110,926 103,646 Tank Barge Costs 111,390 101,524 Government Costs 3,831 3,389 Total 977,337 946,917 * Rounded to the nearest dollar. The final rule's changes that require the regulated public to follow operational changes such as certifications, recertifications, and periodic operational reviews comprise approximately 58 percent of the costs throughout the 10-year period of analysis. The final rule's changes to require training, including amendments to PIC training, amount to 20 percent of the total costs. Table 6 presents a summary of the costs by requirement as a percentage of the total annualized costs of the final rule. Table 6—Summary of Costs by Requirement of the Final Rule [As a percentage of annualized cost] Requirements Annualized cost (percent) Operations Cost 58 Protection Equipment 10 Training including PIC 20 Misc other including government and pigging 12 Total (rounded to the nearest one) 100 Benefits The final rule amends existing regulations regarding VCSs in marine activities. We are issuing these amendments to existing standards to reflect technological improvements and to promote maritime safety and marine environmental protection. The final rule offers provisions for more practicable and efficient management of hazardous materials, and contains some provisions that offer facilities the opportunity to reduce maintenance costs. The final rule provides several benefits. Benefits of the final rule include (1) Energy savings which would accrue from the use of less enriching gas, (2) avoided costs associated with the elimination of existing standards on liquid seal and (3) prevented casualties. Other benefits that USCG describes qualitatively include operational efficiency and enhanced safety. USCG estimates the 10-year quantified benefits to be at least $2.79 million (7 percent discount rate). In addition to these benefits, we estimate that the final rule will result in additional cost savings to the regulated public and the Government. These cost savings derive from tasks which would no longer have to be performed due to the final rule's changes and changes to various operational requirements which result in less resources being used. For regulated entities, the cost savings over a 10-year period are estimated to be $5.96 million (7 percent discount rate) and Government cost savings are estimated to be $164,000 (7 percent discount rate, rounded to the nearest thousand). See the final Regulatory Analysis available in the docket for a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard considered the following alternatives when developing the final rule: 1. Take no action. 2. Adopt all CTAC recommendations. 3. Issue a new policy letter or NVIC. 4. Require annual certifications. 5. Develop a different timetable for small entities. 6. Provide an exemption for small entities (from the rule or any part thereof). Alternatives 1 and 2 are not preferred because they do not offer solutions to issues identified earlier in the preamble. They also do not allow for cost savings opportunities that arise from changes in the final rule. Alternative 3 communicates information to the regulated public, and although it would potentially increase public safety, it would not allow for cost savings opportunities outlined in the final rule, nor would it update the regulatory text. As such, it offers no assurance of compliance and no enforcement mechanism. Alternative 4 is feasible but costly. It is not anticipated to increase benefits or to increase cost savings despite its higher cost. Alternative 5 offers all benefits and cost savings of the final rule, albeit at a later date. Because of the benefits and cost savings, a delay serves no useful purpose to the regulated public. For some regulated entities such as facilities and tank barge owners, the final rule offers a delayed effective date and some provisions do not accrue costs immediately; also, other provisions do not apply unless specific changes to VCSs warrant them (e.g., recertifications). Alternative 6 is feasible. The Coast Guard notes that many final provisions do not apply to some small entities since they are either already in compliance or will benefit from the changes in the final rule. The final changes are low in cost on the individual level and have a low implementation burden. An exemption would preclude small entities from pursuing cost savings that would be provided by the final rule. A small business exemption would cause both costs and benefits as well as cost savings to decline in total for the regulated public. These small entities face many of the same environmental and safety hazards other business entities face; and these final requirements would address these hazards. Without them, there would be an uncompensated risk to small entities and their employees. Because this is a safety regulation and because of the continued safety hazards, such an alternative represents a disproportionate tolerance of risks to safety, and the Coast Guard could not pursue this option. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. A combined final Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of this final rule on small entities is available in the docket as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Based on our analysis, we estimate that small entities affected by this final rule are primarily small businesses consisting of CEs, owners and operators of TBCFs, tank barges, and facilities with VCSs. We did not find data to suggest small not-for-profit organizations or small government entities will be directly affected by this final rule. In addition, CEs will incur no additional costs due to this final rule because no additional tasks or equipment are required of them; therefore, they are not analyzed further. We evaluated the impact on small entities for each segment of industry that incur additional costs, since this final rule requires different provisions for owners and operators of TBCFs, tank barges, and facilities with VCSs. Based on our assessment, 54 percent of tank barge owners affected by this final rule will be considered small by Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. We estimate 100 percent of these small entities will incur cost impacts that are 1 percent or less than their annual revenues during the highest cost year (implementation year), as well as annually. We estimate 15 percent of facilities with VCSs will be considered small by SBA size standards. We estimate that almost 86 percent of these small entities will incur annual cost impacts that are 1 percent or less than their annual revenues during the highest cost year (implementation year), as well as annually. Another 14 percent will have cost impacts between 1 to 3 percent of their annual revenue. We estimate that all of the TBCFs are considered small by SBA size standards. We estimate 60 percent of these TBCFs will incur cost impacts that are potentially greater than 3 percent of their annual revenues during the highest cost year (implementation year). It should be noted that the final rule will codify existing voluntary standards for TBCFs. Consequently, we anticipate the cost impacts to TBCFs may be overestimates. Consequently, we believe there will be no significant economic impacts for CEs, facilities with VCSs, and owners/operators of tank barges. However, there may be economic impacts for some TBCFs. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Ms. Sara Ju at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this final rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). D. Collection of Information This final rule requires an amendment to an existing collection of information (1625-0060) as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. Title: Vapor Control Systems for Facilities and Tank Vessels. OMB Control Number: 1625-0060. Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection of information ensures industry compliance with safety standards for VCSs. The final rule requires recordkeeping and reporting on the design and use of VCSs. The final rule contains collection of information requirements which include: Certifications, recertifications, periodic operational reviews, approval requests, reviews of operating manuals, failure analyses, operational review letters, and relabeling. The collection of information will aid the Coast Guard and industry in assuring safe practices associated with VCSs. Need for Information: The Coast Guard needs this information to ensure industry use of VCS requirements are compatible with new Federal and State environmental requirements, to reflect industry advances in VCS technology, and to ensure the safe design and operation of a VCS at a TBCF. Final Use of Information: The Coast Guard will use this information to determine whether an entity meets the statutory requirements. Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners/operators of TBCFs, facilities, and tank vessels with vapor control systems. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements will be completed by facility and vessel owners/operators, PICs, engineers, maintenance workers, and operations managers of affected tank barges, TBCFs, facilities, and CEs. Number of Respondents: The burden change of this collection of information includes certifications, recertifications, approval requests, reviewing operating manuals, preparing operational review letters, and relabeling. This collection of information applies to various owners and operators of tank barges, facilities, TBCFs, and CEs. We estimate the total number of respondents is 535. Frequency of Responses: This final rule will vary the number of responses each year by requirement. Some actions are one time only and others are required more frequently. Burden of Response: This collection of information applies to CEs, tank barge owners/operators and owners/operators of facilities with VCSs. The Coast Guard estimates the total number of respondents is 535. The burden of response varies by collection of information requirement. Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The total annual burden is estimated to increase as a result of the final rule by 8,041 hours from the previously approved 2,789 hours. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this final rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard can enforce the collection of information requirements in this final rule, OMB must approve the action. E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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. In our NPRM, found at 75 FR 65152, we previously stated that this rule had no implications for federalism. We have re-evaluated this rule under E.O. 13132 and under the authorities granted to the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations concerning marine vapor control systems and now conclude that certain provisions of these regulations do have implications for federalism. Our analysis follows. For those regulations promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306, there are no implications for federalism. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) are within the fields foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United State s v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, Congress directed the Secretary to prescribe equipment regulations for tank vessels necessary to protect against hazards to life, property, and the marine environment, as well as to navigation and vessel safety. Provisions of these regulations, promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3703, increase operational safety and the protection of the marine environment by setting the standards for the use, design, and installation of vapor control systems on inspected vessels. Because States may not promulgate rules within this category, there are no implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132. For those regulations promulgated under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2), these provisions do have implications for federalism. It is clear that Congress intended these regulations to have limited preemptive effect over state or local law based on the language found in 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2). In this section, Congress mandated the Coast Guard to issue regulations to “ensure the safety of the equipment and operations which are to control emissions from the loading and unloading of tank vessels, under section 3703 of title 46 and section 1225 of title 33.” Congress further explained that any standards for the emission of VOCs established by a “State or political subdivision regarding emissions from the loading and unloading of tank vessels shall be consistent with the regulations regarding safety of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating.” In choosing this language, and specifically including section 1225 of title 33, Congress expressly intended Coast Guard regulations to preempt State or local laws or regulations regarding emission control equipment and procedures for waterfront facilities transferring oil or hazardous materials, but only in so far as a State or local law or regulation conflicts with the federal regulation. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this final rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. H. Civil Justice Reform This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This final rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. J. Tribal Governments This final rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 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 E.O. because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, this final rule does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule uses voluntary consensus standards from the following organizations: American Petroleum Institute, American National Standards Institute, ASTM, International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Fire Protection Association, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. This final rule also uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus standards from the International Maritime Organization. The sections that reference these standards and the locations of these standards are listed in 33 CFR 154.106 and 46 CFR 39.1005. M. Environment We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This final rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002). This final rule involves regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards and safety equipment. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 154 Alaska, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 33 CFR Part 155 Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 33 CFR Part 156 Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control. 46 CFR Part 35 Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 39 Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 154, 155, and 156, and 46 CFR parts 35 and 39 as follows: Title 33 PART 154—FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK 1. The authority citation for part 154 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6), and (m)(2); sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart F is also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735. Vapor control recovery provisions of Subpart P are also issued under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2). 2. Revise § 154.106 to read as follows: § 154.106 Incorporation by reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126, telephone 202-372-1418 and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . Also, it is available from the sources indicated in this section. (b) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th floor, New York, NY 10036. (1) ANSI B16.5, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, 1988, IBR approved for §§ 154.500(d), 154.2100(b), 154.2101(d), 154.2202(d), and Appendix A, 7.3 to part 154. (2) ANSI B16.24, Bronze Pipe Flanges and Flange Fittings Class 150 and 300, 1979, IBR approved for §§ 154.500(d) and 154.2100(b). (3) ANSI B31.3, Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping, 1987 (including B31.3a-1988, B31.3b-1988, and B31.3c-1989 addenda), IBR approved for §§ 154.510(a) and 154.2100(b). (c) American Petroleum Institute (API), 1220 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. (1) API Standard 2000, Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage Tanks (Non-refrigerated and Refrigerated), Third Edition, January 1982 (reaffirmed December 1987)(“API 2000”), IBR approved for §§ 154.2103(j) and 154.2203(e), (k), and (l). (2) API Recommended Practice 550, Manual on Installation of Refinery Instruments and Control Systems, Part II—Process Stream Analyzers, Section 1—Oxygen Analyzers, Fourth Edition, February 1985 (“API 550”), IBR approved for § 154.2107(f). (d) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. (1) ASME B16.34 -2004, Valves—Flanged, Threaded, and Welding End, issued September 2, 2005, IBR approved for § 154.2100(b). (2) [Reserved] (e) ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (1) ASTM F631-93, Standard Guide for Collecting Skimmer Performance Data in Controlled Environments (“ASTM F631”), IBR approved for Appendix C, 6.3 to part 154. (2) ASTM F715-95, Standard Test Methods for Coated Fabrics Used for Oil Spill Control and Storage (“ASTM F715”), IBR approved for Appendix C, 2.3.1 to part 154. (3) ASTM F722-82 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Specification for Welded Joints for Shipboard Piping Systems (“ASTM F722”), approved November 1, 2008, IBR approved for Appendix A, 8.4, 8.6 to part 154. (4) ASTM F1122-87 (Reapproved 1992), Standard Specification for Quick Disconnect Couplings (“ASTM F1122”), IBR approved for § 154.500(d). (5) ASTM F1155-98, Standard Practice for Selection and Application of Piping System Materials (“ASTM F1155”), IBR approved for Appendix A, 7.1, 8.4 to part 154. (6) ASTM F1273-91 (Reapproved 2007) Standard Specification for Tank Vent Flame Arresters (“ASTM F1273”), approved December 1, 2007, IBR approved for §§ 154.2001 and 154.2105(j). (f) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Bureau Central de la Commission Electrotechnique Internationale, 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH—1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. (1) IEC 60309-1 Plugs, Socket-Outlets and Couplers for Industrial Purposes—Part 1: General Requirements, Edition 4.2 2012-06, IBR approved for § 154.2102(b). (2) IEC 60309-2 Plugs, Socket-Outlets and Couplers for Industrial Purposes—Part 2: Dimensional Interchangeability Requirements for Pin and Contact-tube Accessories, Edition 4.2 2012-05, IBR approved for § 154.2102(b). (g) National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1752, Rosslyn, VA 22209. (1) ANSI NEMA WD-6—Wiring Devices, Dimensional Requirements, 1988 (“NEMA WD-6”), IBR approved for § 154.2102(a). (2) [Reserved] (h) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. (1) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes, 1994, IBR approved for § 154.735(l). (2) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 1987 (“NFPA 70 (1987)”), IBR approved for § 154.735(q). (3) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2011 (“NFPA 70 (2011)”), IBR approved for §§ 154.2100(c) and 154.2102(a). (i) Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), 29 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9BU, England. (1) International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, Fifth Ed., 2006 (“ISGOTT”), IBR approved for §§ 154.735(s), 154.2101(g), and 154.2203(m). (2) [Reserved] (j) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. (1) UL 525 Standard for Flame Arresters, 8th Edition, May 9, 2008, IBR approved for §§ 154.2001 and 154.2105(j). (2) [Reserved] 3. In § 154.310, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 154.310 Operations manual: Contents. (b)(1) The operations manual must contain a description of the facility's vapor control system (VCS), if the facility— (i) Collects vapor emitted from vessel cargo tanks for recovery, destruction, or dispersion; or (ii) Balances or transfers vapor to or from vessel cargo tanks. (2) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include a line diagram or simplified piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) of the facility's VCS piping, including the location of each valve, control device, pressure-vacuum relief valve, pressure indicator, flame arrester, and detonation arrester; (3) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must describe the design and operation of its— (i) Vapor line connection; (ii) Startup and shutdown procedures; (iii) Steady-state operating procedures; (iv) Provisions for dealing with pyrophoric sulfide (for facilities which handle inerted vapors of cargoes containing sulfur); (v) Alarms and shutdown devices; and (vi) Pre-transfer equipment inspection requirements. (4) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include all test procedures and a checklist for use during the testing of the VCS required by 33 CFR 156.170(g). The test procedures must specify— (i) All tests required for initial certification under 33 CFR 154.2022(d); (ii) All components that are to be tested; and (iii) Procedures for testing each component. (5) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include— (i) A list of all cargoes the VCS is approved to control; and (ii) Copies of any Coast Guard letters exempting the VCS from regulatory requirements. (6) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include detailed operating instructions for a cargo line clearance system as described in 33 CFR 154.2104, if such a system is used by a facility; (7) The VCS description required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include the following for a tank barge cleaning facility: (i) A physical description of the facility and facility plan showing mooring areas, locations where cleaning operations are conducted, control stations, and locations of safety equipment; (ii) The sizes, types, and number of tank barges from which the facility can conduct cleaning operations simultaneously; and (iii) The minimum number of persons required to be on duty during cleaning operations and the duties of each. 4. Revise § 154.500 to read as follows: § 154.500 Hose assemblies. Each hose assembly used for transferring oil or hazardous material must meet the following requirements: (a) The minimum design burst pressure for each hose assembly must be at least four times the sum of the pressure of the relief valve setting (or four times the maximum pump pressure when no relief valve is installed) plus the static head pressure of the transfer system, at the point where the hose is installed. (b) The maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) for each hose assembly must be more than the sum of the pressure of the relief valve setting (or the maximum pump pressure when no relief valve is installed) plus the static head pressure of the transfer system, at the point where the hose is installed. (c) Each nonmetallic hose must be usable for oil or hazardous material service. (d) Each hose assembly must either have— (1) Full threaded connections; (2) Flanges that meet ANSI B16.5 or ANSI B16.24 (both incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR 154.106); or (3) Quick-disconnect couplings that meet ASTM F1122 (incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR 154.106). (e) Each hose must be marked with one of the following: (1) The name of each product for which the hose may be used; or (2) For oil products, the words “OIL SERVICE”; or (3) For hazardous materials, the words “HAZMAT SERVICE—SEE LIST” followed immediately by a letter, number or other symbol that corresponds to a list or chart contained in the facility's operations manual or the vessel's transfer procedure documents which identifies the products that may be transferred through a hose bearing that symbol. (f) Each hose also must be marked with the following, except that the information required by paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section need not be marked on the hose if it is recorded in the hose records of the vessel or facility, and the hose is marked to identify it with that information: (1) Maximum allowable working pressure; (2) Date of manufacture; and (3) Date of the latest test required by 33 CFR 156.170. (g) The hose burst pressure and the pressure used for the test required by 33 CFR 156.170 must not be marked on the hose and must be recorded elsewhere at the facility as described in paragraph (f) of this section. (h) Each hose used to transfer fuel to a vessel that has a fill pipe for which containment cannot practically be provided must be equipped with an automatic back pressure shutoff nozzle. 5. In § 154.735— a. In paragraph (q), remove the term “NFPA 70” and add, in its place, the words “NFPA 70 (1987) (incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR 154.106)”; and b. Revise paragraph (s) to read as follows: § 154.735 Safety requirements. (s) Tank-cleaning or gas-freeing operations conducted by the facility on vessels carrying oil residues or mixtures must be conducted in accordance with sections 11.3 and 11.4 of OCIMF ISGOTT (incorporated by reference, see 33 CFR 154.106), except that— (1) Prohibitions in ISGOTT against the use of recirculated wash water do not apply if the wash water is first processed to remove product residues; (2) The provisions in ISGOTT section 11.3.6.10 that removal of sludge, scale, and sediment do not apply if personnel use breathing apparatuses which protect them from the tank atmosphere; and (3) Upon the request of the facility owner or operator in accordance with 33 CFR 154.107, the COTP may approve the use of alternate standards to ISGOTT if the COTP determines that the alternative standards provide an equal level of protection to the ISGOTT standards. § 154.740 [Amended] 6. In § 154.740— a. In paragraph (g), remove the words “subpart E” and replace them with the words “subpart P”; and b. In paragraph (i), remove the words “§ 154.804 of this part” and add, in their place, the citation “33 CFR 154.2020 through 154.2025”. Subpart E [Removed] 7. Remove subpart E, consisting of §§ 154.800 through 154.850. Subparts J through O [Reserved] 8. Add reserved subparts J through O. 9. Add subpart P to read as follows: Subpart P—Marine Vapor Control Systems General Sec. 154.2000 Applicability. 154.2001 Definitions. Certifying Entities 154.2010 Qualifications for acceptance as a certifying entity. 154.2011 Application for acceptance as a certifying entity. Certification, Recertification, and Operational Review 154.2020 Certification and recertification—owner/operator responsibilities. 154.2021 Operational review—owner/operator responsibilities. 154.2022 Certification, recertification, or operational review—certifying entity responsibilities, generally. 154.2023 Recertification—certifying entity responsibilities, generally. 154.2024 Operational review—certifying entity responsibilities, generally. 154.2025 Certification, recertification, or operational review—certifying entity documentation. Personnel 154.2030 Transfer facilities. 154.2031 Tank barge cleaning facilities. Transfer Facilities—VCS Design and Installation 154.2100 Vapor control system, general. 154.2101 Requirements for facility vapor connections. 154.2102 Facility requirements for vessel liquid overfill protection. 154.2103 Facility requirements for vessel vapor overpressure and vacuum protection. 154.2104 Pigging system. 154.2105 Fire, explosion, and detonation protection. 154.2106 Detonation arresters installation. 154.2107 Inerting, enriching, and diluting systems. 154.2108 Vapor-moving devices. 154.2109 Vapor recovery and vapor destruction units. 154.2110 Vapor balancing requirements. 154.2111 Vapor control system connected to a facility's main vapor control system. 154.2112 Vapors with potential to polymerize or freeze—Special requirements. 154.2113 Alkylene oxides—Special requirements. Transfer Facilities—Operations 154.2150 General requirements. Alternative Analyzer and Pressure Sensor Reliability Testing 154.2180 Alternative testing program—Generally. 154.2181 Alternative testing program—Test requirements. Tank Barge Cleaning Facilities—VCS Design and Installation 154.2200 Applicable transfer facility design and installation requirements. 154.2201 Vapor control system—General requirements. 154.2202 Vapor line connections. 154.2203 Facility requirements for barge vapor overpressure and vacuum protection. 154.2204 Fire, explosion, and detonation protection. Tank Barge Cleaning Facilities—Operations 154.2250 General requirements. General § 154.2000 Applicability. (a) Except as specified by paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, this subpart applies to— (1) Each facility that controls vapors emitted to or from vessel cargo tanks; (2) A vessel, other than a tank vessel, that has a vapor processing unit located onboard for recovery, destruction, or dispersion of vapors from a tank vessel's cargo tanks; (3) Certifying entities that review, inspect, test, and certificate facility vapor control systems (VCSs); or (4) A facility VCS that receives cargo vapor from a vessel when the VCS is connected to a facility's main VCS that serves plant processing areas, such as tank storage areas or tank truck or railcar loading areas, unrelated to tank vessel operations. The requirements of this subpart apply between the vessel vapor connection and the point where the VCS connects to the facility's main VCS. (b) Each facility VCS that began operating on or after July 23, 1990, and that is certified as in compliance with 33 CFR part 154, subpart E on August 15, 2013, or each existing tank barge cleaning facility VCS that meets the safety Standards of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 1-96, must comply with 33 CFR part 154, subpart P by August 15, 2016. Certifications, approvals of alternatives, and grants of exemption in effect on August 15, 2013, remain in effect after that date and as specified in the certification, approval, or grant. (c) A facility with a Coast Guard-approved VCS operating prior to July 23, 1990, must comply with 33 CFR 154.2150 but otherwise need not comply with this subpart so long as it does not have any design or configuration alterations after its approval and receives cargo vapor only from the specific vessels for which it was originally approved. (d) A facility that uses a vapor balancing system to transfer vapor from a railcar or a tank truck to a vessel cargo tank while offloading the vessel must obtain approval in writing from the Commandant and make that approval available for Coast Guard inspection upon request. (e) A facility that transfers vapor from a facility tank to a cargo tank of a vessel which is not offloading cargo must obtain approval in writing from the Commandant and make that approval available for Coast Guard inspection upon request. (f) A tank vessel that has a permanent or portable vapor processing unit located onboard must comply with applicable requirements of this subpart and 46 CFR part 39. (g) This subpart does not apply to the collection of vapors of liquefied flammable gases as defined in 46 CFR 30.10-39. (h) This subpart does not require a facility or a vessel to control vapor, or a vessel to take away vapor from facilities; however, if a facility operates a VCS to control vapor to or from vessels, the facility must comply with the requirements of this subpart. (i) In this subpart, regulatory measurements, whether in the metric or English system, are sometimes followed by approximate equivalent measurements in parentheses, which are given solely for the reader's convenience. Regulatory compliance with the regulatory measurement is required. § 154.2001 Definitions. As used in this subpart only: Ambient temperature means the temperature of the environment in which an experiment is conducted or in which any physical or chemical event occurs. Barge cargo connection means the point in a barge's cargo system where it connects with the hose assembly or loading arm used for cargo transfer. Barge vapor connection means the point in a barge's piping system where it connects to a vapor collection hose or arm. This may be the same as the barge's cargo connection as it controls vapors during barge cargo tank-cleaning operations. Base loading means a method of inerting, enriching, or diluting such that sufficient inerting, enriching, or diluting gas, for the worst concentration of vapor coming from the vessel, is injected into the vapor line during the entire loading operation so that the vapor mixture is inerted, enriched, or diluted at the maximum loading rate. For inerting and enriching systems, “worst concentration” means the vapor stream contains no cargo vapor. For a diluting system, “worst concentration” means the vapor stream is saturated with cargo vapor. Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Coast Guard Captain of the Port as defined in 33 CFR 154.105. Certifying entity means an individual or organization accepted by the Commandant to review plans, data, and calculations for vapor control system designs and to conduct inspections and observe tests of vapor control system installations. Cleaning operation means any stripping, gas-freeing, or tank-washing operation of a barge's cargo tanks conducted at a cleaning facility. Combustible liquid means any liquid that has a flashpoint above 80 °F (as determined from an open-cup tester, as used to test burning oils) and includes Grade D and Grade E combustible liquids defined in 46 CFR 30.10-15. Commandant means Commandant (CG-ENG), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126. Detonation arrester means a device that is acceptable to the Commandant and includes a detonation arrester that is designed, built, and tested in accordance with Appendix A of this part or by another method acceptable to the Commandant for arresting flames and detonations. Diluting means introducing a non-flammable, non-combustible, and non-reactive gas with the objective of reducing the hydrocarbon content of a vapor [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-15808. Public record. Not legal advice.