Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels Without Double Hulls

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues regulations that will require the

owners, masters, or operators of tank vessels of 5,000 gross tons (GT)

or more that do not have double hulls and that carry oil in bulk as

cargo to comply with certain operational measures. This final rule

contains requirements for bridge resource management and vessel

specific policy and procedures, enhanced survey programs, maneuvering

performance capability tests, and other measures aimed at reducing the

likelihood of an oil discharge from these vessels. Additionally, the

Coast Guard is amending requirements for the carriage of onboard

emergency lightering equipment and has addressed animal fat, vegetable

oil, and other non-petroleum oil in separate sections as required by

the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. These requirements will be

effective until all existing vessels without double hulls are phased

out in 2015.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 27, 1996, except for

Secs. 157.415 and 157.420 of 33 CFR part 157 which are effective on

February 1, 1997; and Secs. 157.445 and 157.460(a) of 33 CFR part 157

which are effective on July 29, 1997. The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in Secs. 157.430, 157.435, 157.450 of 33

CFR part 157 is approved by the Federal Register as of November 27,

1996. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in

Sec. 157.445 of 33 CFR part 157 is approved by the Federal Register as

of July 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this

preamble are available for inspection or copying at the Office of the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (C-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-045),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406,

Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 930 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-

1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project

Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development, at (202) 267-

6490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

Section 4115(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L.

101-380, 104 Stat. 520), which appears as a statutory note following 46

U.S.C., 3703a, directs the Coast Guard to develop structural and

operational requirements for tank vessels of 5,000 gross tons (GT) or

more without double hulls to serve as regulations until 2015, when all

tank vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to have double hulls

under section 4115(a) of OPA 90 (46 U.S.C. 3703a). Any requirements

issued under the authority of section 4115(b) must provide as

substantial protection to the environment as is economically and

technologically feasible.

On November 1, 1991, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (56 FR 56284), which discussed structural

and operational measures intended to meet section 4115(b) of OPA 90.

The ANPRM included a request for data on the technical and economic

feasibility of those measures for use on vessels covered by section

4115(b). Eighty-eight comments were received by the close of the

extended comment period, which ended on January 30, 1992 (57 FR 1243).

After reviewing the comments, the Coast Guard published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Structural and Operational

Measures to Reduce Oil Spills from Existing Tank Vessels Without Double

Hulls'' (Existing Vessels) on October 22, 1993 (58 FR 54870). The Coast

Guard issued two subsequent correction notices on November 19, 1993 (58

FR 61143), and December 14, 1993 (58 FR 65298), which made technical

corrections to the NPRM. In response to several comments received on

the NPRM, the Coast Guard published, on December 16, 1993, a notice of

public meeting and extension of comment period (58 FR 65683).

The Coast Guard held a public meeting on January 20, 1994, to

obtain information from the public on the proposed regulations. Topics

addressed by speakers included applicability, differences between tank

barges and tankships, exemptions, and economic and technical

feasibility of the proposed regulations. Some of the basic assumptions

of the proposed regulations addressed certain structural measures,

particularly their reliance on Regulation 13G of Annex I of the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). Information

on the public meeting is available for public review at the address

under Addresses.

In light of the comments received at the public meeting and in

response to the written comments received on the NPRM, the Coast Guard

reviewed the proposed requirements for structural and operational

measures. To expedite the implementation of section 4115(b) of OPA 90,

the Coast Guard developed a three-pronged approach which encompassed

three separate rulemaking projects. First, the Coast Guard issued a

final rule on August 5, 1994, requiring the carriage of emergency

lightering equipment and the inclusion of the vessel's International

Maritime Organization (IMO) number in the advance notice of arrival

report (59 FR 40186); second, on November 3, 1995, it issued a

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) regarding additional

operational measures (60 FR 55904); and third, on December 28, 1995, it

reviewed comments on the NPRM for major structural measures, revised

the Regulatory Assessment (RA), and issued an SNPRM regarding

structural requirements for single-hull tank vessels (60 FR 67227).

Structural measures addressed in this third project included

hydrostatic loading requirements, structural refit of existing hull

areas, emergency cargo off-loading capabilities, and other structural

adaptations or major cargo carrying adjustments.

Background and Purpose

Section 4115 of OPA 90 mandates regulations to provide improved

protection from oil spills from tank vessels in waters subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States due to collisions and groundings.

This section applies to tank vessels that are constructed, adapted to

carry, or that carry oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue.

The Coast Guard has determined that the applicability of these

regulations should reflect section 4115(a) of OPA 90, which requires

certain existing tank vessels without double hulls to be phased out of

operation by 2015. The Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC)

10-94, ``Guidance for Determination and Documentation of the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) Phaseout Schedule for Existing Single-

Hull Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk,'' provides a detailed explanation of

the applicability of section 4115(a).

[[Page 39771]]

To clarify how each of these regulations apply to foreign flag

vessels, the Coast Guard has amended the applicability section of 33

CFR part 157. This amendment ensures, consistent with international

law, that the regulations do not impede freedom of navigation by

foreign flag vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United

States or in innocent passage in the territorial sea of the United

States. However, they do apply to foreign flag vessels engaging in

lightering operations or off-loading oil at a deepwater port in the

U.S. territorial sea or the EEZ.

This final rule also requires a barge owner to assume additional

responsibility for ensuring the towing vessel has the information and

equipment needed to safely operate. Barge operations for loading cargo

are generally handled by company representatives or facility personnel.

However, navigational control of the tank barge has historically been

the responsibility of the towing vessel. Although section 4115(b) of

OPA 90 did not specifically recognize the towing vessel's shared role

in tank barge operations, the towing vessel's role in the navigation

and control of the tank barge must be addressed to reduce accident risk

from tank barges. This final rule requires the tank barge owner or

operator to ensure that operation of the towing vessel meets certain

standards comparable to those required for tankships.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received a total of 187 comment letters on the

operational measures SNPRM (60 FR 55904; November 3, 1995). These

comment writers addressed various issues, and more than 350 comments

were presented. This discussion is divided into the following sections:

general comments; solicited comments; personnel training and

information; surveys; navigation and maneuverability; additional

requirements for tank barges; and emergency lightering requirements.

All comments received on this rulemaking are available for inspection

in docket (CGD 91-045) at the address under ADDRESSES. For the purposes

of this preamble discussion, the term ``single-hull'' means an existing

tank vessel without a double hull.

General Comments

1. Authorized Classification Societies

One comment writer requested clarification of the term ``recognized

classification society'' used in Secs. 157.430 and 157.445 of the

SNPRM. This comment writer presumed that the term meant a

classification society that is recognized by the flag administration of

the ship concerned. The Coast Guard notes that the comment writer's

interpretation of an authorized classification society is correct and

is described in 46 CFR 31.10 and 33 CFR 157.04.

2. Communications

One comment addressed issues pertaining to vessel communications.

This comment writer stated that the Coast Guard and the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) should work together to clear

frequencies of interference from overpowered transmitters, cellular

telephones, and paging systems because improved communications would

assist in avoiding environmental damage caused by collisions. While the

Coast Guard will continue to work with the FCC on marine frequency

issues, this is not the thrust of the present rulemaking. In this

rulemaking, vessel watchstanding communication effectiveness has been

and remains the focus. While communication hardware is vital and

already regulated, an individual's ability to effectively communicate

with bridge watchstanders and other vessel traffic requires further

regulation because timely feedback can significantly reduce the risk of

an accident.

3. Navigational Charts

One comment addressed the issue of updating coastal navigational

charts and suggested that the Coast Guard work with the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in this process. The

comment cited the grounding of the M/V Alvenus which was caused by a

shoal that was not indicated on U.S. navigational charts even though

the charts were properly updated. The majority of the vessels affected

by this rulemaking are required to have pilots on board when entering

port or getting underway. These pilots, along with updated charts and

broadcast notice to mariners, all work in conjunction to provide

mariners with timely information. The Coast Guard is working with NOAA

and is continuing to upgrade vessel traffic systems and other

navigation information systems.

4. Fairways and Anchorages

One comment writer urged the Coast Guard to develop regulations

that would protect fairways and anchorages from obstruction. Drilling

operations and poorly buried pipelines were cited as causes for

obstructions. The Coast Guard regulates these areas in 33 CFR

subchapter P. Specific problems of this nature should be brought to the

attention of local Captains of the Port (COTPs) and are not within the

scope of this rulemaking.

5. International Regulations and Standards

Twenty-one comments addressed issues of international regulations

and standards. Two comment writers stated that established

International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines should be

mandatory, not optional. Other criticisms in these comments included:

perceived redundancy of the proposed regulations because provisions of

the SNPRM already have been covered in international standards, and

compliance with these international standards would promote uniformity

as well as decreased redundancy, costs, and confusion for the shipping

industry; the Coast Guard is undermining the international process;

that competency and manning requirements fall under flag state

jurisdiction; and the SNPRM goes beyond international requirements in

some cases.

The Coast Guard understands the value of international standards

and has incorporated them into this rulemaking where appropriate. The

manning and competency requirements proposed in the SNPRM have been

revised or removed because they have been included in the International

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), and the 1995 amendments to the STCW; these will

be implemented by the signatory flag states. Implementation of the

International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) in 1998 will ensure

that these requirements are effectively implemented and reviewed by

company management, as well as by the Coast Guard, to further improve

safety.

Where international standards do not address certain operations,

the Coast Guard has met the intent of Congress by issuing these rules

to ensure that specific vessels reduce their accident risk. The Coast

Guard has imposed requirements in conformity with STCW, MARPOL 73/78,

and other international guidelines where international standards only

recommend certain conduct rather than prescribe it.

6. Human Factors

Eleven comments addressed the issue of human factors. These

comments suggested that the regulations complement STCW as well as the

Coast Guard's plan to address human factor issues in its Prevention

Through People (PTP) program. The comments also

[[Page 39772]]

supported the PTP program asserting that the program promotes more

effective environmental protection at reasonable costs to shipowners.

Other comments asserted that a prevention program requires fully

implemented international regulations, clear rules, and industry

standards; the Coast Guard adopt a stronger position regarding drug and

alcohol testing; and the Coast Guard focus on researching human factors

so that regulations do not become, without basis, too focused on social

engineering.

The Coast Guard notes the support of some of the comment writers

for incorporating human factors into these regulations and is committed

to ensuring that tank vessels fully implement this rule, as well as

international standards. The Coast Guard has implemented requirements

fro companies to have drug and alcohol testing programs for their

employees in 46 CFR, subchapter B. These programs are appropriate and

it is not within the scope of this rulemaking to revise them.

7. Congressional Intent

One comment writer asserted that the Coast Guard improperly divided

this rulemaking into three separate phases when Congress enacted a

single provision requiring operational and structural measures. Because

of this rulemaking separation, the comment writer accuses the Coast

Guard of denying the public the opportunity to comment in violation of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, et seq.). This

comment writer also asserted that the Coast Guard has not complied with

OPA 90 because it has intentionally delayed the rulemakings, has

addressed mishap risk reduction and ignored oil outflow mitigation

reduction (especially hydrostatic balanced loading (HBL) requirements),

and that the proposed operational measures only reflect minor

adjustments to current industry practice.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the assertion that it has not

provided appropriate opportunities to comment. This rulemaking project

has resulted in the publication of an ANPRM, NPRM, and two SNPRMs. At

each stage, notice and an opportunity to comment have been provided to

the public. By breaking the implementation of 4115(b) into three parts,

the public has actually been given more opportunity to comment and

specifically focus those comments on the economic feasibility of each

segment of this diverse rulemaking. The Coast Guard notes the comment

pertaining to the OPA 90 deadline. Oil outflow mitigation requirements

are thoroughly discussed in the SNPRM for Structural Measures To Reduce

Oil Spills From Existing Tank Vessels Without Double Hulls (60 FR

67226; December 28, 1995), including a discussion on HBL. While the

operational requirements in this rule complement some current industry

``best'' practice, in other cases, they add requirements where current

international requirements are silent or are only recognized as

guidance. The Coast Guard continues to require these operational

measures because they clearly support operational safety and

environmental conservation.

8. Deployable Oil Booms

One comment writer suggested that requirements be added to provide

deployable oil booms and oil-scrubbing equipment, to remove spilled oil

within the boom, on board vessels carrying oil. The comment writer

stated that the savings in insurance costs should offset the cost of

providing these booms and equipment. Onboard discharge removal

equipment has been required on vessels since June 20, 1994, and is

deemed sufficient as a minimum standard. While deployable booms and

scrubbing equipment are effective in many circumstances, the Coast

Guard does not intend to require additional equipment in this final

rule.

9. Collection of Information

The Coast Guard received three comments on the proposed collection

of information requirements which included the following: documentation

and logging may prove too burdensome for inland water voyages;

documentation requirements for proposed Sec. 157.420 are not necessary

since they are already covered in proposed Sec. 157.415; and the

posting of minimum rest hour requirements in crew lounge areas and work

spaces is needed as proposed in Sec. 157.425(d) and should be expanded

to include the wheelhouse and lounge areas.

The Coast Guard has revised the collection of information

requirements because some proposed requirements have changed or been

eliminated in this rule. No training or rest hours are required in this

rule; therefore, the logging and posting requirements have been

removed. As a logical outgrowth of the training requirement, tank

vessels owners and operators will be required to provide vessel

personnel with policy and procedures on bridge resource management and

vessel orientation. This is a less burdensome collection requirement

than logging or tracking individual vessel personnel training

completion. COTP reporting requirements have also been removed in this

rule. This reporting requirement was replaced with a less burdensome

collection requirement to consult with the pilot and, in some cases,

the tank vessel owner or operator prior to a port transit.

10. Exemptions of Certain Vessels

Four comments suggested that tankers calling exclusively at

deepwater ports be exempt because these requirements are an unnecessary

burden for these vessels. Another comment suggested that the Coast

Guard clarify that single-hull tank vessels engaged exclusively in oil

spill response are exempt. The operational measures in the regulations

are economically feasible for all vessels transporting oil and,

therefore, there is no exemption for vessels calling at deepwater

ports. Vessels that are solely engaged in oil spill response are

already exempt from these requirements in 33 CFR part 157.08.

11. Application to Additional Vessel Types

Thirteen comments suggested expanding the applicability of these

regulations to encompass vessel types and sizes other than single-hull

tank vessels 5,000 GT or more. Nine of these 13 comments suggested

applying these regulations to all vessels; six of these nine comments

suggested implementing this application through the international

process. These comments suggested that the operational requirements

should apply to all vessels, as well as double hull tankers and cargo

ships carrying only bunker fuel, because improved operational safety of

all vessels will result in less accident risk to single-hull tank

vessels.

The Coast Guard is acting under the authority of section 4115(b) of

OPA 90 and does not intend by these regulations to extend the rules to

vessels other than vessels of 5,000 GT or more that do not have double

hulls and that carry oil in bulk as cargo in this rulemaking.

Implementing these operational requirements on vessels, regardless of

type or size, is prudent and will be beneficial. Because of this, the

Coast Guard may consider applying these requirements to other vessels

in future rulemakings.

12. State Regulation

Three comment writers addressed two federal preemption issues. The

suggestions included the following: the Coast Guard should state that

the rule does not alter the relationship between State and Federal

governments regarding pilotage requirements; and the requirements

should be exclusively under Federal domain because, under Ray v.

Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S.

[[Page 39773]]

151 (1978), any regulations on tankers issued by the Coast Guard should

preempt State regulations on the same subject. The Coast Guard believes

these Federal requirements are preeminent.

13. Other Comments

The Coast Guard also received several other comments which included

the following: Clarify the definition of a double bottom hull;

incorporate the strengthened operating procedures and personnel

policies used by the Washington State Office of Marine Safety (OMS)

because these procedures and policies offer a higher level of

protection than Coast Guard regulations; make IMO regulations mandatory

rather than optional.

The Coast Guard notes these comments and has reviewed the

Washington State Office of Marine Safety procedures and policies. Many

of the requirements in this rule complement or parallel these

Washington State requirements. Other Washington State requirements are

outside the scope of this rulemaking. Certain IMO requirements are made

mandatory in this rule; others are not because they are outside the

scope of this rulemaking. The term ``double bottom hull'' is not used

in this rule. A vessel that has a double bottom covering the length of

the cargo tanks is one that meets the requirement of 33 CFR 157.10.

Solicited Comments

In the preamble of the SNPRM, the Coast Guard solicited comments on

various issues relating to this rulemaking. The following discussion

addresses the comments made in response to this request.

1. Non-Petroleum Oil

The Coast Guard requested comments on the SNPRM's regulatory impact

on vessels that carry only non-petroleum oil. Of the two comments

received, one comment writer asserted that the Coast Guard's treatment

of animal fat and vegetable oil in the same manner as petroleum oil

directly conflicts with the provisions of the Edible Oil Regulatory

Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546-547 [1995] and, therefore,

animal fat and vegetable oil carriers should be exempt. The other

comment writer, however, supported extending these regulations to all

existing tank vessels carrying non-petroleum oil and remarked that it

is economically feasible and environmentally beneficial for these

vessels to meet the requirements.

The Coast Guard has addressed animal fat, vegetable oil, and other

non-petroleum oil separately in this final rule as required by the

Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

requires federal agencies to differentiate between classes of oils and

consider different treatment of these classes, if appropriate. The law

does not mandate exemptions. Subparts H and I are now included in 33

CFR part 157 to address these cargoes. The Coast Guard has considered

the differences between these cargoes and petroleum cargoes with

respect to appropriate operational measures to reduce the risk of an

accident on single-hull tank vessels. The development of these

operational measures included the presumption that the accidents

prevented or mitigated through these measures may result in the loss of

the content of an entire cargo tank at one time. As discussed in the

SNPRM and in the final rules on Vessel Response Plans (61 FR 1052;

January 12, 1996) and Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related

Facilities (61 FR 7890; February 29, 1996), the Coast Guard has

determined that bulk spills of animal fat, vegetable oil, and other

non-petroleum oil can be damaging to the environment; therefore, the

operational requirements for vessels carrying these products are

similar to those requirements for petroleum oil carrying vessels in

this final rule.

2. Towing Vessel Requirements

The Coast Guard requested comments on the extension of certain

towing vessel requirements to the tank barge industry. One comment

writer agreed with the Coast Guard and asserted that an owner of a tank

barge should be ultimately responsible in the event of a spill and

should establish a screening system for selecting safe towing vessels.

Several other comments suggested the following: The Coast Guard does

not have the legal authority under 4115(b) to place legal obligation

upon the tank vessel owner or operator to ensure the competency of

individuals assigned to certain duties on primary towing vessels; the

minimum rest hour, training, navigational and additional tank barge

requirements raise liability questions for tank barge owners who

charter a tug and crew from another company and should not shift the

burden of compliance to the tank barge owner exclusively; the minimum

rest hour requirements, as proposed, are too onerous on towing vessel

operators; operational requirements should be included directly into

other rulemaking or the final rule should state that the requirement is

applicable to the towing vessel with no tank barge owner or operator

implication; and barge owners or operators should not be held

responsible for the compliance of a primary towing vessel.

The Coast Guard has reviewed these comments and finds that the

responsibility of implementing operational measures on tank barges has

been appropriately applied to tank barge owners or operators. The ease

of implementing these requirements and showing their implementation for

tank barge owners and operators, especially as it pertains to leased

towing vessel operators, has been addressed in this rule by revising

certain sections. The tank barge owner or operator remains responsible

for ensuring that certain information is available to the towing vessel

master or operator and that certain equipment is onboard the towing

vessel. Because the Coast Guard requires the barge owner to be liable

for the operation of the barge, the barge owner will actively screen

towing vessel operator quality, thus reducing the risk of oil spills

from the barge.

3. Economic Impact on Remote Geographic Areas, Tourism, and Fishing

The Coast Guard requested comments on the impact of the SNPRM on

areas that are geographically remote, or economically dependent on

tourism or fishing. One comment writer, a representative for the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a cluster of

islands in the Pacific, stated that while the CNMI's economy is heavily

dependent upon tourism and fishing and would, therefore, benefit from

oil spill prevention, its economy also is dependent upon oil

importation for the energy resources needed to maintain its tourism and

local economy. This comment writer asserted that if these regulations

were applied to vessels serving ports within the CNMI, they would

either eliminate their service or raise their prices significantly,

causing substantial damage to CNMI's economy. The comment writer

requested that the Coast Guard exempt the CNMI or modify the

regulations to consider local conditions in remote areas.

The Coast Guard has revised the operational measures, such as

under-keel clearance requirements, to ensure that local port conditions

are considered. Because the revisions will reduce the risk of an

accident from single-hull tank vessels and also be cost effective for

tank vessel owners or operators servicing remote locations, an

exemption for vessels serving the CNMI is not contained in this

rulemaking.

[[Page 39774]]

4. Vessel Resource Management Training

The Coast Guard requested comments on whether vessel resource

management training should be required or recommended in these

regulations. One comment supported the Coast Guard's proposal to

require vessel resource management training. Another comment suggested

that senior officers and engineers have this training available as an

alternative to the proposed bridge resource management training. The

Coast Guard has reviewed the training requirements proposed in the

SNPRM in conjunction with STCW. STCW requires training for

watchstanders that, if implemented correctly, will improve the quality

of mariners throughout the industry. Because STCW is being implemented

in the U.S. and internationally, the training requirements have been

removed from this rule. Company guidance requirements have been

included in this rule to ensure that bridge resource management

philosophy and vessel specific training requirements are supported in,

and made effective by, company policy. Companies that train their

employees in vessel resource management are gaining valuable employees

and should be commended for their commitment to improving operational

safety and environmental conservation.

5. Rest Hours and Travel Time

The Coast Guard requested comments on travel time factors in the

rest hour requirements proposed in the SNPRM. One comment writer

asserted that air travel, jet lag, and time zone changes should be

factored into minimum rest hour standards. Another comment suggested

that the need to consider travel time before a crew member assumes

responsibility is legitimate. The Coast Guard notes these concerns and

has added them to the current rulemaking project entitled

``International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW): Implementation of 1995

Amendments'' (CGD 95-062) (61 FR 13284; March 26, 1996). Because the

rest hour requirement is being implemented as part of STCW, the Coast

Guard has removed the minimum rest hour requirements from this final

rule.

6. Expansion of Work and Rest Hour Restrictions

The Coast Guard requested comments on the feasibility of expanding

the application of work hour and rest hour restrictions of section 4114

or the adoption of similar IMO provisions, under the authority of

section 4115(b) of OPA 90. Several comment writers responded to this

request and their comments included the following: The requirements

should conform with the work and rest hour provisions of STCW and

should not go beyond them; the requirement should be more inclusive and

require rest hours before departure as well as rest hours before

arrival; and the rest hour requirements should include engineers

supervising in bunkering and internal oil transfers.

The Coast Guard notes these comments and has determined that

expanding the work hour or rest hour requirements beyond STCW

requirements is not appropriate. Because another rulemaking is

implementing STCW, this rulemaking no longer includes rest hour

requirements. The work hours originally required by section 4114 of OPA

90 remain in effect.

7. Vital Systems

The Coast Guard requested comments on reporting requirements for

the failure of specific components within the proposed vital systems.

No comments were received regarding whether the failure of a system

should or should not warrant COTP notification. The Coast Guard has

retained the vital systems requirement in this rule without mandating a

reporting requirement if a system fails; however, mariners are

encouraged to follow the common practice of good seamanship and the

existing reporting requirements in 33 CFR subchapter P remain in

effect.

8. Autopilot Use on Towing Vessels

The Coast Guard requested comments on the inclusion of a

requirement for primary towing vessels to have a restriction on the use

of the autopilot similar to 33 CFR 164.13(d). One comment writer

responded to this request, stating that vessels towing tank barges

should not be allowed to use autopilot systems in rivers and restricted

waters. The Coast Guard agrees that it is not a recommended practice

for a towing vessel to use the autopilot while operating in restricted

waters. However, there are times when the use of an autopilot is

necessary because some towing vessels are designed to be operated by a

single person.

9. Pilot Cards

The Coast Guard requested comments on whether the pilot card should

have additional information. One comment suggested that information on

the pilot card could be combined with the maneuvering information. The

Coast Guard has retained the pilot card requirement, as proposed in the

SNPRM, because the format is inclusive and reflects international

standards.

10. Voyage Data Recorder Equipment

The Coast Guard requested comments on requiring the use of voyage

data recorder equipment, inclusion of an early warning capability in a

recording device, and recommending provisions for near miss data

collection. One comment was received and suggested that all vessels

over 1,600 GT operating in U.S. waters be required to carry voyage data

recorders (VDRs) because they would help pinpoint the cause of an

accident and assist companies in monitoring bridge watchstanding

performance. Although this final rule does not include a requirement

for a VDR, the Coast Guard is researching the application of this type

of equipment and intends to work further with IMO on this issue.

11. Bow Thrusters

The Coast Guard requested comments on the feasibility of requiring

bow thrusters on single-hull tankships. One comment writer disagreed

with a bow thruster requirement, stating that bow thrusters were very

expensive to retrofit, ineffective at higher speeds, and could not

substitute for escort tugs. The Coast Guard notes this comment and is

not including requirements for bow thrusters in this final rule.

12. Routing Restriction Requirements

The Coast Guard requested comments on establishing routing

restriction requirements. Five comments were received, four of which

suggested that the Coast Guard establish requirements for pilot passage

plans and included the following comments: implementation of passage

plans should not wait for IMO development; and plans should require

pilots to advise the master of the intended passage because passage

plans would reduce accidents. Reference was made to a study done by the

Transportation Safety Board of Canada regarding the operational

relationship between ship masters, watchkeeping officers, and marine

pilots. This study found that 200 out of 273 accidents taking place

between 1981 and 1992 involved human factors. Of these 200 human factor

related accidents, 84 involved miscommunication between the pilot and

the master. An opposing view, by the remaining comment writer, stated

that the development of a passage plan would be ineffective and time-

consuming, whereas information

[[Page 39775]]

provided by the Army Corps of Engineers would be much more useful.

The Coast Guard supports and recommends the use of pilot passage

plans. With the implementation of STCW and this rule, the conference

between the master and the pilot prior to getting underway or entering

port should be, or will shortly evolve into, a valuable exchange of

transit specific information. This rulemaking reflects certain elements

of passage planning but does not specifically mandate that the pilot

plans the voyage because the tank vessel owner or operator is liable

for the vessel and its cargo.

13. Empty Wing Tanks

The Coast Guard requested comments on the economic and technical

feasibility of significant structural refit to reinforce bulkheads

between empty wing tanks and cargo tanks, possible piping refit, and

substantial stability reassessment. One comment writer suggested that

empty wing tanks be considered. Another comment writer asserted that

keeping wing tanks empty or partially full to reduce the likelihood of

oil outflow in collisions would make trading in the U.S. economically

disadvantageous for tankers because empty wing tanks would not only

reduce storage flexibility, but would also reduce storage capacity,

resulting in an increase of traffic and the risk of pollution.

The Coast Guard notes that requiring a vessel to fit structural

reinforcement and piping results in a long out-of-service period for

the vessel and cause significant cargo shutout costs. The benefits

achieved by implementing empty wing tanks are from post-accident oil

outflow reduction. A vessel will be higher in the water with its wing

tanks empty and its cargo, if released, will have a higher outflow rate

because of the increased hydrostatic pressure difference between the

oil and the sea. Therefore, in a grounding, a vessel with empty wing

tanks could actually have a higher rate of oil outflow than single-hull

tank vessels ballasted properly and carrying oil in all cargo tanks.

The Coast Guard notes these comments and has not included a requirement

for empty wing tanks in this rule because they are not cost-effective.

Personnel Training and Information

1. General

Several comments are received that addressed general applicability

aspects of the training and rest hour proposed requirements, which

included the following: Training should be required as part of the

licensing process for all mariners, not just personnel on single-hull

tank vessels; training and manning requirements should not be

unilaterally applied to licensed officers on U.S. foreign vessels;

towing vessel personnel should be clearly indicated and required to

complete the training requirements; and training should be mandatory

for all vessels, including small tank vessels used to lighter.

Several comments remarked on the relationship between the proposed

training and rest hour requirements and international standards.

Twenty-four comment writers urged the Coast Guard to work within the

international process, and to conform with international standards such

as STCW; Article 21 (2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea (UNCLOS); Articles 5, 6, and 10 of the Convention on High Seas

of 1958; and International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 147.

Other comments suggested that the requirements of this section exceed

the Coast Guard's jurisdiction under international standards and

represent unacceptable interference to international shipping

operations.

Because of the implementation of STCW, the Coast Guard has revised

this rule and no longer requires training or rest hours for

watchstanders on single-hull tankships or primary towing vessels of

tank barges. Mariner licensing requirements are being revised

extensively in another rulemaking and will include training

requirements similar to those proposed in the SNPRM; therefore, both

foreign and U.S. mariners, operating all commercial vessel types, will

soon have additional required training and be required to have rest

hours. The requirements of STCW must be implemented by each vessel's

flag state. STCW also contains provisions for port state control to

allow the effective assessment of foreign mariner competence. These

provisions will allow the Coast Guard to ensure that competent mariners

are operating both foreign and U.S. single-hull tank vessels.

Other comments include specific recommendations for rising the

proposed requirements as follows: emphasize company standing orders,

policy and procedures, and the use of case studies; consider the

effects of circadian rhythm on vessel personnel when developing

training programs; clarify course validation or certification

requirements; require an interactive computer or video training program

because it would enhance safety, and would be more ship, cargo, and

route specific; and require at least two English-speaking people on the

bridge whenever a vessel is in U.S. waters.

The Coast Guard agrees that any company policy and procedures that

support bridge resource management principles, new crew member

orientation, or any other company standing orders are effective and

essential to safe vessel operation. The policy and procedure

requirements in this rule reflect STCW and have been included because

of their benefit in reducing accident risk. Any computer training or

other state of the art training techniques may also be beneficial;

however, due to STCW training implementation, the Coast Guard has not

included these types of requirements in this rulemaking. The Coast

Guard has not specifically required that personnel speak English;

however, it is not in keeping with the standards of prudent seamanship

if bridge personnel cannot effectively communicate with the pilot,

other vessels, or vessel traffic system (VTS) personnel, due to

language difficulties.

Other comments noted that because independent operators may not

have adequate resources to provide effective training programs, they

should be required to attend commercial training programs. Another

comment noted that course completion does not necessarily ensure

watchstander proficiency and the Coast Guard should be more proactive

in supporting proficiency assessment requirements at IMO. Several

comment writers asserted that this proposed section is biased against

single-hull vessels, and urged the Coast Guard to conform solely to OPA

90 restriction. Another comment writer also requested definitions of

the terms ``owner'' or ``operator''.

The Coast Guard notes that smaller companies may not be able to

train personnel as cost effectively as larger companies; however, by

setting minimum standards of proficiency within the licensing

requirements, as STCW does, even small companies should have competent

employees. The Coast Guard's support of training at IMO was key in the

development of STCW; the Coast Guard will continue to work toward

comprehensive competence standards for mariners. OPA 90 conveyed the

need to regulate existing vessels without double hulls prior to their

phaseout dates. This rule implements that Congressional mandate and

uses the definitions of ``owner'' or ``operator'' as stated in OPA 90.

2. Bridge Resource Management Training

One comment writer supported proposed Sec. 157.415 as written.

Other

[[Page 39776]]

comments suggested revising the requirement as follows: include

simulator training; change the name of this section to Bridge Team

Management Training since courses in Europe on Bridge Resource

Management Training do not reflect the provisions of Sec. 157.415 of

the SNPRM; and ensure that the requirement does not limit training to a

commercial course.

Thirteen comment writers asserted that the proposed 12-month

implementation of this training was too short and suggested that the

implementation period be increased to 36 months or 1 year after STCW

enters into force because the number of personnel who need training

would exceed present training facility capacity and cumulative expenses

would be difficult to meet. Similarly, another comment requested that

foreign mariners be allowed to complete Coast Guard-approved commercial

or company courses within 5 years rather than 36 months. Two refresher

training requirement revisions were suggested: one suggested every 3

years; one supported the 5-year training requirement as proposed.

The Coast Guard has revised this section in this final rule to

reflect the requirements in STCW, Section B-VIII/2, Part 3. Training is

not required in this particular final rule; however, it has been

proposed in a separate rulemaking entitled ``International Convention

on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,

1978 (STCW): Implementation of 1995 Amendments'' (61 FR 13284; March

26, 1996). This rule does include a requirement for owners or operators

to provide policy and procedures addressing the bridge resource

management issues in STCW. The Coast Guard has detailed the need for

concise company guidance in its PTP program to reduce the risk of

accidents. The Company guidance required by this rule will give the

master and officers in charge of the navigational watch clear

instructions of company expectations and emphasize the serious

ramifications of poor bridge resource management. Although this

guidance was place in Section B of STCW, and is not part of the

mandatory requirements of STCW, the Coast Guard has determined that

masters and officers in charge of a navigational watch need to be

familiar with this guidance to ensure the environmental protection of

U.S. waters from single-hull tank vessels. Because the hazard of bulk

oil spills due to tank barges can also be reduced through

implementation of bridge resource management policy, the requirement,

which ensures that towing vessel operators are also provided with barge

owner and operator guidance, has been included. Implementation of this

requirement coincides with the STCW timeline of February 1, 1997.

3. Vessel Specific Watch Training

Seventeen comments addressed requirements as proposed in

Sec. 157.420, four of which supported this provision; although one

noted that confirmation of completion of training would be difficult

for barge owners or operators that lease towing vessels. Other comments

included the following: clarify how academic training is to be

received; apply academic training to the master and the officer in

charge of a navigational watch only, instead of applying it to all

watchstanders, which is excessive Sec. 157.415); make a distinction

between onboard training and academic instruction and include both in

training programs; emphasize specific vessel attributes instead of

general requirements; and remove the requirement for error trapping

because it is a term more appropriately applied to system safety

engineers rather than mariners.

Of seven comments received that urged only onboard training be

given, four suggested that supervising officers conduct the training.

Another comment suggested that training ashore be conducted by

supervisory personnel. Other comments received indicated that refresher

training be linked to a mariner's license renewal (every 5 years) while

another comment suggested eliminating the refresher training

requirement.

The Coast Guard is revising this section in this final rule to

reflect the requirement in STCW, Section A-I/14. In the final rule,

Owners or operators are required to provide policy and procedures

addressing the vessel specific watch training issues in STCW. This

complements the requirements in STCW and ensures that companies

implement them. The requirement also ensures that barge owners or

operators provide policy and procedures to towing vessel personnel to

ensure that the company policy is clear. The Coast Guard intends to

enforce this requirement by reviewing the policies and procedural

guidance provided to towing vessel personnel by the barge owner or

operator. An oversight program, or other management system, should be

developed by the barge owner or operator to ensure that the policy and

procedures are clear and implemented effectively. The implementation of

this requirement coincides with the STCW implementation date of

February 1, 1997 .

4. Minimum Rest Hour Requirements

Thirty-two comments addressed requirements as proposed in

Sec. 157.425, two of which supported this provision. The other comments

included the following: Clarify the phrase ``prior to cargo transfer

operations''; clarify the rest hour requirements for shifting between

piers; remove the rest hour requirement because it does not imply a

reduction in a mariner's fatigue; remove the rest hour requirement

because the additional crew needed to meet this requirement would have

less expertise and increase the risk of an accident; ensure that the

rest hour requirement does not include monitoring a pilot's rest time;

and ensure that the rest hour requirement does not allow owners or

operators to assess a crew member's fitness for duty in the event the

crew member's rest hours are interrupted by drills or emergencies.

Several comments questioned the Coast Guard's narrow application of

this section to masters and recommend that the rest hour requirements

be applied to masters at all times. Others recommend that the rest hour

requirement be applicable to watchstanders both before port arrival as

well as before port departure. Some comments recommended the rest hour

requirements' applicability to be expanded to all crew members

supervising bunkering or internal oil transfers. Another comment

recommended that the Coast Guard pursue a change to 46 U.S.C. 8104,

which would allow rest periods and coincide with the provisions in

STCW.

As noted by many of the comment writers, STCW addresses rest hour

requirements. Because it is effective and beneficial to include all

mariners in the rest hour requirement, not just mariners on single-hull

tank vessels, the proposed rest hour requirement has been removed from

this rule. Implementation of STCW is well underway and, therefore,

mariners on both U.S. and international vessels will be subject to rest

hour requirements by February 1, 1997. In addition to these

requirements, the work hour requirements of section 4114 of OPA 90

remain in effect.

Surveys

1. Enhanced Survey Requirements

Sixteen comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.430, two of

whom supported the requirements as written. Other comments included the

following: Clarify how the enhanced survey implementation coincides

with 46 CFR part 31; clarify how the enhanced

[[Page 39777]]

survey implementation coincides with classification special survey

requirements; apply the Critical Area Inspection Plan (CAIP) program to

all single-hull tank vessels 5,000 GT or larger; apply requirements of

this section to all tankers and bulk carriers; conform the proposed

section to Regulation 13G of MARPOL 73/78; and harmonize the section

with the requirements adopted by the International Association of

Classification Societies' (IACS) members.

One comment writer recommended eliminating the proposed alternative

enhanced survey option for smaller tankships and tank barges because it

complicates the requirements. Two comments recommended that the Coast

Guard clarify the approval procedures for independent auditing

authorities within the alternative provision. Four comment writers

recommended considering shipowners' self-assessment programs as an

alternative to the enhanced survey requirement.

Regulation of all tank vessels and bulk carriers is not within the

scope of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard has revised the enhanced

survey requirement in this final rule to clarify that the survey

program will begin at a vessel's next regularly scheduled drydock exam.

For U.S. tank vessels, this revision means that the next time the

vessel is required by 46 CFR 31.10-21 to complete a drydock

examination, as defined in 46 CFR 31.10-20, it must implement an

enhanced survey program. For foreign tank vessels, the enhanced survey

program must be implemented at the next drydock required by the flag

administration. This implementation should not conflict with special

surveys required under classification society rules. IACS has

implemented these enhanced survey requirements since 1995 on most

existing tankships because they are also required by MARPOL 73/78 to

meet Regulation 13G. A vessel complies with this rule if it meets the

enhanced survey requirements of Regulation 13G of MARPOL 73/78.

Requiring the CAIP program, in addition to the enhanced survey program,

would be costly and redundant; however, the CAIP program implemented

for some tankships is comparable to international enhanced survey

requirements. Therefore, this rule has been revised to include an

equivalency provision for vessels enrolled in CAIP program. A Coast

Guard review of the program has been included in this revision to

ensure that it is comparable to the enhanced survey requirements prior

to an equivalency determination.

The provision for smaller tankships and tank barge owners or

operators to have an alternative survey program remains in the rule to

reduce cost to small business owners and those not subject to MARPOL

73/78 requirements. Revisions to the alternative survey requirements

were made to reflect the acceptance of a professional engineer as a

third party oversight to the program. Not only will this revision

ensure that the program is implemented and kept active through the

vessel's life, but it will clarify and recognized the value of

independent auditing by knowledgeable individuals.

2. Vital Systems Surveys

Seventeen comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.435, one

of whom supported the requirement. Other comments included the

following: Conform the proposed section with the ISM Code; remove

proposed Sec. 157.435 because the ISM Code and industry already conform

with this requirement; remove proposed Sec. 157.435 because the

requirement are already covered by the Federal Declaration of

Inspection; revise proposed Sec. 157.435 to include only the checklist

requirements; develop a uniform list of elements for each system noted

in this section rather than incorporating industry standards; include

communication system and navigation system surveys in the requirement;

inspect all vessel moorings twice a year instead of the proposed

frequency; require that logbook entries, including surveys and checks,

be done in the deck logbook, and not the Oil Record Book.

Several comments recommended adding the requirement to inspect

mooring lines and emergency towing lines before arrival or departure,

as appropriate. One comment recommended using standby tugs while moored

in extreme areas and suggested that research be conducted on mooring a

vessel to a pier using a magnetic field. Another comment suggested that

the following activities be conducted more frequently: Hydro-pressure

testing of cargo handling equipment; calibration of safety pressure

relief devices in cargo pumping systems, and tank pressure and vacuum

devices; and exercising of critical components of the system such as

crude oil wash, inert gas, tank level indicators or alarms. This

comment writer asserted that these recommendations, if implemented,

would reduce the risk of spills.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the requirements proposed in the SNPRM

and has revised them slightly. This rule goes beyond the requirements

of the Federal Declaration of Inspection requirements and also reflects

current recommended safety practices developed by the International

Chamber of Shipping, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, and the

International Association of Ports and Harbors. No checklists were

proposed in the SNPRM and none have been developed for this final rule.

The International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT),

which is incorporated by reference, contains sufficient, valuable

safety guidance to personnel in charge of transfer operations. The

Coast Guard has incorporated the fourth edition of ISGOTT rather than

the proposed second edition. This newer edition contains format changes

and includes safety measures for loading at terminals having vapor-

emission control systems.

The ISM Code does not specifically address or require companies to

develop the safety measures detailed in this rule. It is anticipated

that this requirement will become part of the company's Safety

Management System when it implements the ISM Code.

This rule was also revised to allow personnel on tank vessels to

inspect mooring, emergency towing, and anchoring gear either prior to

entering port or prior to getting underway. The survey frequency in

this rule, rather than a less frequent survey, is appropriate due to

the propensity for severe weather to shift or damage this typically

exposed gear. Communication and navigation surveys were not proposed in

the SNPRM and are not included in this rule because they are required

by 33 CFR part 164 for vessels 1,600 GT or more and are proposed in a

separate rulemaking for towing vessels (60 FR 55890; November 3, 1995).

The logging requirement for this rule has been revised to reflect entry

of vital systems surveys in the deck logbook or other onboard

documentation. The Coast Guard notes that measures such as magnetizing

or requiring additional tugs at pier facilities may have some benefit,

but these measures are not included in this rule because the cost to

implement them would be prohibitive to many ports.

Navigation and Maneuverability

1. Autopilot Alarm or Indicator

Thirteen comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.440, five

of whom supported the requirement as written. Other comments suggested

that the requirement should not allow the usage of the autopilot in

rivers or restricted waterways. One comment writer, however, asserted

that the requirements of this section are unnecessary because

[[Page 39778]]

a properly trained watch officer always knows the status of his or her

course.

Autopilot use is specifically limited for tank vessels 1,600 GT or

more in 33 CFR 154.13 and currently includes most restricted waterways

and rivers. The Coast Guard has not specified additional autopilot

restrictions because this autopilot alarm or indicator requirement will

effectively reduce the misuse of autopilot when close to shore or in

vessel traffic systems. Some companies have installed these alarms and

have found that, even with highly skilled watchstanders, the alarm has

sounded in waters where a disengaged autopilot was required. The Coast

Guard is retaining the autopilot alarm or indicator requirements in

this final rule because ensuring the autopilot is engaged only in

certain waters is beneficial.

2. Maneuvering Performance Capability

Nineteen comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.445, five

of whom supported the requirement. Some of the comments suggested

applicability changes including the following: Apply proposed

Sec. 157.445 to all vessels, regardless of their flags; extend

application of the proposed Sec. 157.445 to double hull vessels; work

within IMO to apply IMO Resolution A.751(18) to all vessels and include

internationally agreed upon compliance stipulations; remove proposed

Sec. 157.445 because the maneuvering capability measurements of IMO

Resolution A.751(18) are intended only for new vessels, many existing

vessels would fail the capability criteria, and it is unreasonable to

require certain maneuvers at 90 percent of full speed; and remove the

requirement because it is costly, difficult to complete, and not

beneficial.

One comment writer asserted that proposed Sec. 157.445 is too

complex and considered current regulations adequate. Other comments for

revisions to proposed Sec. 157.445 included the following: Accept Annex

1.2.1 in addition to proposed Annex 1.2.2; specify that tests be

conducted on only one vessel of the class; clarify that if a vessel

fails to meet the maneuvering criteria, the vessel owner or operator

will not be liable for allowing the vessel to enter port; remove the

reporting requirement in proposed Sec. 157.445 because it is burdensome

and misinterpretation could occur; provide criteria to the COTP on

applying restrictions; revise the list of criteria that COTPs can

impose by removing proposed tug escort and speed limit options and

including operational restrictions, such as reduced speed operation.

Regulation of all vessels or double hull tank vessels is not within

the scope of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard has considered the

applicability of these maneuvering performance tests to existing

vessels and has retained the test requirements. The maneuvering

capability standard has been removed because the standards are for new

construction while the testing of the vessel's maneuvering capability

is the focus of this rulemaking. By eliminating the requirement to meet

the maneuvering capability standard, there is no longer an issue of

vessel failure. The requirement has also been revised to allow the test

methods of either Annex 1.2.1 or 1.2.2 of IMO Resolution A.751(18) to

complete the tests. Therefore, scale model tests or computer

predictions, validated by full-scale trials, or full-scale trial

results are acceptable. Those vessel owners or operators that contend

that the vessel's full-scale trials would be unsafe, can now use other

technological means to meet this requirement. Additionally, this rule

allows tankship owners or operators to substitute the test results of a

sister vessel if its hydrodynamic and propulsion design characteristics

are the same. By retaining this requirement, the Coast Guard ensures

that the vessel's maneuvering capability, including valuable overshoot

angle information and detailed stopping capabilities, are posted and

discussed prior to port entry or departure. The COTP reporting

requirement proposed in the SNPRM has been removed and replaced with a

requirement for the master to discuss the maneuvering test results with

the pilot. The Coast Guard anticipates that a transit specific

discussion of maneuvering capability between the pilot and the master

is sufficient to reduce the risk of accidents.

3. Maneuvering and Vessel Status Information

Thirteen comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.450, five

of whom supported the requirement and the incorporated standards. Other

comments included the following: Combine pilot card and maneuvering

information requirements into one document; reconcile the proposed

section with 33 CFR 164.35(g) and 46 CFR 35.20-40 to eliminate

conflicting requirements; remove the maneuverability booklet

requirement because it is of little value; retain the information on

the tanker's particulars recorded on the pilot card because it is

valuable; delete the entire proposed Sec. 157.450 because it is not

practical; and apply the requirements to all new and existing U.S. and

foreign vessels over 1,600 GT entering U.S. waters.

The Coast Guard has retained the maneuvering and vessel status

information requirement in this final rule and has made it applicable

to the vessels covered by section 4115(b) of OPA 90; however, the

maneuverability booklet requirement in IMO Resolution A.601 Annex 3.3

is not required. Combining the pilot card with other maneuvering

information is not required because the format of the pilot card,

maneuvering poster, and other maneuvering information has been accepted

by the international community. The maneuvering poster requirement of

this rule is more detailed than the requirements of 33 CFR part 164 and

46 CFR part 35 in that they require squat and other engine information

to be displayed along with the general turning circle information. The

format of the required maneuvering poster is also standardized to

enable quick review of this data and to prevent omission of important

information. Meeting the requirements of IMO Resolution A.601(15) does

not necessarily ensure that the requirements of 33 CFR part 164 and 46

CFR part 35 have also been met.

4. Minimum Under-Keel Clearance

The Coast Guard received 169 comments that responded to proposed

Sec. 157.455, four of which supported this section. Many of the

comments suggested removal of proposed Sec. 157.455 for the following

reasons: most unintentional groundings are caused by operator error or

mechanical failure rather than inadequate clearance; each port already

as draft limits based on its own geography; calculations are unreliable

because of variable environmental factors and vessel schedules; the

public may perceive proposed Sec. 157.455 as ``a quick fix'' and, in

some cases, if implemented, may actually be detrimental to marine

safety; a vessel operator's own safety program is sufficient; studies

have not indicated that this requirement would result in increased

safety; tank vessel owners and operators may be unable to calculate

clearances based on lack of local knowledge; it is more appropriate to

include under-keel clearance awareness and calculation requirements as

a training requirement; a vessel's liability cap may be broken if it is

grounded outside the navigational channel; the authority of the COTP is

undermined and proposed Sec. 157.455 is contrary to PTP's partnership

policy; proposed Sec. 157.455 replaces the valuable local knowledge of

the mariner with the COTP; and proposed Sec. 157.455, if

[[Page 39779]]

implemented, could wrongly extend to all vessels.

Other comments suggested that the calculation of the anticipated

under-keel clearance was acceptable; however, the COTP reporting

requirement was unacceptable for the following reasons: The role of the

COTP, as an independent authority able to enforce clearance

requirements without being a party to the decision, should be

preserved; proposed Sec. 157.455 should be revised to prohibit the

passage of vessels unable to navigate the channel without touching the

bottom because it would be clear, enforceable, and not require COTP

approval; and authority of the COTP is illusory and would not be used

because of the COTP's unwillingness to depart from the official Coast

Guard standard.

One key issue, addressed by 143 comment writers, was that under-

keel clearance levels should be determined locally because of the

variety of local conditions and expertise. Another comment suggested

that because shoals establish a maximum loading draft that could vary

daily, the local minimum under-keel requirements should be set on a

daily basis. Several comments suggested that the Coast Guard allow the

COTP to grant exceptions in situations where there might be a need to

deviate from the minimum under-keel clearance regulations because of

safety or other compelling port operation purposes. Other comment

writers recommended that the requirement either exclude or make

clearance-reduction allowances for the facility. Another comment

suggested that the Coast Guard should only intervene in the event of

intentional overloading, misstating, or understating of the draft.

Four comments specifically recommended reducing the frequency of

calculating under-keel clearance and designating a local authority,

other than the COTP, to set minimum under-keel clearance requirements

and provide water depth data. Other comments suggested that the

calculation include more detail such as squat, size of the vessel, ship

handling, swell, tidal conditions, type of seabed, and salinity.

In contrast, several comments suggested expanding the minimum

under-keel clearance requirement to include the following: Double hull

tank vessels; double bottom tank vessels; and all vessels. Other

comments suggested the following: provide precedence over other

commercial vessels for fully-laden, heavy beam, self-propelled tank

vessels; prescribe convoy-transit-times for potentially high-risk

vessels; require escort tugs be used wherever possible; and require

more than just the vessel personnel to calculate the under-keel

clearance.

Because OPA 90 section 4115(b) addresses existing vessels without

double hulls, expanding this requirement to include all vessels, double

hull vessels or bulk carriers is not within the scope of this

rulemaking. The Coast Guard has revised the anticipated under-keel

clearance requirement. The requirement no longer has a standard of .5

meter; however, the rule retains under-keel calculations and review of

port requirements because the need for single-hull tank vessels to

ensure good safety practices relating to under-keel clearance while

transiting port is particularly essential. The proposed .5 meter

reporting requirement has also been revised in this rule because the

Coast Guard recognizes that many ports have effectively set guidelines

followed by most vessels. Instead of the COTP reporting requirement,

the master and pilot must review the anticipated clearance. The pilot

acts as an advisor, not as a regulator. Partnerships and other civic

groups all assist the Coast Guard in its effort to make the industry

safe; however, owners and operators continue to ignore cooperatively

developed safety practices when profits are favorable. Oil spills have

occurred because tank vessels enter port with drafts too deep for the

facility and then ``find'' an anchor or rock as they intentionally

ground at the facility. Because this rulemaking emphasizes risk

reduction, grounding any vessel at the facility, especially an existing

tank vessel without a double hull or double bottom, is not deemed

prudent.

The factors used to calculate anticipated under-keel clearance

remain general because the Coast Guard has emphasized the planning and

review of the Calculation by the master, pilot, and owner or operator.

The Coast Guard anticipates that a mariner, especially one that has met

the competency requirements of STCW, will use the appropriate factors

such as salinity, tide, and sinkage to complete the anticipated under-

keel clearance calculation. This rule specifically requires the master

to review the calculations with the pilot in order to ensure that a

valuable exchange of relevant information occurs prior to the transit.

This rule also ties the owner or operator into the decision-making

process. If owners or operators influence the master to enter port with

under-keel clearances that are imprudent or not in line with pilot

safety guidance, the vessel owner or operator may risk the loss of the

limits on liability if the vessel grounds during transit.

Additional Requirements for Tank Barges

Of the few comments received addressing additional requirements for

tank barges, two supported the proposed requirements as written.

Another comment suggested that proposed Sec. 157.460(a) be removed

because two engines, a single screw, and duplicate controls have proven

to be safe. Other comments expressed concern that the tank barge owner

or operator would have a difficult time ensuring that the towing vessel

meets the proposed steering and fendering requirements. The Coast Guard

has retained these requirements to ensure the safe operation of tank

barges. If a towing vessel owner has duplicate controls, but not an

alternate power unit, positive steering control cannot be maintained.

Barge owners or operators should be able to screen towing vessels for

these requirements, either by physically checking that this equipment

is in place, or using a contractual agreement as a basis for hiring

appropriate towing vessels.

Emergency Lightering Requirements for Tank Vessels

Eleven comment writers responded to proposed Sec. 157.410, six of

whom supported the requirement as written. The remaining five comment

writers requested clarification on why this proposed lightering

equipment requirement also addressed the piping that would be directly

connected to it. It was not the intent of proposed Sec. 157.410 to

require complete on-deck piping refits on those existing vessels that

have installed malleable iron cargo piping. This rule was developed to

ensure that the equipment was on board and available for use in an

emergency. It was not developed to require a complete reconfiguration

or a new piping system. Surveys and regular maintenance should ensure

that piping systems on existing vessels constructed of malleable iron

remain intact and safe. The Coast Guard has revised this requirement

slightly to simply require that the reducers, bolts, and gaskets not be

constructed of cast iron or malleable iron.

Discussion of Definitions and Subparts

This final rule has added several definitions to meet the

requirements of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-55,

109 Stat. 546 [1995]) which requires different oil types to be

categorized separately. The definitions of ``petroleum oil,''

``vegetable oil,'' ``animal fat,'' and ``other non-petroleum oil'' have

been added to this rule to

[[Page 39780]]

delineate the differences between these cargoes. The definition of

``departing port'' has been removed because it was used to reduce the

impact of the proposed rest hour requirement on small tankship and tank

barge companies. In measures that include port entry or departure

requirements such as vital systems survey and under-keel clearance, the

term ``getting underway'' is used in this rule because it is

appropriate and logical to require these calculations or surveys to be

done prior to vessel movement.

Two subparts have been added to this final rule. New subpart H was

created to separate animal fats or vegetable oils from other oils.

Subpart I was created to separate out other non-petroleum oils. The

Coast Guard has determined that a discharge of animal fat, vegetable

oil, or other non-petroleum oil from a vessel could reasonably be

expected to cause harm to the environment. Therefore, vessels that

carry animal fat, vegetable oil, or non-petroleum oil in bulk are

required to comply with the operational measures in subpart G.

Amendments to 46 CFR Part 31

To ensure cross reference to the enhanced survey requirements,

tables (a) and (b) in 46 CFR 31. 10-21 have been revised to direct

individuals using 46 CFR part 31 to Sec. 157.430; however, it does not

change existing drydock requirements.

Amendments to 46 CFR Part 35

To ensure cross reference to part 157, Sec. 35.01-40(c) of title 46

of the CFR is revised to refer individuals using 46 CFR part 35 to the

applicable pollution prevention requirements.

Incorporation by Reference

The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in

Sec. 157.02 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR

part 51. The material is available as indicated in that section.

Assessment

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under section

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under that order. It requires an assessment

of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It

is significant under the regulatory policy and procedures of the

Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

An Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for

inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The Assessment

is summarized in the following discussion.

This rulemaking applies to all existing vessels of 5,000 GT or more

that do not have double hulls and that carry oil, animal fat, vegetable

oil, and other non-petroleum oil, in bulk as cargo. An estimated 1,359

existing tank vessels (190 U.S. tankships, 1,080 foreign tankships, 86

U.S. tank barges, and 3 foreign tank barges) currently operating on

U.S. navigable waters are affected by this rulemaking.

Comments on the SNPRM Assessment

1. Methodology of Assessment

The Coast Guard requested comments on the methodology used for the

preliminary benefit analysis in the SNPRM as well as each measure's

anticipated benefits and economic feasibility. One comment suggested

that the ``fault trees'' used to represent data in the preamble of the

SNPRM were excellent, but recommended that grounding be separated into

its own category for this analysis. The Coast Guard has reviewed all

accidents in its database that involved single-hull tank vessels and

occurred between 1989 through 1994. Groundings were researched as well

as other types of accidents. Although the ``fault trees'' were not

reconstructed for this final rule, the effectiveness factors were

estimated with respect to the risk of grounding and further field data

was collected to compare and adjust the projected oil spilled benefit

numbers estimated due to groundings.

2. General Comments on Costs and Benefits

One comment writer asserted that the cost-benefit analysis inflated

certain costs, discounted certain benefits, and inflated the estimated

costs. Another comment writer stated that travel and accommodations for

additional crew members would result in higher industry costs than the

costs estimated in the SNPRM assessment. Several comment writers

remarked on the costs of compliance with the minimum under-keel

clearance provision of this rulemaking by asserting the following: a

detailed cost-benefit analysis of the under-keel clearance requirement

should be completed; the potential impact on local trade should be

factored into the cost analysis; the increase in traffic due to the

under-keel clearance requirement would reduce the benefits; and the

under-keel clearance requirement would not improve safety, add economic

benefits, or raise environmental protection. Some comments also

suggested that the costs for the rest hour requirement were

underestimated because 46 U.S.C. 8104(a) only applies to the officer

taking the vessel out of port, not, as the SNPRM estimated, both the

officer and the master.

The Coast Guard has reassessed the benefits from each of the

measures in this rule and has considered remote locations within its

flexibility assessment. The costs were carefully assessed for each

measure and were not overinflated. The costs for rest hours have been

removed in this assessment because the rule no longer requires rest

hours. Benefits have been estimated based on an assessment of each

measure's effectiveness and the actual historical data that suggests

the likelihood of the type of accident the measure mitigates. Some

requirements have been revised and the cost-benefits have been reviewed

and changed to reflect these cost and benefit adjustments. In some

cases, measure's cost has been reduced, an its estimated effectiveness

at mitigating an accident has been reduced as well. This results in

little to no change in the measure's present value cost-effectiveness.

The Coast Guard has kept operational safety and environmental

conservation paramount during the development of these operational

measures and has effectively balanced the Congressional restriction to

only mandate economically and technically feasible requirements.

3. Comments on Under-Keel Clearance Cost and Benefits

The cost associated with the proposed under-keel clearance

requirement was discussed in many comments. The overriding statement of

concern, endorsed by 117 comments, was that proposed Sec. 157.455, if

implemented for all vessels, would have a negative economic effect on

ports and shipping due to the reduction in carrying capacity of

vessels, costs associated with dredging, and tug costs. The comments

suggested that costs, due to an all encompassing national under-keel

standard, would result in the following: for the West Gulf ports, the

economic impact would be $110 million annually; the economic impact of

this .5 meter requirement would negatively impact Texas, Florida,

Louisiana, and Virginia; port costs such as dredging or costs due to

lost customers would place significant economic pressure on the ports;

costs would be higher than estimated because delay times must be

allowed for oil redistribution after partial discharge operations; the

shutout costs to one barge unit, associated with a .5 meter clearance,

would be $600,000

[[Page 39781]]

per year; and the 15 percent reduction of capacity of Aframax

lightering vessels would result in an additional lightering vessel

operation for each very large crude carrier (VLCC) discharge. In

contrast, other comment writers remarked that 10 percent of the draught

in fairways is standard practice inside ports, and that the cost

assessment appears to be too high since under-keel clearance

restrictions are already established in most ports.

Ninety-eight comments suggested that the benefit estimates for

proposed Sec. 157.455 were overestimated by noting the following: the

oil spill from the vessel World Prodigy was not caused by inadequate

under-keel clearance, but by the vessel being on the wrong side of the

buoy and in shallow water; pollution would not be minimized on the

Mississippi River, Delaware River, or any other river because there has

never been an incident; the proposal would result in an increased risk

to the environment from vessel traffic increases due to lightering and

the added danger of spills from the transfer of oil at sea; and because

groundings occur outside the channel, benefits from proposed

Sec. 157.455 would be minimal or nonexistent.

The Coast Guard extensively reviewed the estimated cost and the

anticipated benefit for this measure. A review of the port of New

Orleans records revealed that 1 percent of vessels have entered port in

the last 3 years with drafts exceeding the water depth or entered port

ignoring local pilot guidance. There are records of in-channel

groundings from these vessels, and it is not uncommon to find vessels

aground at the facility prior to off-load operations. Oil spills, such

as the World Prodigy, indicate that lack of passage planning,

specifically lack of under-keel clearance planning, has contributed to

accidents. The majority of comment writers mistakenly assumed that the

proposed under-keel clearance requirement prohibited port entry and was

applicable to all vessels. This rule applies to each single-hull tank

vessel that is not fitted with a double bottom that covers the entire

cargo tank length. It does not extend to all vessels. The cost to ports

was not included in the estimate because the majority of comments and

the Coast Guard's review revealed that most ports already have under-

keel clearance guidance. This rule addresses the small percentage of

single-hull tank vessel owners or operators who knowingly allow their

vessels to enter port at drafts deeper than port guidance recommends or

knowingly ground at the facility. By requiring the master and pilot to

review the anticipated under-keel clearance calculation and compare or

review it with the owner's or operator's guidance, the risk of a

grounding will be reduced.

Industry Cost

Some of the operational measures require actions prior to each port

transit or cargo transfer. As a result, vessels on coastwise or

frequent transit schedules will incur higher expenses than vessels with

a lower frequency of port calls. In contrast, the decrease in fleet

size as vessels arrive at their phaseout date results in a downward

trend in estimated annual costs from 1996 through 2014.

First-year compliance cost of this final rule will total about

$60.5 million. Annual costs of the rule will trend downward, leveling

out annually at $539,054 during 2012 to 2014, the final years that the

rule will be in effect. The present value of this rule is discounted at

7 percent throughout this assessment in accordance with current OMB

guidance to reflect the costs or benefits as they would have been in

the year the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was enacted. The

estimated present value of this rule, discounted at 7 percent, will

total $106.3 million. U.S. tankships and tank barges account for an

estimated one-third of the total cost, and foreign tank vessels and

barges account for the remainder. A discussion of costs for each

requirement follows.

The costs associated with each operational measure were developed

based on vessel type, vessel use, and average vessel size. The cost

analysis was applied to tankships and tank barges. Cost analysis

calculations were based upon the following assumptions: (1) the

rulemaking comes into effect in 1996; (2) the recurring cost of this

rulemaking reflects the future vessel population decrease as required

by the phaseout schedule in section 4115(a) of OPA 90; (3) costs and

benefits developed for this rulemaking are discounted at 7 percent back

to 1990; and (4) all recurring costs are calculated for the year 2001.

Emergency Lightering Equipment

Lightering equipment costs were based on the costs used in the

final rule entitled ``Emergency Lightering Equipment and Advanced

Notice of Arrival Requirements for Existing Tank Vessels Without Double

Hulls'' (59 FR 40186; August 5, 1994). The vessel population affected

by the emergency lightering equipment rule is small. Section 157.410 of

title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires oil tankers to

have this equipment. It is not common industry practice to allow cast

iron flanges and fittings on tank vessels; therefore, only tank vessels

with exclusive animal fat, vegetable oil, or other non-petroleum cargo

carriage authority were included in the cost of this rule.

Approximately 114 foreign tankships and 2 foreign tank barges carry

non-petroleum cargo and may be affected by this change. No U.S. vessels

are indicated under this measure.

The onetime cost for this requirement for foreign tankships is

estimated to be $456,000 to $1.1 million and the cost for foreign tank

barges will be $8,000 to $19,000. Based on the average onetime cost for

foreign tankships and tank barges, the present value of point-estimate

costs for emergency lightering, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, is

$530,000.

Bridge Resource Management Policy and Procedures

The cost for bridge resource management policy and procedures

reflects a 5-month implementation period in order to be in line with

the implementation of the International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as

amended in 1995 (STCW).

Development of company specific bridge resource management policy

and procedures was estimated to cost $5,000 per vessel per company and

is representative of the initial first-year costs of this requirement.

The cost for a company to review the policy and procedures, including

vessel personnel oversight to ensure that the watchstanders understand

and follow guidance, is estimated to be $1,000 per vessel per year.

The first-year costs imposed are estimated to total $4.7 million.

Recurring costs are estimated to total $5.5 million over the 19-year

life of this rule. Total costs of development and continued review of

bridge resource management policy and procedures, discounted at 7

percent, will be approximately $10.17 million.

Vessel Specific Watch Policy and Procedures

The Coast Guard estimates the additional cost incurred by this

requirement to be negligible. The cost attributed to time lost due to

this policy and procedures requirement is negligible because

implementing this type of policy falls within the scope of a master's

present responsibility to ensure that the crew is ``fit for duty'' and

this requirement is already mandated by STCW.

[[Page 39782]]

Enhanced Survey Requirements

Those tankships regulated by flag administrations that have adopted

Regulation 13G of annex I of MARPOL 73/78 are presently required to

meet this enhanced survey requirement; therefore, no cost was

attributed to them for this rule. U.S. tankships currently are not

required to meet Regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78; however, if

they have a current classification by a classification society that is

a member of IACS, they have been in an enhanced survey program since

1995. Under this rule, those U.S. and foreign tank vessels not covered

by MARPOL 73/78 Regulation 13G and those not classed by an IACS member,

will incur costs associated with developing or augmenting current

survey programs to meet this requirement.

Cost attributed to the enhanced survey requirement includes the fee

for the surveyor's time to conduct the survey and document it.

Additional costs include making approximately two tank interiors

accessible to the surveyor through the use of scaffolding, ladders,

lines, or other arrangements and additional gauging requirements. Some

additional repair costs may also be incurred after a review of the

survey is completed. These repair costs were estimated in this

assessment but were not increased due to vessel age because thorough,

frequent hull surveys should detect repairs before they come

comprehensive--even as the vessel approaches its phaseout. Cost

estimates do not include the costs to drydock the vessel, gas free it

for inspection, or keep it in the drydock because these costs are

already incurred with present drydocking requirements.

Tank barges are not required to meet Regulation 13G of Annex I of

MARPOL 73/78. This rule allows tank barges and vessels smaller than the

MARPOL 73/78 cutoff to substitute comparable company programs for the

enhanced survey requirements. Because the company program clause

assumes the owner has an established survey program and will not need

to conduct extensive additional repairs, the cost of these company

programs will be less than a classification survey. The cost for this

equivalency is estimated to be half the expense of a classification

society to document an enhanced survey, and half the expense of a

MARPOL 73/78 tankship owner to gauge, scaffold, and make repairs to two

cargo tanks.

The total estimated cost for this rule reflects a 30-month initial

implementation period which coincides with most vessels' regularly

scheduled drydock examinations. Because the frequency of the drydock

examination is once every 2.5 years, an implementation adjustment of .4

was multiplied by the cost for one survey to calculate annual costs.

The Coast Guard assumes that the owners or operators will spread survey

costs evenly over the 2.5-year interval. The Coast Guard estimates the

total estimated first-year annual cost for this rule to be $2.4 million

for U.S. tankships; $10.3 million for foreign tankships; $2.3 million

for U.S. tank barges; and $80,000 for foreign tank barges. Because the

cost estimates have been averaged and it has been assumed that vessels

affected by this rulemaking will be in service for at least two drydock

enhanced surveys prior to their phaseout, recurring costs will be the

same as the first-year costs. The estimated present value enhanced

survey cost, discounted at 7 percent in 1990, will total $28.2 million.

Vital Systems Surveys

The cost of this measure will vary based on port departure

frequency, crew salary, and the estimated time required for each

survey. A survey is required before a tank vessel begins cargo transfer

operations or prior to a vessel either entering port or getting

underway. An estimate of port arrivals was calculated based on 1993

Coast Guard data and reflects an average arrival frequency of 28 for

U.S. tankships, 32 for U.S. tank barges, 6 for foreign tankships, and 7

for foreign tank barges. Three surveys were estimated for each port

arrival.

Crew members affected by this requirement will be senior personnel.

For tank barge surveys, an average towing vessel master's wage was used

for cost evaluation. For tankship surveys, an average chief mate's wage

and a chief engineer's wage were used for cost evaluation. Survey time

was estimated at 1 hour on a tankship (0.5 hour each for both the chief

mate and chief engineer) and approximately 48 minutes for the master of

a primary towing vessel or a senior tank barge representative. The

survey cost is estimated for U.S. tankships to be $660,000. The

estimated survey cost to foreign tankships will be $465,000. The

estimated survey cost to foreign tankships will be $465,000; to U.S.

tank barges, $289,000; to foreign tank barges, $2,500. By 2001, the

estimated cost of this rule to U.S. tankships will be $472,000; to

foreign tankships $322,000; to U.S. tank barges, $208,000; and to

foreign tank barges, $1,500. The present estimated value of the costs

of vital system surveys during each year the rule will be in effect,

discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total $6.0 million.

Autopilot Alarm or Indicator

The cost for this measure was calculated based on the assumption

for this measure was calculated based on the assumption that 10 percent

of the U.S. tankships presently meet this requirement, none of the

foreign tankships presently have this capability, and three towing

vessels will require an indicator for every two tank barges affected by

this final rule. It was also assumed that the tank barge company owned

the towing vessel and, therefore, will incur the cost of this

requirement. The estimated installation cost of a visual and audible

autopilot alarm is $5,000 on electronic tankship steering systems and

the estimated autopilot indicator cost is $100. Negligible additional

costs are attributed to the testing of this alarm because the test is

short and there is a preexisting requirement to test this type of

equipment under 33 CFR part 164. This rule will have a onetime

estimated cost to U.S. tankships of $855,000; to foreign tankships,

$5.4 million; to U.S. tank barges, $12,900; and to foreign tank barges,

$500. The estimated present value of autopilot alarm cost, discounted

at 7 percent to 1990, will total $4.2 million.

Maneuvering Performance Capability

Under this final rule, foreign and domestic tankships of 5,000 GT

or greater without double hulls will be required to conduct additional

maneuvering tests and also recalculate or confirm other maneuvering

characteristic datum. Required performance tests can be done with the

vessel in operation or with computer simulation. Test costs are based

on an independent subcontractor coming on board a tankship to conduct

the tests and provide the documentation required. This estimate

reflects industry cost for test preparation, equipment, personnel,

transportation, vessel operational delay, data processing, and final

report collation. It was assumed that no tankships affected by this

rule have conducted these tests. Because sister vessel test

substitutions are allowed in this rule, no cost was attributed to 20

percent of the vessel population. Model testing was assumed to be

similar in cost to actual testing.

The total onetime estimated cost to the U.S. tankship industry will

be $2.8 million and the cost to the foreign tankship industry will be

$15.9 million. The estimated present value maneuvering performance

capability cost, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total $12.46

million.

[[Page 39783]]

Maneuvering and Vessel Status Information

No additional maneuvering tests will be required for Sec. 157.450;

however, some recalculation of data from the original tests used to

develop the wheelhouse poster of 33 CFR 164.35(g) may be required. A

cost estimated of $1,080 was developed to reflect the recalculation of

original maneuvering data and the fee of an average U.S. licensed naval

architect. Vessel population estimates indicated that 75 percent of

both foreign and U.S. tankships presently meet the wheelhouse poster

requirement. The cost attributed to the pilot card requirement will be

negligible because the time spent completing the pilot cards is within

the scope of the officer in charge of a navigational watch's normal

duties.

This requirement has a onetime cost attributed to the wheelhouse

poster. For the 190 U.S. tankships, the estimated cost of the

wheelhouse poster will be $10,000. For the 1,080 foreign tankships, the

estimated cost of the wheelhouse poster will be $58,000. The estimated

present value maneuvering and vessel status information cost,

discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total $43,995.

Minimum Under-Keel Clearance

The cost of the measure was based on several assumptions. This

requirement anticipates that the under-keel clearance calculation will

be completed by the vessel master or tug operator, reviewed with the

pilot, and compared with company port specific guidance or reviewed

with the vessel owner or operator prior to port entry or getting

underway. For tank vessels, it was assumed that this calculation will

be done at least twice for each port transit. It was assumed that this

measure will affect approximately 1 percent of the tankship population

and 10 percent of the tank barge population. Of the affected

population, it was estimated that this rule will result in a 9 percent

reduction in cargo carrying capacity. The cost attributed to the

recording requirement will be negligible because the time spent

completing the vessel log entry or other similar documentation is

within the scope of the officer of a navigational watch's normal

duties.

As a result of the reduced cargo capacity for the affected vessels,

the first-year under-keel clearance cost is estimated for U.S.

tankships to be $2.5 million. Foreign tankship costs will be about $3.6

million, U.S. tank barge cost will be about $4.2 million, and foreign

tank barge costs will be about $142,000. By 2001, the estimated

recurring cost of this rule to U.S. tankships will be $1.3 million; to

foreign tankships, $2.5 million; to U.S. tank barges, $2.8 million; and

to foreign tank barges, $142,000. The estimated present value of the

costs of under-kneel clearance during each year the rule will be in

effect, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total $43.97 million.

Emergency Steering Capability

Section 157.460(a) applied to the primary towing vessels engaged in

towing tank barges of 5,000 GT or more without a double hull. An

estimated total of 134 towing vessels will be affected by this final

rule. Of these vessels, research indicates 80 percent presently meet

this requirement. It was assumed that the towing vessels that do not

meet this requirement are owned by the tank barge company. The cost to

reconfigure the towing vessel's steering gear will be $25,000 based on

an independent subcontractor installing additional piping and tankage

on an existing hydraulic steering system.

The onetime emergency steering requirement cost is estimated to be

$645,000 for U.S. tank barge companies, and $25,000 for foreign tank

barge owners or operators. The estimated present value emergency

steering capability cost, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total

$446,000.

Fendering Systems

Section 157.460(b) applies to primary towing vessels and the

fleeting or assist towing vessels engaged in maneuvering tank barges of

5,000 GT or more without double hulls. A total of 312 towing vessels

will be affected by this final rule. Of these vessels, 80 percent

presently have adequate fendering systems. It was assumed that those

towing vessels that do not meet this requirement are owned by the tank

barge company or the tank barge company will realize a cost increase in

the leasing of an adequately fendered towing vessel. The cost to add or

reconfigure the towing vessel's fendering system will be $1,320 based

on a towing vessel's personnel installing an additional 8 linear feet

of commercial fenders during a routine maintenance period.

This requirement is estimated to have an initial cost to U.S. tank

barge companies of $79,500, and a cost to foreign tank barge companies

of $3,000. Estimated recurring costs, reflecting the diminishment of

the single-hull tank barge fleet by 2001, will be $57,000 for U.S. tank

barge companies and $2,000 for foreign tank barge companies. The

estimated present value of the cost of fendering systems, discounted at

7 percent to 1990, will total $329,000.

Government Cost

Federal Government cost will include Coast Guard personnel time and

resources to review survey records and documentation required by this

rule during annual tank vessel examinations (foreign vessels) or annual

inspections (U.S. vessels). It does not include Federal Government cost

to vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF), because under

Pub. L. 104-106, NDFR vessels are exempt from the provisions of section

3703a of title 46, United States Code.

The length of time added to a typical examination or inspection

varies based on the type of service in which the vessel engages. The

Coast Guard estimates that these requirements will increase the time of

examination or inspection by an average of 0.5 hours for any given

requirement. The various requirements range from 0.25 hours to inspect

log entries to 8 hours to review documentation of an enhanced survey on

a U.S. tankship or tank barge.

Government costs attributable to implementation of this rule are

based on 11 requirements. The Coast Guard examination or inspection

will evaluate relevant documentation on several measures. These

measures are as follows: bridge resource management policy and

procedures, vessel specific policy and procedures, enhanced surveys,

vital systems surveys, maneuvering performance capability test

information, maneuvering information, and minimum under-keel clearance.

During an annual examination or random port inspection, the Coast guard

will also ensure that the emergency lightering equipment, the autopilot

alarm or indicator, the emergency steering gear, and the fendering

systems meet the requirements.

The maneuvering performance capability requirement specifies that a

tankship master shall discuss the vessel's test results with the pilot

prior to port entry or getting underway. Coast Guard personnel will not

have any oversight obligation for this requirement.

Therefore, the government cost analysis assumes annual inspection

time will average 6.95 hours for U.S. tank vessels and 4.75 hours for

foreign tank vessels. Based on a $35.00 per hour wage estimate for a

Coast Guard inspector, the Coast guard expects that the 7,062

additional man-hours of inspection time will cost $247,179 annually.

[[Page 39784]]

Cost--Benefit Evaluation

Costs

Cost estimates were based on the forecasted 19-year life of this

regulation. For all requirements, the undiscounted cost of compliance

is projected to be $209 million. The estimated present value cost of

this rule, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will total $106.3 million.

Benefits

Pollution mitigation benefits from these operational measures will

accrue mainly in areas around loading terminals, narrow channels, and

in open waters during lightering operations.

A benefit analysis for each measure was completed after reviewing

the 107 tank vessel casualties that have occurred to vessels without

double hulls within the last 6 years. Casualty information was reviewed

from the Coast Guard's marine safety information system as well as from

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports, if available.

Appendix C (available in the docket) contains details on the 107

casualties reviewed for this benefit analysis and ordering information

on casualty case reports completed by NTSB.

The estimated benefits for each measure were calculated by

reviewing the casualty report, analyzing each casualty's root causes,

and estimating a percentage of the recorded or probable spillage

associated with each root cause. The actual and potential amounts of

oil spilled were then broken down from these estimated root cause

percentages and accredited to each of the measures, if applicable.

An annual actual and potential oil spill estimate for each vessel

was calculated for each measure. The actual amount of oil spilled and

the actual dollar amount of damage done to the vessel, pier, or other

structures was tabulated. A potential amount of oil spilled and damage

was also estimated for each accident. These potential amounts are an

estimate of how much additional spilled oil or damage could have

occurred if there had been slight change in accident circumstances such

as the amount of cargo in the damaged tank(s); the potential amounts do

not reflect the worst-case scenario. By cumulating the actual oil spill

and damage amounts over the 19-year rulemaking period and correlating

these amounts with the phase-out schedule for single-hull tank vessels,

mean values for spills and damages for each measure were established.

An estimate of the variance in oil spills and damages over the next 19

years was developed by tracking the difference between the potential

and actual oil spill and damage amounts. The anticipated volume of oil

spilled and damage to vessels and equipment was determined to be

slightly higher than the mean values because this assessment only

reviewed 6 years of data.

Comparison with other long-term oil spill studies reveals that the

107 accidents studied in this assessment are not necessarily

representative. Therefore, further analysis was done to estimate, using

the variance values calculated for the 107 accidents, the appropriate

increase in benefits attributable to each measure. To compare the data

from the 107 accidents in this assessment, each accident was correlated

with a general incident type (structural failure, collision, grounding,

fire, or explosion). The benefits for those measures correlated with

structural or fire and explosion incidents were not increased because

these incidents occur randomly and their adverse effects within the 19-

year period of this rulemaking are unpredictable. The benefits

correlated with collisions, groundings, and operational spills were

increased because the mean values determined from the 107 accidents

were lower than estimates extrapolated from oil spill studies done

between 1976 through 1989. To calculate the appropriate increase in

benefits, the sum of all measures apportioned to each incident type was

compared to an estimated of incident spill volumes from long-term oil

spill studies. An iterative process was used to adjust the portion of

the variance added to each benefit and compare the summed incident

values to ensure that they remained below the estimated long-term spill

volume amounts.

A risk effectiveness factor range was developed using figures 3

through 6 in the preamble of the SNPRM for each measure. This factor

range estimates the percentage of causal factors leading to an accident

that will be eliminated if the measures are followed. An estimated

range of future barrels of avoided oil spilled and avoided damages,

based on the qualitative risk assessment, was developed for each

measure by multiplying the adjusted mean oil spill and damage amounts

with the risk effectiveness factor range.

Each measure's actual benefit range, with the dollar figures

adjusted to reflect the present value in 1990 dollars, are as follows:

Emergency lightering equipment. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range for this measure was established to be between 1 percent

and 3 percent. The number of vessels used for the benefit calculations

was assumed to be the same as the affected vessel population using the

phase-out estimate described in the cost section. Because this

requirement mitigates oil outflow and does not reduce accident risk,

the benefits were estimated based on the amount of oil actually spilled

(without any damage numbers included) from the 107 researched

casualties. By cumulating the amount of actual oil spilled in the 107

casualties and dividing by the average number of single-hull vessels

operating between 1989 and 1994, a per vessel oil spill amount was

calculated. This oil spill amount was then divided by the 6-year period

to give an estimated annual oil spilled per tank vessel amount of 43.33

barrels. A benefit total was calculated by cumulating this oil spill

per vessel amount multiplied by the anticipated vessel population over

the 19-year period. The cumulative benefit total was then multiplied by

the estimated risk effectiveness factor range to provide the final

benefit range. For the emergency lightering equipment requirement, the

estimated present value benefit range is 485 to 1,456 barrels of

unspilled oil for the 19-year life of this rule.

Bridge resource management policy and procedures. The estimated

risk effectiveness factor range for bridge resource management policy

and procedures was established to be between 5 percent and 8 percent.

This estimate reflects the anticipated effectiveness in reducing the

risk of an accident by making the master and watch officers aware of

the need to effectively manage bridge personnel. Research on the 107

accidents attributed approximately $21 million in vessel damage and

94,161 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 to poor bridge resource

management practices. The estimated risk effectiveness factor range was

multiplied by the cumulated benefits to estimate the requirement's

benefit. The bridge resource management policy and procedures

requirement benefits will range from 16,349 to 26,159 barrels of

unspilled oil and $1,607,091 to $2,571,346 dollars of undamaged

property for the 19-year life of this rule.

Vessel specific policy and procedures. The estimated risk

effectiveness factor range for vessel specific policy and procedures

was established to be between 2 percent and 10 percent. This estimate

reflects the anticipated effectiveness in reducing the risk of an

accident by ensuring new crew members are given the time and training

they need to be effective. Research on the 107 accidents attributed

approximately $22,050 in vessel damage

[[Page 39785]]

and 1,256 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 to lack of crew

knowledge in emergency procedures or equipment. These damage and oil

spill estimates were cumulated per vessel per year, and the risk

effectiveness factor range was then used to predict the final benefits.

The vessel specific policy and procedures requirement benefits will

range from 115 to 575 barrels of unspilled oil and $685 to $3,426

dollars of undamaged property for the 19-year life of this rule.

Enhanced survey requirement. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range for the enhanced survey requirement was established to be

between 6 percent and 12 percent. This estimate reflects the

anticipated effectiveness in reducing the risk of an accident by

ensuring that the vessel's structure has a detailed inspection on a

regular schedule. Research on the 107 accidents attributed

approximately $1 million in vessel damage and 79,694 barrels of oil

spilled from 1989 to 1994 to undetected structural flaws which led to

major catastrophes. These damage and oil spill estimates were cumulated

per vessel per year, and the risk effectiveness factor range was then

used to predict the final benefits.

The benefit anticipated from this enhanced survey requirement is

not from the actual survey, but from the timely repairs made to the

vessel based on the survey. Although this assessment attributed some

cost to repairs for each survey, this requirement, in and of itself,

does not mandate repair. The requirement implies that a tank vessel

owner or operator will review the survey reports and ensure that

appropriate repairs are made to the vessel to prevent a major

structural catastrophe. In some, but not all, cases the Coast Guard or

the classification society will review the enhanced survey reports and

oversee appropriate repairs, but the responsibility to ensure that

appropriate repairs are done rests on the vessel owner or operator.

This assessment does not quantify the added benefits anticipated

from savings realized from making only needed repairs. With this

requirement a tank vessel will be subject to close scrutiny; therefore,

extensive general repairs done because the surveyor is uncertain of

specific damaged areas, will be scaled down to fix the appropriate area

or eliminated since the added gauging and close-up examination will

reveal more defined information on the structure's soundness.

Taking into account the anticipated effectiveness of this

requirement, the enhanced survey program requirement benefits will

range from 7,280 to 14,559 barrels of unspilled oil and $95,313 to

$190,626 dollars of undamaged property for the 19-year life of this

rule.

Vital system surveys. The estimated risk effectiveness factor for

vital system surveys was established to be between 8 percent and 13

percent. This estimate reflects the anticipated effectiveness in

reducing the risk of an accident by ensuring that systems are working

properly prior to cargo transfers and port transits. Research on the

107 accidents attributed approximately $3.3 million in vessel damage

and 3,920 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 because critical

pumping, piping, and deck gear were not maintained. These damage and

oil spill estimates were cumulated per vessel per year and the risk

effectiveness factor range was then used to predict final benefits. The

vital systems survey requirement benefits will range from 1,153 to

1,874 barrels of unspilled oil and $402,125 to $653,454 dollars of

undamaged property for the 19-year life of this rule.

Autopilot alarm or indicator. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range for autopilot alarms or indicators was established to be

between 4 percent and 9 percent. This estimate reflects the anticipated

effectiveness in reducing the risk of an accident by making sure that

the tankship's master or the tug's master knows that the autopilot is

engaged and that it must be turned off before maneuvering the vessel.

Research on the 107 accidents attributed approximately $1.25 million in

vessel damage and 12,900 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994

because the autopilot was engaged while the master or watch officer was

trying to maneuver the vessel. The estimated risk effectiveness factor

range was multiplied by the cumulated benefits to estimate the

requirement's benefit. The autopilot alarm or indicator requirement

benefits will range from 818 to 1,841 barrels of unspilled oil and

$75,937 to $170,857 dollars of undamaged property for the 19-year life

of this rule.

Maneuvering and vessel status information. The risk effectiveness

factor range for this measure was estimated to be between 9 percent and

14 percent. This estimate reflects the anticipated effectiveness in

reducing the risk of an accident by making sure the tankship's master

understands the status of the vessel's equipment and maneuvering

characteristics, including squat. Research on the 107 accidents

attributed approximately $11.3 million in vessel damage and 3,333

barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 because the pilot or master

was not aware of the equipment status. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range was multiplied by the cumulated benefits to estimate the

requirement's benefit. The maneuvering and vessel status information

requirement benefits will range from 2,025 to 3,150 barrels of

unspilled oil and $1,569,018 to $2,440,695 dollars of undamaged

property for the 19-year lift of this rule.

Maneuvering performance capability tests. The risk effectiveness

factor range for this measure was estimated to be between 8 percent and

13 percent. This estimate reflects the anticipated effectiveness in

reducing the risk of an accident by making sure the tankship's master

and the pilot discuss the vessel's maneuvering capabilities and know

how the vessel's limitations may impact the transit. Research on the

107 accidents attributed approximately $.5 million in vessel damage and

3,337 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 because masters and

pilots failed to properly predict the vessel's capability to maneuver

to tight turns or difficult approaches. The estimated risk

effectiveness factor range was multiplied by the cumulated benefits to

estimate the requirement's benefit. The maneuvering performance

capability test requirement benefits will range from 3,960 to 6,435

barrels of unspilled oil and $65,592 to $106,587 dollars of undamaged

property for the 19-year life of this rule.

Minimum under-keel clearance. The risk effectiveness factor range

for the minimum under-keel clearance requirement was estimated to be

between 10 percent and 23 percent. This reflects the anticipated

effectiveness in reducing the risk of an accident by making sure the

tankship or tug master understood the under-keel clearance of the

vessel and do not bring the vessel into areas that are shallow or

shoaling. Research on the 107 accidents attributed approximately $13.8

million in vessel damage and 7,176 barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to

1994 because the pilot or master did not correctly gauge the vessel's

draft in relationship to the transit depths or ignored port specific

draft guidance. The estimated risk effectiveness factor range was

multiplied by the cumulated benefits to estimate the requirement's

benefit. The under-keel clearance requirement benefits will range from

5,279 to 12,142 barrels of unspilled oil and $2,102,584 to $4,835,943

for the 19-year life of this rule.

Emergency steering capability. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range for the emergency steering capability requirement was

established to be between 4 percent and 9 percent. This estimate

reflects the anticipated effectiveness in reducing the risk of an

[[Page 39786]]

accident by making sure the tug has steering while working with tank

barges of 5,000 GT or more. Research on the 107 accidents attributed

approximately $1.6 million in vessel damage and 428 barrels of oil

spilled from 1989 to 1994 because the tug lost steering control while

maneuvering tank barges of 5,000 GT or more. The estimated risk

effectiveness factor range was multiplied by the cumulated benefits to

estimate the requirement's benefit. The emergency steering capability

requirement benefits will range from 67 to 150 barrels of unspilled oil

and $79,766 to $179,474 dollars of undamaged property for the 19-year

life of this rule.

Fendering systems. The estimated risk effectiveness factor range

for fendering systems was established to be between 5 percent and 9

percent. This estimate reflects the anticipated effectiveness in

reducing the risk of an accident due to damage by ensuring that the

tank barge is protected from maneuvering tugs. Research on the 107

accidents attributed approximately $85,888 in vessel damage and 768

barrels of oil spilled from 1989 to 1994 because tugs ram the barge and

either promote or create cracking. The estimated risk effectiveness

factor range was multiplied by the cumulated benefits to estimate the

requirement's benefit. The fendering system requirement benefits will

range from 128 to 230 barrels of unspilled oil and $5,351 to $9,632

dollars of undamaged property for the 19-year life of this rule.

Cost-Benefit. The estimated cost-benefit for each measure was

calculated by dividing the measure's present value net cost by the

measure's present value barrels of unspilled oil. Net cost was

calculated by subtracting the present value range of undamaged

property, in dollars, from the present value cost of each measure.

Estimates of damages to natural resources are not included in the net

cost for this final rule. The net present value of the costs of various

measures will range from $0 to $7,931 per barrel of unspilled oil. The

overall mean present value of these operational measures is $2,025 per

barrel of unspilled oil.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small

entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and (2) governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard has determined that

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The operational measures will affect several small businesses

within the maritime industry until 2015, a period of about 19 years.

The Coast Guard has made this finding of no significant economic

impact, however, after having determined that the flexibility in this

rulemaking balances the requirements placed on tank barges and

tankships and provides equitable treatment of U.S. and foreign flag

vessels.

This rulemaking considered small business impact for vessels

privately held by independent companies that have an estimated capital

investment value of less than $500 million or have less than 500

employees. State and local governments, which altogether own less than

a dozen tank vessels, will not be significantly affected. Not-for-

profit organizations do not engage in the transportation of oil in bulk

by water.

There are a number of companies meeting the definition of a small

business operating in each segment of industry (tankship, tank barge,

and towing vessel.) Of the 190 U.S. tankships affected by this final

rule, 16 are owned by 6 small businesses. Many of these company's

tankships are over 30 years old, have less cargo carrying capacity than

their competition, and are laid up due to market or company financial

conditions. Six small businesses own or operate 32 of the affected U.S.

tank barge population. No foreign small businesses own or operate

foreign tank vessels that will be affected by this final rule. Tank

barge companies are required under this rule to enlist towing vessels

with certain capabilities and trained personnel. Indirectly, some

towing vessel companies may also be affected by these requirements;

however, the Coast Guard has determined that most tank barge owners

also own their towing vessels or regularly contract with a limited

number of towing companies.

An economic impact is unavoidable because the statute clearly

targets existing vessels of 5,000 GT or more that carry oil in bulk as

cargo and do not have double hulls. The present value of the total cost

to the industry of this rule, discounted at 7 percent to 1990, will

total $106.3 million. However, the Coast Guard has several measures

within this final rule to accommodate small business needs and provide

flexibility to small entities affected by this final rule.

Flexibility and small business needs are accommodated in the

enhanced survey requirement by allowing companies owning tank barges or

tank vessels less than 30,000 deadweight tons (dwt) to conduct their

own surveys and to choose among various organizations for program

oversight. It also phases in this requirement over a 2.5-year period to

enable small businesses to research their needs and plan for the

implementation of an inspection program.

To accommodate small businesses in the tank barge industry, the

cost of reconfiguring a towing vessel owned by the tank barge company

was minimized by requiring the autopilot alarm to be an indicator; a

simple sign placed on the wheel will suffice. This requirement gives a

comparable warning in the small confines of the one-man towing vessel

wheelhouse as will an alarm for the larger, multiple-person, complex

bridge of a tankship. The emergency steering capability requirement

accommodates a range of designs by allowing for either a secondary

steering system or twin propulsion capability. This requirement allows

the majority of tank barge companies to continue using their vessels or

the vessels they typically lease; however, it also ensures that the

master or operator will have some maneuvering capability in an

electrical, hydraulic, or engine failure, which will be a benefit to

all operators.

Smaller tankship companies should have the capability to conduct

the maneuvering performance standard tests of IMO Resolution A.751(18).

While the assessment cost of this item is for a commercial company to

conduct the maneuvering tests, this rulemaking in no way prohibits a

company form conducting the tests in-house. The guidelines and

technical details of the tests are well documented and are within the

capabilities of a licensed master or pilot. The equipment needed for

these types of maneuvering tests, such as a Differential Global

Positioning System (DGPS), is available on the commercial market at low

cost.

Unfunded Mandate

Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4), the Coast

Guard must consider whether this rule will result in an annual

expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation). The Act also requires (in Section 205) that the Coast Guard

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

and, from those alternatives, select the least costly, most cost-

effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective

of the rule.

[[Page 39787]]

The cost analysis completed for this rule estimates first-year

compliance costs to be $60.5 million. Annual costs of this rule will

trend downward, leveling out annually at $539,054 during 2012 through

2014, the final years that the rule will be in effect. This rule will

not result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private

sector. The cost-benefit analysis done for this rule addresses expected

cost-effectiveness for each measure. For those measures that were

estimated to be the most costly, alternative requirements, extended

implementation periods, or provisions for the company to determine

appropriate implementation on a case-by-case basis were included in

this rule.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that contains a

collection-of-information requirement to determine whether the

practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its

collection. Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,

recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar requirements.

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements in the

following sections: Secs. 157.415, 157.420, 157.430, 157,435, 157.445,

157.450, and 157.455. The following particulars apply:

DOT No.: 2115.

Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.

Title: Operational Measures to Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank

Vessels Without Double Hulls

Need For Information: Without adequate operational measures on tank

vessels, the potential for spills as a result of human error is greatly

increased. This rule requires the mariner to log or otherwise record

information that is necessary for the safe operation of the vessel

including: (1) documentation for company management and the Coast Guard

to ensure personnel are informed and systems are being surveyed both

frequently and thoroughly; (2) accessibility to certain vessel specific

maneuvering characteristics so that personnel navigating the vessel

have a quick reference to critical information; (3) documentation of a

vessel's command and control status to ensure a pilot receives accurate

information prior to maneuvering evolutions; and (4) notification to

company management (unless the company provides written guidance) of

the vessel's anticipated under-keel clearance so that the company can

ensure prudent clearance is maintained. These recordkeeping

requirements are consistent with good commercial practice and the

dictates of good seamanship for safe navigation and maintenance of

vital equipment.

Proposed Use of Information: The primary use of this information

will be for Coast Guard inspectors to determine if a vessel is in

compliance or, in the case of a casualty, whether failure to meet these

regulations contributed to the casualty. The Coast Guard has no

specific plan to collect this data for statistical analysis.

Frequency of Response: Owners, master, or operators of tank vessels

subject to this rule will be required to record or maintain the

following documentation: (1) under Sec. 157.415, develop bridge

resource management policy and procedures; (2) under Sec. 157.420,

develop vessel specific watch policy and procedures; (3) under

Sec. 157.430, complete an enhanced survey during each drydock

examination (this information must also be provided to the Coast Guard

upon its request); (4) under Sec. 157.435, by vessel log entry or

similar means on board the vessel, record the results of each required

vital systems survey; (5) under Sec. 157.445(d), post test results for

maneuvering performance capability; (6) under Sec. 157.450, post the

standardized IMO maneuvering information in the wheelhouse and complete

a pilot card before entering the port or place of destination and prior

to getting underway; (7) under Sec. 157.455, calculate anticipated

under-keel clearance before entering the port or place of destination

and prior to getting underway.

Burden Estimate: 73,411 hours.

Respondents: 1,404.

Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 52.29.

Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Coast

Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review under section

3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, however, OMB approval has not

been finalized. Individuals and organizations may submit comments by

August 29, 1996 on the information collection requirements in this

final rule and should direct them to the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council as indicated under ADDRESSES and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg.,

room 10235, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk

Officer for DOT. The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Federal

Register of OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the

information collection requirements.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under the principles

and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (October 26, 1987) and

has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule

and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is

not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The additional operational considerations required by this rule

will enhance navigation safety and thereby reduce the likelihood of an

oil spill or other environmental damage.

Two comments specifically addressed the issue of treating edible

oils in the same manner as petroleum oil in the Environmental

Assessment. One comment stated that the Coast Guard should exempt

addressing animal fat, vegetable oil, and other non-petroleum oil

carriers in the same manner as petroleum oil in the regulation based on

the provisions of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-55,

109 Stat. 546-547 [1995]). Another comment supported extending these

regulations to existing tank vessels carrying non-petroleum oils and

remarked that it is economically feasible and environmentally

beneficial for these vessels to meet the operational requirements. The

Coast Guard contends that bulk spills of animal fat, vegetable oil, and

other non-petroleum oil can be damaging to the environment.

The Coast Guard has attempted to balance environmental protection

with a recognition of the diverse requirements called for by different

substances, such as non-petroleum oils. These substances are clearly

harmful; and therefore, are regulated in a manner that recognizes their

differences from other more toxic materials such as petroleum oils.

Interpretations of statutes are governed by legal decisions which have

granted agencies discretionary authority in areas committed to agency

jurisdiction. The Coast Guard, as well as other agencies, have

exercised this discretion. For these reasons, the Coast Guard has

determined that a discharge of animal fat, vegetable oil, or other non-

petroleum oil from a tank vessel could

[[Page 39788]]

reasonably be expected to cause harm to the environment.

As discussed in the Environmental Assessment, this rulemaking is

expected to have no significant effect on the environment.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 157

Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 31

Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

46 CFR Part 35

Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational

safety and Health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seaman.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 157 and 46 CFR parts 31 and 35 as follows:

PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 157 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note); 49 CFR

1.46. Subparts G, H, and I are also issued under section 4115(b),

Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546.

2. Section 157.01(a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 157.01 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(2) Any other vessel that enters or operates in the navigable

waters of the United States, or that operates, conducts ligtering under

46 U.S.C. 3715, or receives cargo from or transfers cargo to a

deepwater port under 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., in the United States

Exclusive Economic Zone, as defined in 33 U.S.C. 2701(8).

* * * * *

3. Section 157.02 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.02 Incorportion by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference 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 paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must

publish 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 Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard,

Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (G-MSO), 2100 Second

Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is available from the

sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this

part and the sections affected are as follows:

International Maritime Organization (IMO)--4 Albert

Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England.

IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15), Provision and Display

of Manoeuvring Information on Board Ships, Annex

sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2 with appendices, adopted

on 19 November 1987..................................... 157.450

IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18), Guidelines on the

Enhanced Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk

Carriers and Oil Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4,

1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-2.6, 3-8, Annexes 1-10 with

appendices, adopted 4 November 1993..................... 157.430

IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18), Interim Standards for

Ship Manoeuvrability, Annex sections 1.2, 2.3-2.4, 3-

4.2, and 5, adopted 4 November 1993 with Explanatory

Notes in MSC/Circ. 644 dated 6 June 1994................ 157.445

Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)--15th Floor,

96 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JW, England.

International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals,

Fourth Edition, Chapters 6, 7, and 10, 1996............. 157.435

4. In Sec. 157.03, the following definitions are added in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 157.03 Definitions.

* * * * *

Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or grease derived from

animals and not specifically identified elsewhere in this part.

* * * * *

Fleeting or assist towing vessel means any commercial vessel

engaged in towing astern, alongside, or pushing ahead, used solely

within a limited geographic area, such as a particular barge fleeting

area or commercial facility, and used solely for restricted service,

such as making up or breaking up larger tows.

* * * * *

Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not petroleum-

based. It includes, but is not limited to, animal fat and vegetable

oil.

* * * * *

Officer in charge of a navigational watch means any officer

employed or engaged to be responsible for navigating or maneuvering the

vessel and for maintaining a continuous vigilant watch during his or

her periods of duty and following guidance set out by the master,

international or national regulations, and company policies.

* * * * *

Other non-petroleum oil means an oil of any kind that is not

petroleum oil, an animal fat, or a vegetable oil.

* * * * *

Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form including crude oil, fuel

oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and refined products.

Primary towing vessel means any vessel engaged in towing astern,

alongside, or pushing ahead and includes the tug in an integrated tug

barge. It does not include fleeting or assist towing vessels.

* * * * *

Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat not specifically

identified elsewhere in this part that is derived from plant seeds,

nuts, kernels, or fruits.

* * * * *

5. The subpart heading of subpart G is revised to read as follows:

Subpart G--Structural And Operational Measures For Certain Tank

Vessels Without Double Hulls Carrying Petroleum Oils

6. Section 157.400 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 157.400 Purpose and applicability.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to establish mandatory safety

and operational requirements to reduce environmental damage resulting

from petroleum oil spills.

(b) This subpart applies to each tank vessel specified in

Sec. 157.01 of this part that--

(1) Is 5,000 gross tons or more;

(2) Carries petroleum oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue; and

(3) Is not equipped with a double hull meeting Sec. 157.10d of this

part, or an equivalent to the requirements of Sec. 157.10d, but

required to be equipped with a double hull at a date set forth in 46

U.S.C. 3703a (b)(3) and (c)(3).

7. Section 157.410(c) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 39789]]

Sec. 157.410 Emergency lightering requirements for tank vessels.

* * * * *

(c) Reducers, bolts, and gaskets must meet the requirements of 46

CFR subpart 56.25. Cast iron and malleable iron must not be used.

8. Section 157.415 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.415 Bridge resource management policy and procedures.

(a) Not later than February 1, 1997, a tankship owner or operator

shall provide written policy and procedures to masters and officers in

charge of the navigational watch concerning the need for continuously

reassessing how bridge-watch resources are being allocated and used,

based on bridge resource management principles. This written policy and

procedures must include vessel and crew specific examples that address

the following:

(1) The number of qualified individuals that should be on watch to

ensure that all duties can be performed effectively.

(2) The appropriate qualifications of all members of the

navigational watch, the importance of confirming that all members of

the watch are fit for duty, and the need to ensure that all members of

the navigational watch are not impaired by fatigue.

(3) The need to take into account any known limitation in

qualifications or fitness of individuals when making navigational and

operational decisions.

(4) The need to be clear and unambiguous in assigning duties and

the need to establish that the individual understands his or her

responsibilities.

(5) The need to perform tasks in a clear order of priority and to

adjust the priority of tasks as circumstances may require.

(6) The importance of assigning and reassigning members of the

watch to locations where they can perform their duties most

effectively.

(7) Conditions that warrant task reassignment among members of the

watch.

(8) The instruments and equipment necessary for the effective

performance of each task and appropriate actions if the instruments and

equipment are not available or not functioning properly.

(9) The need for, and examples of, clear, immediate, reliable, and

relevant communication among members of the navigational watch.

(10) The action to be taken to suppress, remove, and avoid

nonessential activity and distractions on the bridge.

(11) The importance of collecting, processing, and interpreting all

essential information and making it conveniently available to other

members of the navigational watch and the pilot, as necessary to

perform their duties.

(12) The need to ensure that nonessential materials are not placed

on the bridge.

(13) The need to ensure that members of the navigational watch are

prepared to respond at all times efficiently and effectively to changes

in circumstances.

(b) Beginning not later than February 1, 1997, a tank barge owner

or operator shall not permit the barge to be towed unless those

individuals assigned to duties that are similar to the duties of the

officer in charge of a navigational watch on the primary towing vessel

have been provided written bridge resource management policy and

procedures as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.

9. Section 157.420 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.420 Vessel specific watch policy and procedures.

(a) Not later than February 1, 1997, the owner or operator of a

tankship shall provide written policy and procedures to masters

concerning the need for each individual who is newly employed on board

the vessel to have a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the

shipboard equipment, operating procedures, and other arrangements

needed for the proper performance of their duties, before being

assigned to such duties. This written policy and procedures shall be

followed by the master and shall include the following:

(1) Allocation of a reasonable and appropriate time period for each

newly employed individual to allow him or her the opportunity to become

acquainted with the following:

(i) The specific equipment the individual will be using or

operating; and

(ii) The vessel specific watchkeeping, safety, environmental

protection, and emergency procedures and arrangements the individual

needs to know to perform the assigned duties properly.

(2) Designation of a knowledgeable crew member who will be

responsible for ensuring that an opportunity is provided to each newly

employed individual to receive essential information in a language the

individual understands.

(b) Beginning not later than February 1, 1997, a tank barge owner

or operator shall not permit the barge to be towed unless those

individuals assigned to duties as master or operator on the primary

towing vessel have been provided written policy and procedures as

specified in paragraph (a) of this section.

10. Section 157.430 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.430 Enhanced survey requirements.

Beginning at each tank vessel's next regularly scheduled drydock

examination and continuing as required under 46 CFR part 31, or, for

each foreign flagged tank vessel, beginning at the next drydock and

continuing as required under the foreign vessel's flag administration,

a tank vessel owner or operator shall--

(a) Implement an enhanced survey program that complies with the

standards of IMO Resolution A.744(18), Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4,

1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-2.6, 3-8, and Annexes 1-10 with appendices;

(b) Implement a vessel specific survey program that provides a

level of protection equivalent to the requirements in paragraph (a)(1)

of this section and is approved by the Commandant (G-MOC). A written

request for program equivalency under this paragraph must be submitted

to the Commandant (G-MOC); or

(c) For a tankship of less than 20,000 deadweight tons (dwt)

carrying crude oil, a tankship of less than 30,000 dwt carrying

product, or a tank barge, implement an enhanced survey program that--

(1) Includes oversight of the program by the Coast Guard, the

vessel's flag administration, an authorized classification society as

described in Sec. 157.04 of this part, or a licensed professional

engineer;

(2) Has the frequency of survey which is no less than the

inspections required by 46 CFR subpart 31.10;

(3) Has survey scope and recordkeeping requirements that are

comparable to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and

(4) Includes keeping a copy of the most recent survey on board the

vessel or, upon request by the Coast Guard, making the surveys

available within 24 hours for examination.

11. Section 157.435 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.435 Vital systems surveys.

(a) A tank vessel owner or operator shall ensure that surveys of

the following system are conducted:

(1) Cargo systems. The survey must include the examination and

testing of the items listed in chapters 6, 7, and 10 of the

International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, if

applicable, prior to cargo transfer operations.

(2) Mooring systems. The survey must include a visual examination

of the

[[Page 39790]]

emergency towline, the anchor releasing mechanism, and mooring lines

prior to entering the port or place of destination, if weather permits,

or prior to getting underway.

(b) Surveys must be conducted by company management personnel,

company designated individuals, or vessel officers knowledgeable about

the equipment operating parameters and having the authority,

capability, and responsibility to initiate corrective action when the

equipment is not functioning properly.

(c) The results of the survey required in paragraph (a) of this

section, including the material condition of each system, must be

recorded in the tank vessel's deck log or other onboard documentation.

12. Section 157.440 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.440 Autopilot alarm or indicator.

(a) A tankship owner or operator shall ensure that each installed

autopilot unit without automatic manual override has an audible and

visual alarm, which is distinct from other required bridge alarms, that

will activate if the helm is manually moved while the autopilot is

engaged.

(b) A tank barge owner or operator shall ensure that each autopilot

unit without automatic manual override installed on the primary towing

vessel has a means to clearly indicate the autopilot status and warns

personnel of the requirement to disengage the autopilot if positive

rudder control is needed.

13. Section 157.445 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.445 Maneuvering performance capability.

(a) A tankship owner or operator shall ensure that maneuvering

tests in accordance with IMO Resolution A.751(18), section 1.2, 2.3-

2.4, 3-4.2, and 5 (with Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ.644) have been

conducted by July 29, 1997. Completion of maneuvering performance tests

must be shown by--

(1) For a foreign flag tankship, a letter from the flag

administration or an authorized classification society, as described in

Sec. 157.04 of this part, stating the requirements in paragraph (a) of

this section have been met; or

(2) For a U.S. flag tankship, results from the vessel owner

confirming the completion of the tests or a letter from an authorized

classification society, as described in Sec. 157.04 of this part,

stating the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section have been

met.

(b) If a tankship undergoes a major conversion or alteration

affecting the control systems, control surfaces, propulsion system, or

other areas which may be expected to alter maneuvering performance, the

tankship owner or operator shall ensure that new maneuvering tests are

conducted as required by paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) If a tankship is one of a class of vessels with identical

propulsion, steering, hydrodynamic, and other relevant design

characteristics, maneuvering performance test results for any tankship

in the class may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)

of this section.

(d) The tankship owner or operator shall ensure that the

performance test results, recorded in the format of Appendix 6 of the

Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ.644, are prominently displayed in the

wheelhouse.

(e) Prior to entering the port or place of destination and prior to

getting underway, the tankship master shall discuss the results of the

performance tests with the pilot while reviewing the anticipated

transit and the possible impact of the tankship's maneuvering

capability on the transit.

14. Section 157.450 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.450 Maneuvering and vessel status information.

A tankship owner, master, or operator shall comply with IMO

Resolution A.601(15), Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2, with

appendices.

15. Section 157.455 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.455 Minimum under-keel clearance.

(a) Prior to entering the port or place of destination and prior to

getting underway, the master of a tankship that is not fitted with a

double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length shall meet the

following requirements:

(1) The tankship's deepest navigational draft must be calculated

and include--

(i) The mean draft;

(ii) The trim and list characteristics; and

(iii) The intended transit speed and the corresponding squat

characteristics, if known.

(2) The anticipated controlling depth must be calculated and

include--

(i) Tide and current conditions;

(ii) Present sea state conditions;

(iii) Past weather impact on water depth;

(iv) The depth at the facility or anchorage; and

(v) The depth of the transit area found in the publication and

chart materials required to be on board the tankship by 33 CFR part

164.

(3) The anticipated under-keel clearance must be calculated by

subtracting the tankship's deepest navigational draft from the

anticipated controlling depth. The tankship's calculated deepest

navigational draft, anticipated controlling depth, and the calculated

anticipated under-keel clearance must be recorded in the tankship's log

or in other onboard documentation.

(4) The tankship shall discuss with the pilot the anticipated

under-keel clearance calculation and its possible impact on the

tankship's planned transit.

(5) The tankship master shall--

(i) Inform the tankship owner or operator of the calculated

anticipated under-keel clearance, unless the owner or operator has

provided the master with written port specific under-keel clearance

guidance.

(ii) Record the communication with the owner or operator in the

tankship's log or other documentation, if there is no written port

specific under-keel clearance guidance provided by the owner or

operator.

(6) Having been informed by the master of the anticipated under-

keel clearance, the owner or operator shall not allow the tankship to

proceed if the tankship's transit would not be prudent considering, but

not limited to, the anticipated under-keel clearance, any COTP under-

keel clearance guidance, and the pilot's recommended clearance.

(b) The owner or operator of a tank barge, that is not fitted with

a double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length, shall not

permit the barge to be towed unless the primary towing vessel master or

operator has been provided with written port specific under-keel

clearance guidance that includes--

(1) Port specific minimum under-keel clearance requirements;

(2) Factors to consider when calculating the tank barge's deepest

navigational draft;

(3) Factors to consider when calculating the anticipated

controlling depth;

(4) Consideration of port specific weather or environmental

conditions; and

(5) Conditions which mandate when the tank barge owner or operator

shall be contacted prior to port entry or getting underway; if no such

conditions exist, the guidance must contain a statement to that effect.

16. Section 157.460 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 157.460 Additional operational requirements for tank barges.

(a) Emergency steering capability. The owner or operator of each

tank barge

[[Page 39791]]

shall not permit the barge to be towed unless, by November 27, 1997,

the primary towing vessel has--

(1) A steering gear system with a main power unit, an alternative

power unit, and two remote steering gear control systems, except that

separate steering wheels or steering levers are not required. The

steering gear control systems must be arranged so that if the system in

operation fails, the other system can be brought into immediate

operation from a position on the navigating bridge; or

(2) Twin screw propulsion with separate control systems for each

propeller.

(b) Fendering system An owner or operator of a tank barge shall not

permit the barge to be towed unless the primary towing vessel and any

fleeting or assist towing vessels have a fendering system that is of

substantial size and composition to prevent metal to metal contact

between the towing vessel and the barge during maneuvering operations.

17. Subpart H, consisting of Secs. 157.500 and 157.510, is added to

read as follows:

Subpart H--Structural and Operational Measures for Certain Tank Vessels

Without Double Hulls Carrying Animal Fat or Vegetable Oil

Sec.

157.500 Purpose and applicability.

157.510 Operational measures.

Subpart H--Structural and Operational Measures for Certain Tank

Vessels Without Double Hulls Carrying Animal Fat or Vegetable Oil

Sec. 157.500 Purpose and applicability.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to establish mandatory safety

and operational requirements to reduce environmental damage resulting

from the discharge of animal fat or vegetable oil.

(b) This subpart applies to each tank vessel specified in

Sec. 157.01 of this part that--

(1) Is 5,000 gross tons or more;

(2) Carries animal fat or vegetable oil in bulk as cargo or cargo

residue; and

(3) Is not equipped with a double hull meeting Sec. 157.10d of this

part, or an equivalent to the requirements of Sec. 157.10d, but

required to be equipped with a double hull at a date set forth in 46

U.S.C. 3703a (b)(3) and (c)(3).

Sec. 157.510 Operational measures.

An owner or operator of a tank vessel that carries animal fat or

vegetable oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue shall comply with the

requirements in all sections of subpart G of this part.

18. Subpart I, consisting of Secs. 157.600 and 157.610, is added to

read as follows:

Subpart I--Structural and Operational Measures for Certain Tank Vessels

Without Double Hulls Carrying Other Non-Petroleum Oil

Sec.

157.600 Purpose and applicability.

157.610 Operational measures.

Subpart I--Structural and Operational Measures for Certain Tank

Vessels Without Double Hulls Carrying Other Non-Petroleum Oil

Sec. 157.600 Purpose and applicability.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to establish mandatory safety

and operational requirements to reduce environmental damage resulting

from the discharge of other non-petroleum oil.

(b) This subpart applies to each tank vessel specified in

Sec. 157.01 of this part that--

(1) Is 5,000 gross tons or more;

(2) Carries other non-petroleum oil in bulk as cargo or cargo

residue; and

(3) Is not equipped with a double hull meeting Sec. 157.10d of this

part, or an equivalent to the requirements of Sec. 157.10d, but

required to be equipped with a double hull at a date set forth in 46

U.S.C. 3703a (b)(3) and (c)(3).

Sec. 157.610 Operational measures.

An owner or operator of a tank vessel that carries other non-

petroleum oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue shall comply with the

requirements in all sections of subpart G of this part.

PART 31--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

19. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 31 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 49

U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.

277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR

1.46. Section 31.10-21a also issued under the authority of Sect.

4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.

20. In Sec. 31.10-21, table (a) is revised to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-14-M

[[Page 39792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY96.000

[[Page 39793]]

21. In Sec. 31.10-21, table (b) is revised to read as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JY96.001

BILLING CODE 4910-14-C

[[Page 39794]]

PART 35-OPERATIONS

22. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 35 continues to read as

follows:

Authority 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49

U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 DRR, 1980 Comp., p.

277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR

1.46.

23. Section 35.01-40(c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 35.01-140 Prevention of oil pollution--TB/ALL.

* * * * *

(c) 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, 157, and 164.

Dated: July 24, 1996.

R.D. Herr,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.

[FR Doc. 96-19236 Filed 7-25-96; 11:16 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-14-M