[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25998]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 21, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Part 155 et al.




Overfill Devices; Interim Final Rule




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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 156

[CGD 90-071a]
RIN 2115-AD87

 
Overfill Devices

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing an interim final rule (IFR) that 
establishes minimum standards for overfill devices and requires the 
phased-in installation and use of devices on the cargo tanks of certain 
tank vessels that carry oil or oil residue as primary cargo. 
Regulations addressing minimum standards for and concerning the use of 
overfill devices are required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 
90). The purpose of the interim regulations is to reduce the likelihood 
of spills when oil is loaded as cargo.

DATES: The interim final rule is effective on January 19, 1995. 
Comments must be received by January 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine 
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 90-071a), U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or may 
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information 
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
    The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for the 
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be 
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Jeff Brager, Office of Marine 
Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-MVI-1), (202) 267-
1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the 
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons 
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify 
the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) and the specific section of this rule to 
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. 
Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound 
format, no larger than 8 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and 
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of 
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.

Drafting Information

    The principal persons involved in drafting this document are 
Randall Crenwelge, Project Manager, and Pamela Pelcovits, Project 
Counsel, OPA 90 Staff.

Regulatory History

    Section 4110 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 
101-380) adds a statutory note following 46 U.S.C. 3703 requiring, in 
part, the establishment of minimum standards for overfill warning 
devices and requirements concerning the use of overfill devices on 
certain tank vessels.
    To meet the statutory requirements, the Coast Guard published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Overfill Devices,'' in 
the Federal Register (58 FR 4040; January 12, 1993). The Coast Guard 
received 32 letters commenting on the proposal.
    In response to some comments, the Coast Guard published a notice 
(58 FR 54315; October 21, 1993) and held a public meeting at U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters on November 17, 1993. Twenty-eight people attended 
the meeting, and a list of the attendees and audio tapes of the meeting 
are available in the public docket for the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) at 
the address listed under ADDRESSES. Statements made at the meeting have 
been treated like written comments in the preamble.

Background and Purpose

    Detailed information on overfill spills and devices is found in the 
preamble to the NPRM.
    An overfill spill occurs when too much oil is pumped or gravitated 
into a cargo tank during a transfer operation (e.g., from a facility to 
a tank vessel or from one tank vessel to another). Human error is the 
most often reported cause of this type of spill. Many overfill spills 
are small; however, some reported overfill spills have involved large 
quantities of oil.
    Coast Guard regulations require vessel owners and operators to 
follow pollution prevention procedures during oil transfer operations 
(33 CFR parts 155 and 156). Existing regulations do not require devices 
on cargo tanks to detect and warn of impending overfills.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Location of Regulations
    One comment objected to the proposed placement of the regulations 
in 33 CFR subchapter O as too cumbersome and confusing due to cross 
references, applicability sections, exceptions, and definitions. The 
comment recommended a comprehensive reorganization of the regulations 
based on statutory authorities. A reorganization of 33 CFR subchapter O 
is outside the scope of the rulemaking; however, the interim 
regulations amending 33 CFR subchapter O have been drafted to be as 
clear and concise as possible.
Applicability
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed requiring overfill devices on 
tank vessels with a cargo capacity of more than 40 cubic meters 
(M3) (approximately 250 barrels, 1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons). One 
comment suggested that the threshold was inappropriate and that 
additional ``small vessels'' should be excluded from the regulations. 
The comment stated that current oil transfer procedure requirements 
found in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 are adequate to prevent overflow 
spills from smaller tank vessels because these vessels have simple oil 
transfer systems. The comment also stated that the cost of installing 
and maintaining overfill devices would be a significant financial 
burden to the company submitting the comment.
    The Coast Guard reviewed spill data from tank vessels for the years 
1989, 1990, and 1991 and found that tank overflow spills occurred 
infrequently aboard vessels with cargo carrying capacities of less than 
1,000 M3 (approximately 6,290 barrels). Specifically, a total of 
279 cargo tank overflow spills were recorded during the 3-year period. 
Of those overfill spills, 215 cargo tank overflow incidents occurred 
from tank barges. Only four of the 215 overflows were from barges with 
a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting in 0.6 M3 
(159 gallons) oil spilled. During the same period, 64 similar incidents 
occurred aboard tankships. Of these incidents, only two occurred from 
tankships with a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting 
in 0.4 M3(106 gals) oil spilled.
    In response to this comment and its review of available data, the 
Coast Guard has raised the applicability threshold in Sec. 155.480(a) 
to a cargo capacity of 1,000 M3. The Coast Guard requests comments 
concerning this change. The data on which the Coast Guard made its 
decision is available in the docket for review.
    One comment specified that the phase-in requirements proposed in 33 
CFR 155.480(c) did not cover Canadian tank barges because they are not 
subject to the requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and 
the International Load Line Conventions. The Coast Guard did not intend 
for Canadian barges which operate in U.S. waters to be treated 
differently from U.S. flag barges under the regulations. The Coast 
Guard expects that overfill devices will be installed on such Canadian 
tank barges at their next scheduled drydocking or internal tank 
examination.
    One comment recommended that tank vessels required to be equipped 
with double hulls within the next 5 years under the double hull 
requirements of OPA 90 should be excluded from the overfill device 
requirements. The comment contends that many of these vessels will be 
phased out of service in 5 years and that the costs of upgrading 
overfill devices on these vessels would not be recovered within 5 
years. The Coast Guard agrees and has added Sec. 155.480(e) to reflect 
the exemption of vessels that under 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c) can not operate 
on the navigable waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States 
after the year 2000, unless equipped with a double hull.
    One comment requested that the regulations not apply to open-hopper 
barges which are limited to carrying non-hazardous oil-field waste 
material. Because such cargo operations are not covered by 33 CFR parts 
155 and 156, the requirements for overfill devices do not apply to 
these barges.
    One comment at the public meeting requested that the regulations 
not apply to tank vessels which carry only asphalt. Participants at the 
public meeting noted that because of the density of asphalt, vessels 
carrying this product are usually not fully loaded. Also, the 
participants reported no overfill spills from asphalt carriers. 
Currently, technology is not available to provide a cost-effective 
means of overfill detection for asphalt carriers. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard has decided to exempt tank vessels that are dedicated to carrying 
asphalt as cargo from the overfill device requirements. This change is 
reflected in Sec. 155.480(f). The Coast Guard requests comments 
concerning the exemption of tank vessels carrying asphalt from this 
interim rulemaking.
    One comment asked the Coast Guard to require overfill devices to be 
activated during all types of cargo transfers, including internal 
transfers from tank to tank and cargo discharges. Although overfill 
incidents do occur during internal cargo transfers and discharges, 
these incidents are infrequent and do not result in large spills into 
the water. Tank vessel owners and operators are encouraged to use 
overfill devices for all transfer operations, but the regulations 
continue to apply only during loading.
    Two comments asked that the regulations not apply to deck tanks 
used to store barge generator and pump fuel, or oil slops. The 
regulations only require installation of overfill devices on cargo 
tanks. Deck tanks used for slops and barge generator and pump fuel are 
not covered by the regulations.
    Seven comments stated that high viscosity oils prevent overfill 
devices from functioning properly. The Coast Guard finds that heavy 
oils are just as likely to overflow from cargo tanks as lower viscosity 
oils. Vessel owners and operators must choose overfill devices best 
suited for the oil they carry and, in accordance with 33 CFR 
155.750(e)(2), 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(3), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(b)(3), they 
must test their equipment prior to each cargo loading. If a method of 
overfill detection is not technologically available for a particular 
type of high temperature service oil, such as Number 6 oil, the owner 
or operator of a vessel, on a case by case basis, may request an 
alternative means of compliance in accordance with 33 CFR 155.120(c) of 
this regulation. The Coast Guard requests comments concerning the 
application of alternative means of compliance with the interim 
regulations for vessels carrying high temperature service oils.
    One State agency requested that the Coast Guard require overfill 
devices on vessels which carry non-petroleum oils as cargo. A barge 
company submitted a comment recommending the continued exclusion of 
vessels carrying non-petroleum oil cargoes. In the NPRM, the Coast 
Guard explained that it is interested in addressing overfill spills of 
MARPOL Annex I oils because these products represent the most 
significant risk. They are the most frequently transported cargoes with 
the greatest volume transported and spilled. Non-petroleum oils are not 
MARPOL Annex I oils. The Coast Guard may extend the regulations to 
additional oils in the future, but for now will not impose overfill 
device regulations on tank vessels which exclusively carry non-
petroleum oils.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 155.1015, this rule does not apply to 
foreign tank vessels engaged in innocent passage in the territorial 
sea. These vessels do not engage in cargo loading operations in U.S. 
waters and, therefore, the Coast Guard is not exercising jurisdiction 
over these vessels for this interim rulemaking.
Minimum Standards for Overfill Devices: Tankers
    One comment from an industry association recommended that only one 
overfill alarm instead of two, as proposed in the NPRM, should be 
required in each tank. The comment argued that the standards for vapor 
recovery equipment should not be applied automatically to overfill 
devices because of the particular nature of vapor recovery. For vapor 
recovery systems, the potential for cargo tank overpressure and 
rupturing of vapor recovery piping dictated a two-alarm system. The 
Coast Guard agrees that one overfill alarm per cargo tank is sufficient 
and Sec. 155.480 has been revised to reflect this. This change also 
applies to cargo tanks with closed loading systems.
Minimum Standards For Overfill Devices: Barges
    Much of the discussion in the NPRM concerning standards for 
overfill devices dealt with barges. Twelve comments responded to the 
question posed in the NPRM on whether a high level indicating device, 
such as a stick gauge, would be an adequate overfill warning device on 
a barge. Six comments, all from the barge industry, favored the use of 
stick gauges.
    At the public meeting, representatives from the barge industry 
stated that most barges currently have no overfill devices. In most 
cases, the level of liquid in a barge is determined by the use of 
sounding tapes, ullage measuring devices, or inspection ports. Several 
participants at the meeting expressed the view that adding an overfill 
alarm system for each tank would be extremely expensive for barge 
owners and operators. Barge owners and operators currently using stick 
gauges as well as the vapor recovery systems would incur significant 
costs if an additional alarm system were required.
    Barge industry representatives contended that the visual signal 
provided by high level indicating devices is, in some ways, superior to 
the audible signal provided by overfill alarms, which only sound when 
an overfill is about to occur. High level indicating devices, when 
properly installed and utilized, provide the person-in-charge (PIC) of 
the loading operation with a continuous reading of how the later stages 
of the loading operation are progressing.
    The Coast Guard will allow the owners and operators of tank barges 
to select one of three alternatives: (1) an overfill alarm on each tank 
which includes circuitry to sufficiently identify which individual 
tanks overfill system is alarming, (2) an automatic shutdown system for 
the entire barge and transfer facility, or (3) a high level indicating 
device installed on each tank, such as a stick gauge.
    Two of the comments also recommended that the Coast Guard allow 
portable stick gauges, which would be moved from tank to tank, as the 
tanks were sequentially topped off. This recommendation assumes that 
tanks will always be sequentially topped off, which may not be the 
case. Accordingly, the Coast Guard will require that when stick gauges 
are used, they must be permanently installed on each tank.
    Six comments stated that a stick gauge was inadequate to warn of an 
imminent spill when the PIC was off the barge or performing other 
duties. These comments favored alarms and automatic shutdown systems. 
However, the Coast Guard finds that audible alarms are just as 
ineffective as stick gauges if the PIC is not in the immediate vicinity 
of the transfer operation.
    The Coast Guard encourages the use of systems which automatically 
shut down the transfer pumps before an overfill spill occurs; however, 
the Coast Guard does not require these systems to be used, for several 
reasons. The requirement would be cost-prohibitive for some owners and 
operators; it would require additional maintenance; and extra people 
would be needed to perform this maintenance. Additionally, industry 
standards for the necessary shoreside and barge interface would need to 
be developed. Developing these standards would be time-consuming.
    Over the next 5 years, the Coast Guard will monitor the 
effectiveness of high level indicating devices. If at the end of this 
period, the Coast Guard determines that the overfill spill record of 
tank barges equipped with these devices is not essentially as good or 
better than the overfill spill record of other tank vessels covered by 
the regulations, the Coast Guard may remove the provision in the 
regulation allowing use of high level indicating devices as substitutes 
for overfill alarms.
    Two comments recommended requiring only one overfill alarm on a 
tank instead of two as required by the NPRM, because only one alarm is 
needed to alert the PIC to act to prevent an overfill. The Coast Guard 
has decided to allow as an option, the use of one high level indicating 
alarm or one alarm with an independent visual or audible device 
installed on each tank, which must function as an overfill device for 
each tank on a tank barge. Its purpose is to warn the PIC that 
immediate action must be taken to prevent a tank overfill and oil spill 
during loading operations. Section 155.480 has been revised to reflect 
this.
    Some comments recommended technical specifications for the overfill 
devices. Presently, the Coast Guard does not find a need to develop 
technical specifications for overfill devices. Many of the devices that 
meet the requirements of the regulations are already in service as high 
level indicating devices aboard tank vessels. The Coast Guard finds 
that cross referencing its performance criteria to those provided in 
the vapor control regulations is the most efficient manner of setting 
these regulatory requirements. Vessel owners and operators should 
utilize devices which conform to the flag state or classification 
society inspection criteria and are most suitable for their vessels' 
operating environments.
Training
    Four comments stated that trained, professional tankermen are 
essential on board tank barges to prevent oil spills, and that the 
Coast Guard should establish requirements to improve PIC performance 
rather than require new equipment. One comment stated that only 
qualified people who have received proper training should be allowed to 
use the required overfill warning devices. The Coast Guard strongly 
encourages owners, operators, and tankermen's services to provide 
complete and adequate training in the proper use of high level 
indicating devices, but the setting of training requirements exceeds 
the scope of this rulemaking.
    Another comment stated that tankermen on unmanned barges may not be 
as familiar with the barge as tankermen on manned barges. Tankermen on 
a manned barge are often assigned to that barge on a long-term basis. 
They become intimately familiar with their barges; whereas, tankermen 
on unmanned barges are temporarily assigned to a barge only for a 
loading or unloading operation. Regardless of whether a barge is manned 
or unmanned, it is the duty of the tankerman to conduct safe and 
pollution-free transfer operations.
    At this time, the Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR 156.120 do not 
require specific training for the PIC to perform an oil transfer 
operation; however, each individual is required to meet the 
qualifications for a PIC found in 33 CFR 155.710, and each vessel owner 
and operator must keep a list with names of each person currently 
designated as PIC for transfer operations.
    While the Coast Guard agrees that the competency and training of 
tankermen is crucial to spill prevention, it finds that additional 
specific training requirements are not appropriate for this rulemaking; 
however, changes to these requirements have been proposed in a separate 
rulemaking (54 FR 42624; October 17, 1989).
Inspection
    One comment recommended that all equipment should be subject to an 
annual inspection. Overfill devices will be subject to examination 
during the annual tank vessel examination for foreign flag vessels or 
the inspection for certification and reinspections of U.S. flag vessels 
and Canadian tank barges. In addition, 33 CFR 156.120 requires the PIC 
of an oil transfer operation to test each overfill device for proper 
operation prior to each transfer of cargo.
Phase-In
    Two comments from tank barge operators expressed support for the 
timetable for phasing in the installation of each overfill device at 
regularly scheduled cargo tank internal examinations.
    One comment recommended a 2-year time limit for installations on 
barges. The Coast Guard considered accelerating the phase-in period but 
decided that the costs associated with gas-freeing a vessel and taking 
the vessel out of service would be prohibitive.
    Another comment asked if a grace period for overfill device 
inspection would be granted for vessels undergoing a cargo tank 
internal examination immediately after the effective date of the 
regulations. The effective date of the regulations is 90 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard expects that 
vessel repairs or cargo tank internal examinations can be completed 
within 90 days. Therefore, vessels which are being repaired or examined 
would not be subject to these regulations until, as in the case of a 
U.S. flag vessel, the vessel's next cargo tank internal examination.
Tank Level and Pressure Monitoring Devices
    One comment suggested that this rulemaking be combined with 
standards for equipment detecting leaks in cargo tanks also required 
under section 4110 of OPA 90 (CGD 90-071). The Coast Guard disagrees. 
Overfill devices are used to detect overfills while transferring, 
discharging, or loading cargo. They have a completely different 
function when compared with tank level or pressure monitoring devices 
which serve to detect leaks in cargo tanks.
Maximum Cargo Level of Oil
    Two vessel operators objected to limiting the amount of cargo in a 
cargo tank to 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume. The Coast Guard 
has not changed the requirement in the interim regulations. Both the 
vapor control system regulations (46 CFR 39.30- 1(e)) and these 
regulations reflect the Coast Guard's position that filling a tank more 
than 98.5 percent poses too high of a risk that there will be a tank 
overflow. Therefore, the rule continues to establish a 98.5 percent 
level as the maximum level of fill. This rule has been revised to be 
consistent with the rules for vapor control systems, to specify that a 
tank may not be filled higher than either 98.5 percent or the level at 
which the overfill alarms are set, for those cases where shutdown must 
be initiated at a level below 98.5 percent to ensure that an overfill 
does not occur.

Assessment

    This 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 under that order. It is significant under the ``Department 
of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures'' (44 FR 11040; 
February 26, 1979). Although it does not require an assessment of costs 
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866, an 
assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES.'' The 
Assessment is summarized as follows.
    The Coast Guard assumes that tankship and tank barge owners and 
operators will purchase one high quality, float-type overfill device 
for each cargo tank. The Coast Guard also assumes that 25 percent of 
all vessels covered by this rulemaking already have some acceptable 
form of overfill device installed. Costs for the purchase and 
installation of the single alarm system required on the remaining 
tankships are estimated at $3,125 per tank, or $43,750 for a tankship 
with 14 cargo tanks. Costs for the purchase and installation of the 
high level indicating system required on the remaining tank barges are 
estimated at $1,650 per tank, or $13,200 for a tank barge with eight 
cargo tanks.
    The total cost of overfill devices to the industry is calculated 
first by estimating cost by vessel type and use for an average size 
vessel, and then by aggregating the costs for all vessels engaged in 
the trade. The analysis includes self-propelled and non-self-propelled 
tank vessels. Total costs, including present value costs, are estimated 
separately by vessel type, use, flag, and route.
    Assuming a 5-year life for alarm devices and a 15-year life for 
high level indicating devices, the present value cost of compliance 
through 2015 to tank vessel owners and operators is projected to range 
between $103.1 million and $113 million, distributed as follows: (1) to 
U.S. tank barges and tankships (commercial or privately owned), $51.8 
million; (2) to foreign flag tankships, $49.2 to $59.1 million; and (3) 
to U.S. Government tankships, $2.1 million. The present value of the 
cost of compliance to the U.S. is $53.9 million through the scope of 
this analysis (2015). The regulation will affect approximately 1,615 
inland and coastal barges, 147 U.S. flag (commercial or privately 
owned) tankships, 375-450 foreign flag tankships, and 23 U.S. Navy and 
U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) vessels. Enforcement costs to the 
Federal Government are estimated at $785,000 per year.
    The analysis indicates that if the entire cost of the 
implementation of the regulation were passed on to consumers, the 
retail price of domestically consumed petroleum products would increase 
approximately .019 dollars per ton or .000007 dollars per gallon; and 
the retail price of U.S. petroleum products in export markets would 
rise by approximately .112 dollars per ton or .0004 dollars per gallon. 
Export markets will be impacted more heavily because 48 million tons of 
oil are exported every year versus 850 million tons of oil transported 
per year in domestic markets.
    According to Coast Guard records, approximately 73,000 gallons of 
oil and petroleum products were spilled in U.S. waters from cargo tank 
overflows in 1989. The Coast Guard hopes that this regulation will 
prevent 100 percent of these oil spills or save approximately 73,000 
gallons of oil from spilling per year. Nevertheless, it is expected 
that some failures will occur. For comparison, four models are 
presented: one in which it is assumed high level indicating devices are 
60 percent effective and alarms are 80 percent effective (60%-80%); and 
one on which stick gauges are 80 percent effective and alarms are 100 
percent effective (80%-100%). Each of these models is presented in two 
cases, Case I and II. Case I assumes that there are 500 applicable 
foreign vessels, Case II assumes 600.
    The present value of the quantified direct benefits from the 
installation of overfill warning devices on tankships and tank barges 
is 634,021 gallons of oil not spilled, assuming a 60%-80% model, 
calculated through 2015 and at a 7 percent discount rate. Assuming an 
80%-100% model, benefits increase to 836,489 gallons of oil not 
spilled.
    The RA estimates four cost-benefit ratios for this rulemaking, 
depending on case (Case I or II) and effectiveness (60%-80% or 80%-
100%). The ratios are defined in terms of ``net present value,'' which 
is the ``present value'' of costs ($117.1 to $127 million) per 
``present value'' of benefits (634,021 to 836,489 gallons of oil not 
spilled). The cost to benefit ratio for tankships and tank barges is 
between $140 and $200 per gallon of oil not spilled for this 
rulemaking. In other words, the rulemaking results in a cost of $140 to 
$200 to prevent the spillage of 1 gallon of oil.
    One comment stated that the benefits of other rules need to be 
reassessed according to the benefits claimed from this rule. In 
particular, the comment stated that because this rule will reduce the 
number of oil spills, the benefits claimed for the rulemaking entitled, 
``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil'', (58 FR 
67988), would be less. The comment indicated that the 
interrelationships of the OPA 90 rulemakings should be assessed as each 
rule is proposed. The Coast Guard is preparing a programmatic 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) which will consider the 
interrelationship of all OPA 90 rulemakings, however it is considered 
to be impractical to re-examine this RIA in its entirety for each 
rulemaking. Where there are obvious and significant interrelationships, 
the Coast Guard has taken these factors into account.

Small Entities

    Based on the comments received and to lessen the burden on small 
entities, the Coast Guard has revised the regulations to apply only to 
tank vessels with a cargo carrying capacity of more than 1,000 M3. 
This covers 21 tankships and 391 tank barges which are owned and 
operated by small companies. They would have been included in the 
rulemaking as it was originally proposed.
    In addition, the Coast Guard has permitted the alternative of high 
level indicating devices for tank barges. This is a less expensive 
option and will be much less costly for the smaller entities contained 
within the tank barge industry. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 
under 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The 
Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The 
section numbers are Secs. 155.750 (Contents of transfer procedures) and 
156.150 (Declaration of inspection), and the corresponding OMB approval 
numbers are 2115-0120 and 2115-0506. Section 156.120 is being amended 
to reflect this new collection of information requirements.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that the 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. One comment requested that 
State and municipalities be allowed to adopt stricter requirements than 
these Federal regulations. Because tank vessels move between U.S. ports 
in the national marketplace and between U.S. and foreign ports in the 
international marketplace, standards for overfill devices should be of 
national scope to avoid unreasonably burdensome variations.

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 (EA) and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or 
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The EA discusses the action, 
subsequent expected environmental impacts, and overall need for the 
action. These regulations are not expected to result in a significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment because overfills tend 
to result in relatively small spills. Therefore, the Coast Guard has 
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact which was placed in the 
docket for the rulemaking.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR parts 155 and 156 as follows:

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

    1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 155 and the note 
following the citation are revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1), 46 U.S.C. 3715; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; 49 CFR 1.46. Sections 
155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 
155.470, and 155.1010 through 155.1070 also issued under 33 U.S.C. 
1903(b). Sections 155.480, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are issued under 
46 U.S.C. 2103 and section 4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515 (46 
U.S.C. 3703 note).

    Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or 
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 
150, 151, and 153.

    2. Section 155.110 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 155.110   Definitions.

    Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in part 
151 of this chapter, except for the word ``oil'', and in part 154 of 
this chapter, apply to this part.
    3. In Sec. 155.120, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 155.120   Equivalents.

* * * * *
    (c) For tank vessels required to have overfill devices installed 
under parts 155 and 156 of this chapter, the Commandant may, upon 
receipt of a written request, allow any fitting, material, appliance, 
or apparatus to be fitted in a tank vessel as an alternative to the 
required overfill device(s) that are specified in these parts if the 
proposed alternative device is at least as effective as that required 
in the regulations.
    4. Section 155.480 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 155.480   Overfill devices.

    (a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same 
definition as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.
    (b) Each tank vessel with a cargo capacity of 1,000 or more cubic 
meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), loading oil or oil residue as 
cargo in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), must have one overfill device that is 
permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of 
this section. Each newly constructed tank vessel with a cargo capacity 
of 1,000 or more cubic meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), which is 
intended to be loaded with oil or oil residue as cargo, in order to 
receive a Certificate of Inspection (COI), must have an overfill device 
installed on each cargo tank that meets the requirements of this 
section.
    (1) On a tankship, each cargo tank must be equipped with an 
overfill device (including an independent audible alarm or visible 
indicator for that tank) that meets the requirements for tank overfill 
alarms under 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (3), and (d)(1) through (d)(4).
    (2) On a tank barge, each cargo tank must be equipped with an 
overfill device that--
    (i) Meets the requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (b)(3) and 
(d)(1) through (d)(4), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(a)(1) through (a)(3);
    (ii) Is an installed automatic shutdown system that meets the 
requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-9(b); or
    (iii) Is an installed high level indicating device that meets the 
requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-3(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
    (c) Each cargo tank of a U.S. flag tank vessel must have installed 
on it an overfill device meeting the requirements of this section at 
the next scheduled cargo tank internal examination performed on the 
vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.
    (d) Each cargo tank of a foreign flag tank vessel must have 
installed on it an overfill device--
    (1) At the first survey that includes dry docking, as required by 
the vessel's flag administration, to meet the International Convention 
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended, or the 
International Load Line Convention of 1966; or
    (2) At the first cargo tank internal examination performed on the 
tank vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.
    (e) This section does not apply to a tank vessel that does not meet 
the double hull requirements of Sec. 157.10d of this chapter and, under 
46 U.S.C. 3703a(c), may not operate in the navigable waters or 
Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States after January 1, 2000.
    (f) This section does not apply to tank vessels that carry asphalt 
as their only cargo.
    5. In Sec. 155.750, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 155.750   Contents of transfer procedures.

* * * * *
    (e) If a cargo tank of a tank vessel is fitted with an overfill 
device, the transfer procedures must contain a description of the 
overfill device, including:
    (1) The tank overfill device system and specific procedures for the 
person in charge to--
    (i) Monitor the level of cargo in the tank; and
    (ii) Shut down transfer operations in time to ensure that the cargo 
level in each tank does not exceed the maximum amount permitted by 
Sec. 155.775(b).
    (2) Pre-transfer overfill device equipment inspection and test 
requirements.
    6. Section 155.775 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 155.775   Maximum cargo level of oil.

    (a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same meaning 
as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.
    (b) A cargo tank on a tank vessel may not be filled with oil higher 
than--
    (1) 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume; or
    (2) The level at which the overfill alarm required by Sec. 155.480 
is set.

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

    7. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 156 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 1321(j)(1)(C) and (D); 46 U.S.C. 
3715; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 
1.46. Section 156.120(bb) is issued under the authority of section 
4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.

    8. Section 156.105 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 156.105   Definitions.

    Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in 
Sec. 154.105 of this chapter apply to this subpart.
    9. In Sec. 156.120, paragraph (bb) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 156.120   Requirements for transfer.

* * * * *
    (bb) If the transfer operation involves loading oil, as defined in 
Sec. 151.05 of this chapter, into a cargo tank, the overfill device 
required by Sec. 155.480 of this chapter is installed and operating 
properly.

    Dated: October 13, 1994.
A.E. Henn,
Acting Commandant, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 94-25998 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P