[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13318-13324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5573]




[[Page 13317]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Parts 155 and 157



46 CFR Parts 30, 32, 70, 90, and 172



Double Hull Standards for Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules 
and Regulations  
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
[[Page 13318]] 

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157; 46 CFR Parts 30, 32, 70, 90, and 172

[CGD 90-051]
RIN 2115-AD61


Double Hull Standards for Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In an interim final rule (IFR) published on August 12, 1992, 
the Coast Guard established regulations for the design standards of 
double hull vessels pursuant to the requirements of section 4115 of the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90 or the Act) (Pub. L. 101-380). This 
rule adopts the IFR as final with minor changes to definitions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on April 10, 1995.

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 (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 
20593-0001 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Gauvin, Project Manager, 
Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-MVI), 
telephone (202) 267-1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

    The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Mr. 
Robert M. Gauvin, Project Manager, Office of Marine Safety, Security 
and Environmental Protection, and Mr. Nicholas Grasselli, Project 
Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

    On December 5, 1990, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Double Hull Standards for Tank Vessels 
Carrying Oil'' in the Federal Register (55 FR 50192). On September 6, 
1991, the Coast Guard published a notice in the Federal Register (56 FR 
44051) reopening the comment period until October 7, 1991.
    On August 29, 1991, the Coast Guard published a notice in the 
Federal Register (56 FR 42763) announcing a public meeting to obtain 
the views of interested parties regarding the scope of the 
environmental assessment. The Coast Guard subsequently held the scoping 
meeting on September 26, 1991.
    On January 15, 1992, the Coast Guard published a notice in the 
Federal Register (57 FR 1854) announcing the availability of the 
Interim Regulatory Impact Analysis (IRIA) and Environmental Assessment 
(EA). In response to the IRIA and EA, the Coast Guard received a total 
of 112 letters commenting on this rulemaking.
    On August 12, 1992, the Coast Guard published an IFR entitled 
``Double Hull Standards for Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk'' in the 
Federal Register (57 FR 36222), which requested comments be received on 
or before October 13, 1992. On December 18, 1992, the Coast Guard 
opened a second comment period for the IFR by publishing a notice in 
the Federal Register (57 FR 60402). The Coast Guard received 61 letters 
during the IFR comment periods and the Coast Guard considered all 
comments received to the rulemaking up to the close of the second 
comment period on February 26, 1993. All comments considered by the 
Coast Guard on or relating to this rulemaking are in the docket. A 
public hearing was not requested and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Section 4115 of OPA added section 3703a to Title 46 U.S. Code. 
Section 3703a(a) requires a double hull to be fitted on a vessel if it 
is constructed or adapted to carry, or carries, oil in bulk as cargo or 
cargo residue. A vessel that is constructed or undergoes a major 
conversion under a contract placed on June 30, 1990, or later must have 
a double hull fitted at the time of construction or major conversion 
(with certain exceptions in the Act). An existing vessel that is 
constructed or that undergoes a major conversion under an earlier 
contract must be fitted with a double hull in accordance with a 
timetable in 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c)(3), which commences January 1, 1995.
    Section 3703a does not provide technical standards for a double 
hull. This final rule provides marine transportation and shipbuilding 
industries with the technical standards necessary to meet the double 
hull requirements.
    On September 21, 1990, the Coast Guard issued Navigation and Vessel 
Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 2-90. This NVIC provides policy guidance 
on double hull construction for a vessel undergoing construction or 
major conversion under a contract awarded on or after June 30, 1990, 
but prior to the effective date of the IFR which was September 11, 
1992. A vessel which is built to plans that have been approved in 
accordance with NVIC 2-90 under a contract awarded before the effective 
date of the IFR will satisfy the double hull requirements in this final 
rule. NVIC 2-90 may not be used for a vessel which undergoes 
construction or major conversion under a contract awarded on or after 
September 11, 1992. Change 1 of NVIC 2-90, published by the Coast Guard 
on November 24, 1992, clarifies the effective dates of NVIC 2-90 as 
between June 30, 1990, and September 11, 1992.
    A substantial amount of oil imported into the United States is 
transported aboard foreign flag vessels. Since the Act applies to all 
vessels in U.S. waters, including foreign vessels, the Coast Guard 
recognized that U.S. double hull regulations would have a significant 
global impact. Therefore, the Coast Guard has also worked at the 
international level to establish double hull standards. The 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) is a specialized United 
Nation agency which oversees international maritime affairs. IMO has 
been responsible for developing various international conventions, such 
as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, 
(SOLAS 74), and the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution by Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 
73/78). The Coast Guard represents the United States at IMO 
deliberations. In November 1990, the United States submitted a proposal 
to IMO's 30th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee 
(MEPC) for international standards to require double hulls for tank 
vessels. This proposal resulted in a draft Regulation 13F of Annex I to 
MARPOL 73/78. At the 31st session of the MEPC in July 1991 (MEPC 31), 
the Committee approved draft Regulation 13F for circulation to IMO 
member states for their consideration.
    In November 1991, a MEPC working group subsequently refined 
Regulation 13F, which was further refined and formally adopted at MEPC 
32 on March 6, 1992. The United States reserved its position during the 
adoption of Regulation 13F, due to technical differences with OPA 90 
regarding the applicability of double hull requirements to certain 
categories of vessels and the allowance of the mid-deck concept as an 
alternative to a double hull. The double hull dimensions prescribed in 
the IFR and this final rule are consistent with those in Regulation 13F 
as adopted at MEPC 32. [[Page 13319]] 
    The MEPC also adopted Regulation 13G to Annex I of MARPOL at its 
32nd session. Regulation 13G contains a schedule for retrofitting (with 
double hulls) or retiring existing single hull tank vessels at 25 or 30 
years after delivery. Regulation 13G also requires vessels built prior 
to requirements for protectively located segregated ballast (pre-MARPOL 
tankers) to convert tanks protecting 30 percent of the sides or 30 
percent of the bottom to non-oil carrying wing tanks or double bottom 
spaces no later than 25 years after delivery. The United States also 
reserved its position during the adoption of Regulation 13G of Annex I 
to MARPOL.
    On December 23, 1992, the U.S. deposited a declaration with IMO 
regarding the U.S. acceptance and enforcement of Regulations 13F and 
13G. This declaration stated that the express approval of the U.S. 
Government would be necessary before Regulations 13F and 13G would 
enter into force within the U.S. A Federal Register Notice (58 FR 
39087) was published on July 21, 1993, discussing the U.S. position on 
Regulations 13F and 13G. The two major technical differences between 
the domestic and international standards were: (1) The acceptance by 
IMO of the mid-deck tanker design as an alternative to the double hull; 
and (2) variances in phase-out schedule for existing single hull tank 
vessels.
    A copy of IMO paper MEPC 32/WP.3, which contains Regulations 13F 
and 13G, has been placed in the public docket. Regulations 13F and 13G, 
as adopted at MEPC 32, also appeared as an appendix to the preamble of 
the IFR for the convenience of the reader.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard thanks the many interested parties who submitted a 
total of 61 documents to the public docket. These comments provided 
very useful information and afforded valuable assistance to the 
completion of this final rule.
    This section discusses the comments received as well as the Coast 
Guard's responses and changes to the IFR. This section is divided into 
two subsections. The first subsection discusses comments regarding the 
specific CFR sections, and the second subsection discusses nonspecific 
comments concerning other issues relating to this rulemaking and double 
hull requirements in general.

Comments Relating to Specific CFR Sections

    All comments and changes to each section of the rule are discussed 
within the following paragraphs, and the paragraphs are numbered in the 
order of their appearance in the CFR.
    1. 33 CFR 157.03(n). Two comments were received regarding the 
determination of the definition of oil. One comment disagreed with the 
applicability of the definition to include vegetable oils and the other 
discussed the need to harmonize the definition with the MARPOL 
Convention.
    The Coast Guard has researched the definition of oil and found its 
development based upon 46 U.S.C. 2101(20). To change this definition 
would require amendment of 46 U.S.C. 2101(20), which OPA 90 has not 
done. OPA 90 has reinforced the need for tougher, and more restricted 
controls over oil transportation. The Coast Guard has chosen to 
implement the double hull standards to the full extent of the 
definition of oil. Therefore, the definition of oil under this 
regulation will include animal and vegetable oils.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that the definition of oil in 46 U.S.C. 
2101(20) is inconsistent with the definition of oil under Annex I of 
MARPOL. Non-petroleum based oil, such as animal and vegetable oils are 
specifically designated as Category D noxious liquid substances (NLS) 
under Annex II of MARPOL. As OPA 90 does not allow for administrative 
interpretation of the definition of oil, existing regulations 
applicable to oceangoing vessels carrying NLS apply to a vessel 
carrying animal and vegetable oil in bulk, in addition to the new 
double hull requirements under this rule.
    For the purpose of this rule the definition of oil shall not be 
limited to petroleum oils and shall include animal and vegetable based 
oils for the double hull requirements.
    2. 33 CFR 157.03(v). Four comments addressed the applicability of 
this rule to vessels other than a tank barge or a tankship designed 
primarily to carry oil. One comment requested that offshore supply 
vessels (OSVs) be exempt from the requirements of the double hull 
standards under this rule. The three other comments strongly opposed 
the application of this rule to freight vessels involved in the 
Maritime Prepositioning Ship (MPS) Program, which under a National 
Defense Waiver (NDW) issued by the Secretary of the Navy, carry a 
secondary cargo of oil used to fuel the vessel's main cargo of military 
vehicles.
    OPA 90 double hull requirements apply to a tank vessel as defined 
in 46 U.S.C. 2101(39). On November 4, 1992, Pub. L. 102-587 and on 
December 20, 1993, Pub. L. 103-206 were enacted, with sections which 
clarified the meaning of the tank vessel definition in 46 U.S.C. 
2101(39).
    Section 5209 of Pub. L. 102-587, entitled, ``Tank Vessel Definition 
Clarification,'' stated that the following vessels are deemed not to be 
a tank vessel for the purpose of any law: (1) An OSV; and (2) a fishing 
or fish tender vessels of not more than 750 gross tons that transfers 
fuel without charge to a fishing vessel owned by the same person.
    Section 321 of Pub. L. 103-206, entitled, ``Fishing and Fishing 
Tender Vessels,'' stated that a fishing vessel or fish tender vessel of 
not more than 750 gross tons, when engaged only in the fishing 
industry, shall not be deemed to be a tank vessel for the purpose of 
any law.
    Therefore, an OSV would not be required to meet this rule for the 
use of tanks onboard which carry oil (including drill mud that contains 
oil) as bulk cargo. Likewise fishing and fish tender vessels of not 
more than 750 gross tons, when engaged only in the fishing industry, 
are not required to meet the design standards of this rule.
    Due to Section 5209 of Pub. L. 102-587 and Section 321 of Pub. L. 
103-206, Sec. 157.03(v) has been amended to show the clarification of a 
tank vessel definition under the meaning of tank vessel in 46 U.S.C. 
2101(39).
    On December 18, 1992, a Federal Register Notice (57 FR 60402), was 
published by the Coast Guard reopening the original IFR comment period 
until February 26, 1993. This was done to provide the public a further 
opportunity to comment on the IFR regarding: existing double hull 
vessel design requirements; and double hull requirements for non-
traditional tank vessels carrying oil in bulk. Verbal and written 
public comments received by the Coast Guard suggested there was some 
uncertainty as to the applicability of the Act to vessels that carry 
oil in bulk or cargo residue, as a secondary cargo.
    Subject to the provisions of section 4115 of the Act, this rule 
applies to all vessels which carry oil in bulk or cargo residue, which 
includes tank vessel, tank barge, and a vessel certificated as a cargo 
or passenger vessel that carries limited quantities of oil in bulk.
    The Maritime Prepositioning Ship Program was initiated through the 
U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, using time chartered U.S. commercially 
operated dry cargo vessels, to carry military logistic supplies in a 
pre-loaded condition. These existing vessels are certificated to carry 
a limited quantity of bulk oil, to fuel their primary cargo of military 
vehicles.
    The Coast Guard has no discretion to waive or exempt requirements 
of double [[Page 13320]] hull protection by the Act. Cargo tanks on 
these vessels must be protected in accordance with this rule. The 
Secretary of the Navy may extend the NDW for these vessels to include 
the double hull requirements for their cargo oil tanks. Presently, 
these vessels are not required to meet the double hull rules until 23 
years into their time charter with the U.S. Government.
    The notes provided in 46 CFR 70.05 and 46 CFR 90.05 to clarify the 
applicability of this rule to cargo and passenger vessels, have not 
changed due to these comments.
    3. 33 CFR 157.03(aa). Four comments were received requesting 
interpretations on the cargo tank length definition. These four 
comments were from vessel designers or classification societies, who 
felt unsure on the meaning of the IFR stated definition for cargo tank 
length and requested how the definition was to be interpreted for 
actual proposed double hull tank vessel designs. Two additional 
comments were received recommending that the cargo tank length 
definition of the IFR be harmonized with the definition provided by the 
term ``Lt'', in Sec. 157 Appendix C. The definition of the term 
``Lt'' in Sec. 157 Appendix C is the same as the definition of 
cargo tank length provided by Regulation 13E of Annex I, MARPOL 73/78.
    The Coast Guard's intent, as specified in the IFR preamble, was to 
be consistent with the international double hull design standards and 
to ensure that compliance and enforcement was equal for U.S. and 
foreign vessels meeting these rules. The existing cargo tank length 
definition in Sec. 157.03 was promulgated under the segregated ballast 
requirements of the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978.
    The Coast Guard modified this definition in the development of the 
IFR to ensure it not only addressed tankships, but also barges. The 
above comments illustrate that the IFR definition still may cause 
confusion regarding the cargo tank length of the vessel requiring 
double hull protection.
    Also, the Coast Guard has noted that non-standard tank vessels, 
such as dry cargo, break bulk, or passenger vessels, which carry oil as 
a secondary cargo, may not fit the cargo tank length definition in the 
IFR.
    To ensure consistency with international standards, allow use with 
non-standard tank vessels, and assist in the conversion of existing 
single hull tankships to double hulls, the cargo tank length definition 
has been amended in Sec. 157.03(aa) to harmonize it with the definition 
of ``Lt'' in Sec. 157 Appendix C, and thus MARPOL 73/78.
    Various designs for rebuilding, converting, and installing new 
double hull bodies on existing single hull tankships, have been 
provided to the Coast Guard for review and interpretation under the 
IFR. The IFR definition has been found to limit the ability to redesign 
existing hull configurations where a cargo pump room is located forward 
of the engine room's forward bulkhead. In these designs, fuel tanks 
integral with the engine room extend over or around the cargo pump 
room. To double hull these fuel tanks would limit the fuel capacity of 
the vessel and its ability to trade, but would not increase the 
protection of the cargo tank block. Risk of damage in this after area 
of the vessel is historically low and in most designs the cargo pump 
room extends below the fuel tanks providing them with bottom void 
protection, that equals or exceeds double bottom height standards.
    Changing the cargo tank length definition will not affect barges. 
The after perimeter for cargo tank length of barges would be the same 
under the U.S. and international definitions.
    4. 33 CFR 157.10d(b). Ten comments recommended an expansion of 
Sec. 157.10d(b)(1) to permit alternatives to double hulls. These 
comments support a number of design alternatives which were discussed 
in the IFR.
    A report was provided to Congress by the Coast Guard in December 
1992, titled, ``Alternatives to Double Hull Tank Vessel Design.'' The 
report, required by Section 4115(e) of OPA 90, evaluated alternative 
tank vessel designs to the double hull, to determine which, if any, 
could provide protection to the environment equal to or exceeding the 
double hull.
    The report's conclusions were: (1) At this time, the Coast Guard 
has not identified equivalent designs to the double hull tanker for the 
prevention of oil outflow due to groundings; (2) shortcomings exist in 
the current tanker evaluation methodology; (3) environmental 
performance standards and a specific methodology for the evaluation of 
alternative designs in terms other than oil outflow are not fully 
developed; and, (4) probabilistic computer modeling shows promise as a 
useful tool for initial evaluation of future designs.
    The report's recommendations were: (1) That no change in the 
present OPA 90 legislation be made at the time of the report; (2) that 
the Coast Guard continue to evaluate novel designs and technology 
submitted, reporting any suitable alternatives to double hulls to 
Congress as they are identified; (3) that the Coast Guard support 
continued research in the development of an evaluation and prediction 
capability that will enable a more accurate assessment of oil outflow 
due to grounding based on the recommendations outlined in the Carderock 
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (formerly the David Taylor Model 
Basin) test results; (4) that the Coast Guard, on behalf of the United 
States, continue to support efforts of the IMO to develop international 
environmental performance standards for tankers, by participation in 
finalizing the guidelines for the evaluation of alternative designs 
already circulated to IMO member governments; and, (5) that the Coast 
Guard, on behalf of the United States, continue to support the efforts 
of IMO to develop an internationally approved probabilistic methodology 
which can be applied to oil outflow analysis, risk assessment and 
vessel survivability.
    OPA 90, section 4115, accepts only the double hull design. An 
amendment to OPA 90 would be needed to allow for acceptance of any 
alternative tank vessel designs. Twelve comments support that the 
double hull be the only acceptable design for use in U.S. waters. These 
comments provide a number of reasons why the double hull is a superior 
design to protect the environment which are in accord with the Coast 
Guard's report on alternative tank vessel designs.
    One additional comment favored further research on the probability 
of oil outflow for the determination of equivalency designs to the 
double hull.
    Work on the probability of oil outflow is being completed by an IMO 
Working Group to establish guidelines for equivalency to Regulation 13F 
of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. The United States submitted the above Coast 
Guard report to Congress with its enclosures to IMO as an information 
paper at MEPC 34 (MEPC 34/INF.18) in July 1993. The United States is 
actively involved and supporting the studies of the MEPC Working Group 
to ensure that the international and U.S. standards may parallel the 
guidelines of acceptance for alternative tank vessel designs.
    Two comments were received on the allowable strength of double hull 
design and one on alternative materials acceptable for double hull tank 
vessel construction.
    Under 46 CFR 31.10-1 the U.S. accepts the American Bureau of 
Shipping (ABS) standards, ``Rules for Building and Classing Steel 
Vessels,'' for the minimum requirements of strength and reliability of 
hulls, boilers, and machinery for tank vessels. Specific standards for 
the strength and scantling [[Page 13321]] of tankship and tank barge 
construction are in 46 CFR 32.60 and 32.63.
    The U.S. also accepts approved plans and the certificates of ABS, 
or other recognized classification societies, for classed vessels as 
evidence of structural sufficiency for a vessel's hull. This is not to 
say that alternative materials to steel will not be acceptable. The 
Coast Guard, pursuant to recommendations in its report to Congress, has 
responded to questions by designers, owners, and operators of tank 
vessels regarding the use of alternative materials to meet the double 
hull standards of the IFR.
    This rule does not prescribe standards for vessel strength or 
scantlings. Strength and scantling requirements are reviewed in the 
initial approval or acceptance of a vessel design prior to the vessel's 
inspection for certification by the Coast Guard. Actions are being 
taken through the newly established Flag State Implementation (FSI) 
Sub-Committee at IMO, in conjunction with the International Association 
of Classification Societies (IACS), to examine classification society 
and international vessel construction strength rules. Areas of concern 
involve the use of high tensile steels, reduced corrosion levels in 
scantlings, and designs in which scantlings or other structural members 
are susceptible to fatigue fracturing.
    5. 33 CFR 157.10d(c). Three comments addressed the dimensions for 
double bottom height prescribed in Sec. 157.10d(c)(2). Two comments 
supported larger protective double bottom spacing (B/15 or 2 meters, 
whichever is greater), while one comment suggested that the height for 
a vessel's double bottom spacing be determined using a mean sized 
vessel's beam which would enhance inspection and maintenance 
capabilities for smaller beamed vessels and not penalize beamier 
vessels (specifically barges) that usually operate at a shallower 
draft.
    The major concern stated was that larger vessels, specifically 
those over 100,000 deadweight tons (DWT), would be allowed to default 
to a height of 2 meters under the IFR requirement of B/15 or 2 meters, 
whichever is less. It was also stated in the comment that the National 
Research Council (NRC) recommended the dimension requirement for double 
bottom height be, ``B/15 or 2 meters, which ever is greater,'' in their 
study, ``Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design.'' The Coast Guard notes 
that in that study's Executive Summary, the NRC recommended that more 
research was needed to determine the spacing between hulls that best 
satisfies all concerns.
    What is not taken into account by the comment is that the double 
bottom height of the larger vessels will also be affected by the 
requirement of Sec. 157.10d(c)(4). For larger tank vessels to meet the 
trim and stability aggregate volume ballast requirements of this 
section, a 2 meter spacing of the double bottom and double side voids, 
is generally not large enough to provide the volume of ballast 
required. Thus, either the double bottom or side spacing, or both, must 
be expanded to meet this trim and stability requirement, and results in 
the height or width of these spaces being larger than required by the 
minimum standards.
    The Coast Guard considers the double hull dimensions of the IFR to 
appropriately balance economic and environmental concerns. There have 
been two recent groundings of vessels which met the B/15 or 2 meters 
criteria. In both instances the outer hulls were breached but the inner 
hulls were not damaged enough to allow any loss of cargo. Both vessels 
were able to offload their cargoes safely, and proceed in ballast to 
shipyards for major bottom hull repairs.
    This design standard has received strong public consensus and been 
incorporated in IMO's accepted Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/
78 for international vessel double hull design standards. The Coast 
Guard considers international consistency to be extremely important due 
to the global nature of the marine transportation of oil. Therefore, 
this final rule makes no change to the parameter of the double bottom 
spacing standards for double hull design.
    6. 33 CFR 157.10d(c), continued. Two comments were received 
regarding the double hull protection required by Sec. 157.10d(c) (1) 
and (2) to include fuel tanks. One comment supported the IFR standard 
for protection of fuel oil tanks only within the cargo tank length as 
discussed in paragraph 3, while the second comment stated that the IFR 
violated OPA 90 by failure to require double hull protection for bunker 
fuel tanks throughout the vessel's length.
    As discussed in detail in the IFR, the Coast Guard does not concur 
that OPA 90 requires the protection of fuel oil tanks outside of 
vessel's cargo tank length. Thus, no change has been made and fuel oil 
tanks aft of the cargo tank length (defined in 33 CFR 157.03(aa)) are 
not required to be double hull protected.
    7. 33 CFR 157.10d(c), continued, and 157.10d(d). Eight comments 
recommended that existing double hull tank vessels be permitted to 
continue operating, even if the dimensions of such vessel, specifically 
the double bottom height, do not meet the existing vessel double hull 
standards of Sec. 157.10d(c)(2)(iii). Two comments supported that the 
existing double hull dimension standards remain as published in the 
IFR.
    The Coast Guard previously responded to comments such as these in 
the IFR preamble for vessels contracted before June 30, 1990, and 
reduced the dimensional requirements for existing double hulls in 
Sec. 157.10d(c)(1)(iii) for double side width, and 
Sec. 157.10d(c)(2)(iii) for double bottom height. These dimensional 
standards are consistent with the international standards of 
Regulations 13G of Annex I of MARPOL, as adopted by MEPC 32.
    The comments received did not provide significant information to 
support a need to reduce the double bottom minimum dimension standards. 
To reduce these standards further would restrict existing double hull 
vessels from trading internationally. As noted below, domestic vessels 
on limited routes do have reduced double hull spacing standards.
    The Coast Guard has not changed the minimum dimensions acceptable 
for existing double hull tank vessels in this final rule. The owners of 
those existing double hull tank vessels that do not meet the minimum 
dimensions in this rule may request an equivalency determination under 
the provisions of Sec. 157.07. If the Coast Guard determines that this 
has a substantial impact on existing vessels because they are unable to 
meet the equivalency provisions, the Coast Guard may consider a future 
change to this rulemaking.
    One comment stated that the dimension requirements of 
Sec. 157.10d(d)(3) which allows vessels less that 10,000 DWT that 
operate exclusively on inland and certain coastwise routes to reduce 
double hull design standards due to route are not warranted. This 
comment did not provide any documentation which supported the need for 
larger dimensional spacing for double hull standards on these vessels 
of limited size and route. The Coast Guard does not concur with this 
comment.
    All vessels which are constructed or adapted to carry, or carry, 
oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue must be double hulled under OPA 
90 mandate. Vessels under 10,000 DWT (roughly 5,000 gross tons) are not 
exempt from this requirement. Under section 4115 of OPA 90, ``a vessel 
of less than 5,000 gross tons equipped with a double containment system 
determined by the Secretary to be as effective as a double hull for the 
prevention of the discharge [[Page 13322]] of oil * * *,'' may be 
exempted from the requirement for a double hull. To date, the Coast 
Guard has not accepted any double containment system proposals.
    8. 33 CFR 157.10d(d). One comment stated that the use of minimum 
dimensions for double hull spaces could limit access for the proper 
inspection and maintenance of tank vessels. Nothing in this rule 
requires the use of minimum dimensions for double hull vessel design 
and construction. The Coast Guard encourages designers and builders to 
consider equally the inspection and safety requirements for access of 
personnel to double hull areas. Recent presentations to the Coast Guard 
by companies and individuals designing vessels with double hull 
configurations, met or exceeded expectations for access, inspection, 
and human engineering allowance for double hull spaces.
    As the Coast Guard reviews and approves plans for U.S. flag vessels 
before construction or major modification, these areas will be closely 
examined. No change to this rule was made.
    9. 33 CFR 157.11(g)(1). One comment recommended that a new 
subparagraph be added to this section which prohibited the placement of 
cargo piping in voids or duct keels within the double bottom space. The 
discussion of this recommendation stated that cargo piping located 
within the cargo tank offers some degree of protection from damage due 
to groundings and it is likely that such an arrangement would allow the 
piping system to be available for transfer of cargo in salvage 
operations in all but the most severe of incidents.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the discussion of this recommendation 
in part, but does not agree that a subparagraph needs to be added to 
this section. Sec. 157.19 already ensures the height of cargo piping 
from vessel's bottom plating which similarly protects it from damage in 
a grounding situation.
    Duct keels, which can be used for the pathway of cargo piping 
through a vessel's cargo block area within a box keel, must be isolated 
from double bottom ballast tanks, as cargo piping is not allowed in 
these spaces under Sec. 157.11(g)(1)(ii). Duct keels have been used 
extensively in the design of liquid bulk oil carriers to allow for a 
separation of cargo lines from the ballast tanks while making the pipes 
available to examination and repair even when the vessel is in 
operation.
    The duct keel, which has the heaviest scantlings of the vessel 
bottom, including bottom plating, assists in the protection of the 
cargo piping system in this design. The rule was not changed due to 
this recommendation.
    10. 33 CFR 157.19. One comment stated that the cargo tank size 
limitation requirement of this section, for vessels under 5000 DWT, was 
arbitrary and its restriction would cause operational oil pollution 
increases. Further, it stated that many existing double hull inland 
river box barges carry approximately 10,000 barrels of cargo in two 
cargo compartments of 5,000 barrels each. This section will necessitate 
addition of a third compartment to vessels of this DWT size, with tank 
capacities limited to less than 4,400 barrels.
    As discussed in the IFR, size limitation is a provision of 
Regulation 13F, paralleled in U.S. regulations. This requirement limits 
the size of individual cargo tanks on new vessels under 5,000 DWT, to 
no more than 700 cubic meters (4,400 bbls), unless double sides are 
fitted. The IFR and this final rule require a vessel of that size to 
have double sides and double bottoms.
    The Coast Guard has not made any changes to Sec. 157.19, as the 
double hull protection required for tank vessels by this rule surpasses 
the requirements of double side protection required by Regulation 13F. 
As any new tank barges will require double hull protection, the 4,400 
bbls cargo tank size limit will not apply.
    11. 46 CFR 32.53. One comment recommended that inert gas 
requirements for double hull spaces be closely evaluated, as proposed 
in the IFR, prior to future rulemaking. Actions are continuing in this 
area of concern at IMO.
    At the 61st session of IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 61), 
Resolution MSC.27(61) was adopted as an amendment to SOLAS 74, 
regarding new equipment and operation standards for new and existing 
vessels. This resolution was accepted on April 1, 1994, as a specified 
majority of the Parties signatory to SOLAS 74 did not declare objection 
to the resolution.
    The Resolution was published in total as part of NVIC No. 3-93 on 
April 12, 1993. In Resolution MSC.27(61), Regulation 59--``Venting, 
purging, gas-freeing and ventilation,'' was amended by adding a new 
paragraph 4 to the existing regulation. The amended Regulation 59 is 
republished below for the readers information:
    ``4 Inerting, ventilation and gas measurement
    4.1 This paragraph shall apply to oil tankers constructed on or 
after 1 October 1994.
    4.2 Double hull and double bottom spaces shall be fitted with 
suitable connections for the supply of air.
    4.30 On tankers required to be fitted with inert gas systems:
    .1 double hull spaces shall be fitted with suitable connections for 
the supply of inert gas;
    .2 where such spaces are connected to a permanently fitted inert 
gas system, means shall be provided to prevent hydrocarbon gases from 
the cargo tanks entering the double hull spaces through the system;
    .3  where such spaces are not permanently connected to an inert gas 
system, appropriate means shall be provided to allow connection to the 
inert gas main.
    4.4.1  Suitable portable instruments for measuring oxygen and 
flammable vapor concentrations shall be provided. In selecting these 
instruments, due attention shall be given for their use in combination 
with the fixed gas sampling line systems referred to in paragraph 
4.4.2.
    4.4.2  Where atmosphere in double hull spaces cannot be reliably 
measured using flexible gas sampling hoses, such spaces shall be fitted 
with permanent gas sampling lines. The configuration of such line 
systems shall be adapted to the design of such spaces.
    4.4.3  The materials of construction and the dimensions of gas 
sampling lines shall be such as to prevent restriction. Where plastic 
materials are used, they should be electrically conductive.
    This SOLAS amendment does not require permanently inerted double 
hull voids, since inert gas poses a danger to personnel and may also 
tend to accelerate corrosion in ballast tanks. This amendment requires 
that connections be available to supply both air and inert gas to 
ballast tanks within the double hull, and requires the capability to 
ensure that safe atmospheres are available within them for operational 
and personnel safety.
    The Coast Guard is reviewing enforcement and regulatory 
requirements due to the acceptance of IMO Resolution MSC.27(61) 
amendments. If regulatory action is deemed necessary for vessels other 
than those on international routes which must meet SOLAS 74 
regulations, the Coast Guard will propose regulations in a future 
rulemaking.

General Comments (Non-CFR Specific)

    12. Ten comments recommended that the IFR be adopted as a final 
rule with no changes, and that the double hull rules be the only 
accepted design standards. Various reasons were provided, most with the 
implication that the double hull would be the best for providing 
protection to the [[Page 13323]] environment. Except for changes 
discussed above, the Coast Guard agrees with these recommendations.
    13. Two comments recommended that double hull designs require 
continuous centerline bulkhead standards or stability limitations, as 
this design would have a tendency to react erratically due to free 
surface effect during loading and offloading situations where the 
vessel's tanks are in a partially loaded condition.
    The Coast Guard notes that some new double hull tanker designs 
without longitudinal bulkheads, though meeting MARPOL and IFR double 
hull design standards, have inferior intact stability characteristics 
than tankers with longitudinal bulkheads. The Coast Guard, working with 
IMO's Stability, Loadlines and Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) Sub-
Committee, is conducting an ongoing review of the need for additional 
longitudinal bulkhead requirements on double hull designs. Most 
designs, even without centerline bulkheads, can be safely operated by 
vessel officers following loading and discharge instructions in the 
vessel's loading manual.
    Review and study of these intact stability requirements are being 
completed and the Coast Guard is proposing the implementation of new 
stability requirements under a separate rulemaking (CGD 91-206). 
Interim guidance on stability for double hull tankers has been provided 
in NVIC 4-92.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rulemaking 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 requires an assessment of 
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It is 
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). An 
analysis of the double hull rules is in the public docket. 
Implementation is projected to gradually increase the transportation 
cost of oil by four-tenths of a cent per gallon over the next 25 years.
    This double hull rulemaking is one of several rules which are being 
issued in accordance with Titles IV and V of OPA 90. Some of these 
rules interact with each other. The overall impact of these rules may 
not equal the cumulative total impact of each rule considered 
individually. For example, the beneficial impact of the double hull 
rule is the reduced amount of oil spilled after certain grounding or 
collision casualties. However, the impact of this rule will be reduced 
by other OPA 90 rulemakings and other actions that will improve 
operational and navigational safety of vessels which carry oil in bulk. 
These other actions will reduce the numbers of collisions and 
groundings which, in turn, reduce the overall benefits of (or, total 
spill reduction attributable to) double hull construction.
    The Coast Guard intends to conduct a comprehensive, programmatic 
RIA for all Title IV and V OPA 90 rules, once they are all completed 
and issued. This comprehensive RIA will evaluate the interaction of the 
rules relative to each other, and assess their impacts in total. 
However, since the rules are being developed and issued individually 
over several years, each rule is being evaluated by itself through an 
interim regulatory impact analysis (Interim RIA).
    Accordingly, an Interim RIA of this rule was prepared and placed in 
the public docket. The Interim RIA addresses the need for this 
rulemaking, the standards adopted in this rule, the alternatives to 
this rule, and the anticipated economic impacts of this action. A 
Notice of Availability of the Interim RIA was published in the Federal 
Register on January 15, 1992 (57 FR 1854), and public comments on the 
Interim RIA were invited. Six comments were received; none of the 
comments resulted in revision of the Interim RIA. However, an addendum 
to the Interim RIA has been placed in the public docket to reflect an 
increase in the projected economic benefits of spill prevention. A 
discussion of this increase is included in the summary of public 
comments on the cost of this rule published in the IFR of August 12, 
1992 (57 FR 36222). In that there is so little change in this rule from 
the IFR, the Interim RIA, as amended, is adopted as a final assessment 
under Executive Order 12866.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard must consider whether this rulemaking 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 not 
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard has evaluated the impact of harmonizing the U.S. 
cargo tank length definition with the international definition of 
Regulation 13E of Annex I, MARPOL 73/78 on vessels owned and operated 
by small business entities. Most vessels owned or operated by small 
business entities are barges and do not have after cargo pump rooms or 
main machinery spaces underdeck. The change in the cargo tank length 
definition in 33 CFR 157.03(aa) will not change the length of a barge 
required to be double hull protected by the U.S. double hull standards 
of 33 CFR 157.10d. The only affect of the change in definition will be 
on tankships. The Coast Guard reviews and approves U.S. vessel 
construction designs before they are built and has verified that no 
small entity tankships will be adversely affected by the change in the 
definition of cargo tank length. The modification of the definition 
should reduce the construction and operating costs for new tankships 
designed to meet the double hull standards. Converting existing single 
hull tankships to meet the double hull standards, when these vessels 
can no longer operate as single hull vessels, should also be less 
costly.
    Because it expects the impact of this rulemaking to be minimal, the 
Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rulemaking contains no additional collection-of-information 
requirements. Section 33 CFR 157 was revised by the IFR to require the 
submission of plans verifying compliance with this rule. No additional 
information collection burden is imposed due to this modification of 
the cargo tank length definition. Compliance with this rule can be 
verified from other information that is currently submitted under 33 
CFR 157.24 and 46 CFR 31.10.
    Under the IFR, the Coast Guard has submitted the information 
collection requirements in this rule 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 number is 46 CFR 157.24 and the corresponding OMB approval 
numbers are OMB Control Numbers 2115-0503 and 2115-0106.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rulemaking under the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. [[Page 13324]] 
    This final rule amends standards for the construction of double 
hull tank vessels. The authority to regulate tank vessel construction 
standards is delegated to the Coast Guard by the Secretary of 
Transportation, whose authority is committed by statute.
    Since tank vessels move between U.S. ports in the national 
marketplace, and between U.S. and foreign ports in the international 
marketplace, tank vessel construction is a matter for which regulations 
should be of national scope to avoid unreasonably burdensome variances. 
The Coast Guard received no comments addressing the federalism 
implications during the comment periods of the IFR. Therefore, the 
Coast Guard continues the long-established practice of preempting State 
action addressing the same subject matter.

Environment

    The Coast Guard environmental assessment (EA) for Double Hull 
Design Requirements for Tank Vessels was prepared in accordance with 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91-190), and the Council of Environmental 
Quality Regulations of July 1, 1986 (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
    This rule adopts the IFR as final with minor changes to definitions 
implementing the double hull provisions in Section 4115(a) of OPA 90 
(46 U.S.C. 3703a), and is not expected to result in significant impact 
on the quality of the human environment, as defined in NEPA. The Coast 
Guard has placed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the 
public docket.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

33 CFR Part 157

    Cargo vessels, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

46 CFR Part 30

    Cargo vessels, Foreign relations, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 32

    Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Navigation (water), 
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 70

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

46 CFR Part 90

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 172

    Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials transportation, Marine safety.

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR parts 155 and 157, 
and 46 CFR parts 30, 32, 70, 90, and 172, which was published at 57 FR 
36222 on August 12, 1992, is adopted as a final rule with the following 
changes:

TITLE 33 CFR PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE 
ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK

    1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Section 157.03 is amended by revising paragraphs (v) and (aa) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 157.03  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (v) Tank vessel means a vessel that is constructed or adapted 
primarily to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk 
as cargo or cargo residue, and that--
    (1) Is a vessel of the United States;
    (2) Operates on the navigable waters of the United States; or
    (3) Transfers oil or hazardous material in a port or place subject 
to the jurisdiction of the United States. This does not include an 
offshore supply vessel, or a fishing vessel or fish tender vessel of 
not more than 750 gross tons when engaged only in the fishing industry.
* * * * *
    (aa) Cargo tank length means the length from the forward bulkhead 
of the forwardmost cargo tanks, to the after bulkhead of the aftermost 
cargo tanks.
* * * * *
    Dated: March 1, 1995.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 95-5573 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P