[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39770-39794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19236]



[[Page 39769]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Part 157



46 CFR Parts 31 and 35



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

  Federal Register  / Vol. 61, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 30, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 39770]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 157

46 CFR Parts 31 and 35

[CGD 91-045]
RIN 2115-AE01


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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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