[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49603-49608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25208]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR 157

[CGD 91-045]
RIN 2115-AF51


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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On July 30, 1996, the Coast Guard published a final rule 
requiring the owners, masters, or operators of tank vessels of 5,000 
gross tons 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 included a provision requiring, in some cases, owner notification 
of the vessel's calculated anticipated under-keel clearance which was 
scheduled to go into effect on November 27, 1996. Following issuance of 
the final rule, the Coast Guard received comments, several in the form 
of petitions for rulemaking, expressing concern about the 
implementation of the owner notification portion of the under-keel 
clearance provision and requesting an additional opportunity to comment 
on the provision. On November 27, 1996, the Coast Guard granted this 
request by suspending the provision and giving the public 90 days to 
comment on the under-keel clearance requirement in general. After 
reviewing the additional public comments, the Coast Guard issues a 
final rule which revises the under-keel clearance requirement for 
single-hull tank vessels and responds to the petitions for rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for 
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine 
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second 
Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30 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, Project Development Division, 
at 202-267-1492 or LT Brian Willis, Vessel Compliance Division, at 202-
267-2735.

[[Page 49604]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History

    The regulatory history for this rulemaking is recounted in the 
preamble of the final rule entitled ``Operational Measures to Reduce 
Oils Spills from Existing Tank Vessels without Double Hulls'' (61 FR 
39770; July 30, 1996).
    As the result of the petitions from industry, the Coast Guard 
published a notice in the Federal Register on November 27, 1996 
suspending the effective date of the owner notification provision in 
the under-keel clearance requirement entitled ``Operational Measures to 
Reduce Oil Spills from Existing Tank Vessels without Double Hulls; 
Partial Suspension of Regulation'' (61 FR 60189) and solicited 
additional comments on the entire under-keel clearance provision 
contained in the final rule.

Background and Purpose

    Background information on operation measures for existing vessels 
without double hulls is provided in the preambles to the advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (56 FR 56284; November 1, 1991), the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR 54870; October 22, 1993), 
the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (60 FR 55904; 
November 3, 1995), and the final rule (61 FR 39770; July 30, 1996).

Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received 65 letters containing over 190 comments on 
the under-keel clearance provision of the operational measures July 
1996 final rule. Two comments strongly supported the under-keel 
clearance requirement as written in the final rule. Two other comments 
requested an extension of the comment period for the partial 
suspension. One of these, in addition to the party's original petition, 
requested specific data from the Coast Guard on the basis for the 
requirement. A copy of the Coast Guard's response to this request was 
added to the docket. Thereafter, the Coast Guard notified the public of 
this addition to the docket and permitted the public an additional 30 
days to comment (62 FR 3463; January 23, 1997).
    The following discussion summarizes the remaining comments and is 
divided into the following topics: (1) Removal of the under-keel 
clearance requirement; (2) Owner notification; (3) Applicability; (4) 
Economic analysis; (5) Master/pilot relationship; and (6) Calculations.

1. Removal of the Under-Keel Clearance Requirement

    Fifty-two comments urged the Coast Guard to eliminate the under-
keel clearance requirement from the operational measures rulemaking. 
Twenty-four comments argued that the under-keel clearance requirement 
circumvents the knowledge and ability of the master and pilot--parties 
that have historically policed themselves and have the local expertise 
to safely command the vessel--and should, therefore, be removed. 
Nineteen of these comments specifically suggested that it was not 
necessary for the Coast Guard to regulate under-keel clearance, since 
current industry practice dictates the responsible performance of 
under-keel clearance calculations by the master. One comment indicated 
that the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in the 
operational measures final rule was similar to the recordkeeping 
aspects of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and, 
therefore, redundant. Another comment contended that the rules 
regarding under-keel clearance were not only unnecessary, but 
dangerous, and urged their immediate removal. The comment explained 
that to require a discussion of under-keel clearance at night could 
result in the loss of night vision and create the potential for more 
accidents to occur.
    The Coast Guard finds that requiring a master to calculate the 
anticipated under-keel clearance of the ship, discuss the clearance and 
the transit with the pilot, and ensure that the decisions being made on 
the bridge comply with company policy reflects good seamanship. 
Effective communication and passage planning are critical for a large 
single-hull tankship entering port. The failure of either can 
contribute to accidents as was presented in the quantitative risk model 
for the SNPRM. Thus, an anticipated under-keel clearance provision was 
required. It was recognized in both the SNPRM and the final rule that 
many companies, masters, and pilots conduct ``self-imposed'' under-keel 
clearance planning. The requirement in the final rule ensured all 
single-hull tankship masters plan, consider, and communicate this 
crucial aspect of navigation. The current regulations contained in 33 
CFR 164.11 require tankship personnel to set the vessel's speed with 
regard to the vessel's maneuverability when there is small under-keel 
clearance. They do not require the specific calculation of clearance or 
the planning of the ship's transit to identify areas of concern. 
Section 164.11 also does not focus the discussion of the pilot and 
master on passage planning or under-keel clearance. This final rule 
amends the original prescriptive calculation requirement of 
Sec. 157.455 and removes the owner notification provision, but 
continues to stress the importance of communications between the pilot 
and the master about the vessel's transit, including its anticipated 
under-keel clearance.
    The ISM code requirements also do not specifically require that 
tankship masters calculate the anticipated under-keel clearance of 
their vessels prior to entering or leaving port. Therefore, as required 
in this final rule, the master's consideration of the vessel's 
anticipated under-keel clearance and the owner's issuance of company 
guidance, complement the ISM code. By recognizing the owner's 
responsibility in providing safety guidance to the master and focusing 
that guidance to the time single-hull tankships are most at risk of 
spilling large quantities of oil (while maneuvering to or from a 
facility or anchorage), this final rule will reduce the likelihood of 
future casualties.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the calculation of anticipated 
under-keel clearance or conferring with company personnel or referring 
to company guidance poses a safety risk. Bridge personnel have 
checklists, cargo calculations, pilot information cards, chart plots, 
and several other items that must be completed prior to transiting a 
port. During night transits, the requirements are the same. 
Consultation with the company should not pose difficulty to a master of 
any ship, in daylight or at night. If it does, safety is hindered by 
other human factors such as a lack of clearly written guidance, no 
local contact personnel, or an ineffective means of communication on 
the bridge, not by an under-keel clearance requirement. Regardless, the 
Coast Guard has amended the anticipated under-keel clearance 
requirement by simply requiring the owner or operator to provide 
written guidance to the tankship master rather than allowing the option 
of either written policy or contacting company personnel. By only 
requiring written guidance, the Coast Guard is ensuring a tankship 
master no longer has to worry about not being able to contact company 
personnel or leaving the bridge in order to comply with the 
requirement.
    Twenty-four comments recommended that the anticipated under-keel 
clearance provision be removed and replaced with a non-regulatory 
requirement that the controlling depth and proper under-keel clearance 
be established by the Captain of the Port

[[Page 49605]]

(COTP), the pilot, or the Port Authority. The comments reasoned that 
these entities are in the best position to develop criteria, because of 
their in-depth knowledge of port conditions and their ability to 
specify the limiting factors applicable to a port.
    The Coast Guard does not prohibit the Port Authority or any other 
port group from meeting and developing guidance for tankships. OPA 90 
required the Coast Guard to implement regulatory measures that were 
both economically and technologically feasible for single-hull tankship 
prior to their phase-out dates. This final rule implements a planning 
tool termed ``anticipated under-keel clearance'' for single-hull tank 
vessels in order to implement the requirements of section 4115(b) of 
OPA 90. This rule does not conflict with any existing prescribed port 
authority under-keel clearance guidance.
    One comment argued that the Coast Guard did not properly 
substantiate the operational measures final rulemaking. The comment 
proposed that the administrative record constructed by the Coast Guard 
lacked the factual basis to support a determination to implement an 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement for single-hull tankships. 
The comment argued that an anticipated under-keel clearance requirement 
was not necessary, because lack of clearance has not been documented as 
a contributing factor in any oil spills to this date. In addition, the 
comment contended that the Coast Guard neglected to give the public due 
notice of the anticipated under-keel clearance owner notification 
requirement and its assessment in the final rule.
    The regulatory analysis for the SNPRM was based on a subjective 
review of single-hull vessel casualties. Generally, there are multiple 
causes for each accident which are commonly termed ``chain of events.'' 
As explained in the SNPRM and the final rule assessment, if a 
contributory cause of the reviewed casualty was a lack of passage 
planning, including the failure of the master to review the vessel's 
draft, depth, or route prior to a port transit, a portion of the 
spilled oil was documented as being preventable by use of an under-keel 
clearance requirement. Using the SNPRM's quantitative risk assessment, 
this spilled oil amount was then reduced by a range of 10 to 23 percent 
of the original amount to reflect the predicted effectiveness of the 
proposed anticipated under-keel clearance provision. Predicting the 
future avoidance of casualties based on a risk assessment is an 
accepted analytical tool. The fact that a major oil spill cannot be 
attributed solely to a lack of under-keel clearance, does not indicate 
that potential benefits from a focused effort on under-keel clearance 
do not exist. The lack of calculating anticipated under-keel clearance 
and discussing the vessel's route prior to entering or leaving a port 
have partially contributed to past casualties. This past history is 
enough to substantiate the benefits of a passage planning requirement 
that focuses on anticipated under-keel clearance to prevent groundings 
by single-hull tankships.
    The Coast Guard contends that the public was afforded due notice 
and the opportunity to comment on the anticipated under-keel clearance 
provisions. In the SNPRM the Coast Guard discussed both the mandatory 
passage planning requirement and the need to involve the vessel's owner 
in making navigation decisions. In fact, every relevant regulatory 
document associated with operational measures has stressed the 
importance the Coast Guard places on owner involvement. In response to 
adverse comments to the SNPRM's proposed \1/2\ meter anticipated under-
keel clearance minimum, the Coast Guard removed the uniform under-keel 
clearance requirement and replaced it with a logical outgrowth of that 
concept. Both the assessments and the source documents for every 
incident documented in the assessments were in the public record and 
were available to the public during this rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
nevertheless suspended the under-keel clearance requirement and allowed 
an additional comment period to guarantee that every pubic concern was 
thoroughly considered and addressed before it took this final action on 
under-keel clearance for single-hull tank vessels.

2. Owner Notification

    Fifty-four comments urged the Coast Guard to remove the owner 
notification provisions contained in Secs. 157.455(a)(5) and (6) of the 
operational measures regulation. The comments argued that shore-based 
personnel contacted for a decision regarding anticipated under-keel 
clearance could be located thousands of miles away from the port and 
unfamiliar with the maneuvering characteristics and behavior of the 
vessel in a loaded condition. In essence, they argued that the master 
may have to rely on the ``expertise'' of an unqualified party in 
another part of the world, who may never have been to sea, and may be 
half asleep when contacted to make a decision as to whether a vessel 
should proceed. However, ten comments indicated that, if the Coast 
Guard deemed it necessary to regulate under-keel clearance, they would 
support a requirement that owners or operators provide under-keel 
guidance through a prescribed policy which could be consulted by the 
master during transit. One comment fully supported the approach taken 
by the Coast Guard in the final rule and endorsed it as valid. The 
comment stated that conscientious operators do, and all operators 
should, take under-keel clearance into account when planning a voyage. 
The comment further explained that the pilot's job is made easier 
knowing that the ship has been loaded with due regard for local draft 
limitations and that the master and the ship's owner have considered 
the limitations in planning the vessel's transit.
    In the final rule, the Coast Guard issued a requirement that 
involved the owner or operator at the policy level. In addition, an 
alternative to supplying written company policy on under-keel clearance 
was provided allowing the master to contact company personnel. This 
measure ensured that company policy was checked or management was 
informed of the vessel's passage situation. This final rule removes the 
owner notification provision and simply requires company policy to be 
provided to the master. The responsibility for estimating the 
anticipated under-keel clearance along the transit route of the vessel, 
including the facility or anchorage, is now placed on the master. 
However, the company policy should provide the master the guidance 
needed to pre-plan the transit and the direct authority to delay the 
transit or take any action necessary to ensure the vessel's safe 
navigation.
    Three comments noted what they perceived as a ``technical defect'' 
in the drafting of Sec. 157.455(a)(6). The provision states that an 
owner should not allow a vessel to proceed if transit ``would not be 
prudent considering, but not limited to, the anticipated under-keel 
clearance, any Captain of the Port (COTP) under-keel clearance 
guidance, and the pilot's recommended clearance.'' The comments 
contended that the ``but not limited to'' phrasing contained in this 
section implies that the owner's decision to allow a vessel to proceed 
could be based on unspecified criteria in addition to the specified 
factors. They argued that since the provision effectively places legal 
responsibility for imprudence in making under-keel clearance 
determinations on the owner or operator of a vessel, the Coast Guard 
should be specific as to the criteria to be applied.
    The Coast Guard has removed the phrase ``but not limited to'' from 
the anticipated under-keel clearance provision in this final rule. The 
phrase

[[Page 49606]]

was meant to include such things as anticipated traffic, ship-specific 
maneuvering characteristics with respect to small under-keel 
clearances, or other existing company policies that may be affected. 
The company guidance required in this final rule should cover these 
types of contingencies.

3. Applicability

    Twenty-one comments requested that the Coast Guard explicitly limit 
the application of the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement to 
single-hull tankships, and exclude all other carriers, including, but 
not limited to, bulk carriers, general cargo carriers, container ships, 
and Roll-on, Roll-off container ships. In contrast, one comment 
recommended use of under-keel clearance guidance for all ships, not 
just tankships without double hulls. The comment explained that some 
other types of vessels (e.g., dry cargo vessels) routinely carry more 
oil in bunkers than many tank vessels carry as cargo. Consequently, the 
comment argued that whatever increased protection to the environment 
results from requiring under-keel clearance for single-hull tankships 
should be amplified if such measures are applied to all vessels using 
the waterways.
    The Coast Guard is acting under the authority of section 4115(b) of 
OPA 90 and does not intent to extend implementation of operational 
measures to vessels other than vessels of 5,000 gross tons (GT) or more 
that do not have double hulls and that carry oil in bulk as cargo in 
this final rule. Implementing the pre-planning guidance and 
communication requirements of this final rule is prudent on all 
vessels. However, this rule only prescribes an anticipated under-keel 
requirement for single-hull tank vessels. If the Coast Guard deemed it 
appropriate to expand the applicability of this rule to other vessel 
types, a notice would be issued in the Federal Register and the public 
would be allowed an opportunity to comment. Currently, many COTPs and 
port authorities are working together to develop non-regulatory 
solutions to reducing risk within their waterways. The public is 
encouraged to contact their local COTPs to discuss ongoing port efforts 
and become involved in these issues.

4. Economic Analysis

    Eighteen comments questioned the results of the regulatory analysis 
completed by the Coast Guard and requested that the General Accounting 
Office study the economic impact of a requirement for the establishment 
of a minimum under-keel clearance for single-hull tankships prior to 
implementation of a final rule. In addition, the comments requested 
that a small working group, comprised of representatives from industry 
and the Coast Guard, be established specifically for the purpose of 
studying the issue of under-keel clearance. Another comment also 
expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement, and contended that the 
Coast Guard should impose new regulations only after an attempt to 
enforce current regulations fails and a reasonable risk of harm exists. 
In contrast, one comment stated that the original anticipated under-
keel clearance requirement was reasonable and consistent with modern 
practice.
    The Coast Guard has revised the anticipated under-keel clearance 
requirement in this final rule to make it less prescriptive. Because 
the requirement in this final rule contains the original communication 
and pre-planning under-keel clearance focus for single-hull tank 
vessels, the Coast Guard estimates that the benefits from this rule 
will remain as originally predicted until 2015 when these vessels no 
longer transit in U.S. ports. Because this requirement reflects current 
industry practice and ensures all single-hull tankships, at the very 
least, take the time to plan the vessel's passage with respect to 
under-keel clearance and discuss it with the pilot, the Coast Guard 
does not agree that an additional economic analysis is needed. If a 
COTP deems it necessary to require under-keel clearance or draft 
requirements, a cost analysis would be done and presented to the public 
for comment prior to implementation. Individual or small industry group 
participation in local determinations of this sort are used extensively 
by the Coast Guard to help it develop port requirements.
    One comment expressed concern that Protection and Indemnity (P & I) 
Clubs might decline claims resulting from oil spills based on a 
determination that an owner, operator, or representative employee was 
privy to an unsafe practice under the Marine Insurance Act of 1906. 
Consequently, the company holding the Certificate of Financial 
Responsibility (COFR), as guarantor, would be obligated to pay the 
claim, causing insurance rates to rise significantly. As a result, the 
comment argued that the cost of obtaining a COFR should have been 
included in the cost calculations for the operational measures final 
rule.
    The Coast Guard developed the original anticipated under-keel 
clearance requirement to ensure owners and operators were fully 
informed of vessel operations prior to transiting port. Although this 
final rule removes the owner notification provision, it remains a 
preventive measure and focuses on ensuring the master follows company 
guidance that contains appropriate information to navigate safely. All 
of the anticipated under-keel clearance requirements discussed in this 
rulemaking have focused on planning and prevention. Therefore, the 
original final rule's cost analysis has not been amended to include the 
cost of insurance rate increases to those companies who may be found 
liable for future spills due to their own imprudence.
    A separate comment maintained that the imposition of an anticipated 
under-keel clearance requirement on the single-hull tanker fleet would 
cause a substantial loss of cargo-carrying capacity, forcing either an 
increase in the fleet size serving U.S. markets, or an increase in the 
number of trips required to move a specific quantity of oil. According 
to the comment, the Coast Guard failed to quantify the cargo loss 
factor or evaluate its effects in the final rule regulatory assessment. 
The original final rule assessment estimated the cost of cargo shut-out 
for single-hull tankships. Because industry indicated that prudent 
under-keel clearances were already the standard ``best practice'' for 
the majority of single-hull vessels, the Coast Guard found that single-
hull tankship traffic would not be notably increased by the anticipated 
under-keel clearance requirement. Therefore, this cost was not included 
in the assessment.

5. Master/Pilot Relationship

    One comment requested that the Coast Guard consider allowing the 
master to discuss draft, anticipated under-keel clearance, and passage 
planning with the boarding pilot by radio, cellular phone, or some 
other method, prior to the pilot coming on board. The comment explained 
that in most ports, the current pilot boarding stations are too close, 
leaving no time for the pilot to discuss passage planning prior to 
proceeding to the channel or river.
    The Coast Guard encourages masters to contact pilots prior to 
boarding stations. The operational measure requiring pilot cards 
(Sec. 157.450) ensures that discussions between the master and the 
pilot occur prior to entering port or getting underway. This 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement also requires a discussion 
between the pilot and the master. It is the responsibility of the 
master to take the time to discuss the vessel's passage with the pilot. 
Safe

[[Page 49607]]

navigation of the vessel hinges on this discussion as well as the 
competence of the bridge team. There is no regulation that prohibits a 
master from requesting the pilot to board early or from conferring with 
the pilot by radio or other means prior to boarding, or engaging in any 
other communication that helps clarify conditions prior to a port 
transit.

6. Calculations

    Twelve comments expressed dissatisfaction with the anticipated 
under-keel clearance provision relating to the calculation of squat. 
Two comments contended that if squat characteristics are to be taken 
into account for the anticipated under-keel clearance calculation, the 
regulations should incorporate generic squat equations to avoid the 
inaccuracies associated with using empirical formulas. One comment 
specifically recommended that the Coast Guard establish speed curves 
for various sizes and types of vessels to be used in calculating 
anticipated under-keel clearance. Another comment suggested that the 
local COTP, in coordination with the pilots, officially predetermine 
the transit speed at each critical geographical point for each ship 
type, size, and draft. The comment contended that if the COTP did not 
dictate the transit speed for the purpose of calculating squat, 
artificially low transit speeds that disregard the steering effect 
could be used in order to obtain a minimum squat value and reduce the 
ship's calculated navigational draft.
    Another comment urged the Coast Guard to prescribe the form of all 
required calculations in order to ensure uniformity of usage throughout 
industry, and to facilitate Coast Guard inspections for compliance. One 
comment recommended that Sec. 157.455(a)(1)(iii) be amended to allow 
masters to rely on calculations or experience in determining the 
corresponding effects of the intended transit speed on the vessel. The 
comment explained that the available formulas for squat are inaccurate 
for vessels in confined channels and tend to yield a much greater squat 
than the vessel actually realizes. Three comments suggested that the 
issue of squat should be a matter of discussion between master and 
pilot and not required to be determined at the commencement of a 
voyage. Three other comments argued that unless the Coast Guard was 
prepared to designate a methodology for determining squat, the 
calculation of squat should not be required by regulations.
    One comment supported the requirement to include squat in the 
anticipated under-keel clearance calculation. If, according to the 
comment, Sec. 157.450 requires maneuvering characteristics (including 
squat characteristics) to be recorded on the wheelhouse poster in 
accordance with Appendix 2 of IMO Resolution A.601(15), then 
Sec. 157.455 should be amended by removing the ``if known'' from the 
tankship's deepest draft calculation. The comment explained that based 
on Sec. 157.450, squat characteristics should be known, and that, 
therefore, the ``if known'' phrasing should be deleted from 
Sec. 157.455, in order to make the provisions consistent.
    The Coast Guard has removed the prescriptive calculation criteria 
for the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement in this final 
rule. Consideration of squat and how it may affect the vessel's 
maneuverability during a transit is required by Sec. 164.11 for all 
vessels. This final rule ensures that the master and the pilot discuss 
the passage plan, including the anticipated under-keel clearance. This 
discussion should include speed, squat, and maneuverability criteria, 
as found in the wheelhouse poster in accordance with Appendix 2 of IMO 
Resolution A.601(15) and their effect on the vessel's safe transit. 
While the Coast Guard could implement speed restrictions for all 
single-hull tankships in this rulemaking or provide empirical formulas 
for squat calculations, it has not. Diverse port needs, vessel 
characteristics, and port hydrography make such requirements difficult 
to develop and keep current. Local COTPs, who have knowledge of port-
specific needs, may choose to implement these types of requirements. 
However, if a COTP deems if necessary to require speed restrictions or 
the calculation of squat formulas, a cost analysis would be done and 
presented to the public for comment prior to implementation.

Regulatory Assessment

    This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management 
and Budget under that Order. It required an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order, and is 
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (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. Revisions to the 
Assessment completed for the final rule (61 FR 39770; July 30, 1996) 
are summarized as follows:
    The amended anticipated under-keel clearance requirement in this 
final rule is less prescriptive than the provision the Coast Guard 
evaluated in the Operational Measures final rule (61 FR 39770). 
However, because it contains the essential elements contained in the 
original anticipated under-keel clearance provision--communication, 
planning, and acting to ensure safe navigation--this amended 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement should be effective as the 
original, more prescriptive, requirement. Therefore, the costs and 
benefits for this final rule remain as calculated in the original final 
rule regulatory assessment. The estimated cost of implementing this 
amended anticipated under-keel clearance requirement remains at $43.97 
million. Implementing this adjusted anticipated under-keel clearance 
requirement would still yield a 10 to 23 percent risk effectiveness 
factor in preventing grounding or casualties of single-hull tank 
vessels. The estimated benefit range remains at 5,279 to 12,142 barrels 
of unspilled oil in the 19 years this requirement will be in effect. 
The estimated cost-benefit range for the amended anticipated under-keel 
clearance in this final rule is $3,223-$7,931 per barrel of unspilled 
oil.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small 
entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that 
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    This final rule does not change the cost or benefit estimates of 
the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in the 
original final rule. For the reasons discussed in the final rule for 
operational measures (61 FR 39786), the Coast Guard certifies under 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard 
will provide assistance to small entities to determine how this rule 
applies to them. If you are a small business and

[[Page 49608]]

need assistance understanding the provisions of this rule, please 
contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) closest to your 
vessel's operational area.

Unfunded Mandate

    Under the Unfunded Mandate 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.
    The cost-benefit analysis done for the original anticipated under-
keel clearance requirement remains unchanged for this final rule. The 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in this final 
rule is less prescriptive while achieving the same objective. The 
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement, as amended in this final 
rule, does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objective of the rule.

Collection of Information

    This final rule contains no new collection-of-information 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). As stated in a notice published on December 6, 1996 (61 FR 
64618), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
collection requirements under OMB control number 2115-0629.

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 
for the original operational measures final rulemaking and concluded 
that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 157

    Cargo vessels, Oil Pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 157 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 part 157 continues 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. The stay announced at 61 FR 60189, November 27, 1996, is lifted 
and Sec. 157.455 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.455  Minimum under-keel clearance.

    (a) The owner or operator of a tankship, that is not fitted with a 
double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length, shall provide 
the tankship master with written under-keel clearance guidance that 
includes--
    (1) Factors to consider when calculating the ship's deepest 
navigational draft;
    (2) Factors to consider when calculating the anticipated 
controlling depth;
    (3) Consideration of weather or environmental conditions; and
    (4) Conditions which mandate when the tankship 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.
    (b) Prior to entering the port or place of destination and prior to 
getting underway, the master of a tankship that is not fitted with the 
double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length shall plan the 
ship's passage using guidance issued under paragraph (a) of this 
section and estimate the anticipated under-keel clearance. The tankship 
master and the pilot shall discuss the ship's planned transit including 
the anticipated under-keel clearance. An entry must be made in the 
tankship's official log or in other onboard documentation reflecting 
discussion of the ship's anticipated passage.
    (c) 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 under-keel clearance guidance 
that includes--
    (1) Factors to consider when calculating the tank barge's deepest 
navigational draft;
    (2) Factors to consider when calculating the anticipated 
controlling depth;
    (3) Consideration of weather or environmental conditions; and
    (4) 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.

    Dated: September 15, 1997.
Robert E. Kramek,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 97-25208 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M