[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31806-31813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12570]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

46 CFR Part 32

[USCG 1998-4443]
RIN 2115-AF65


Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements measures for maintaining or 
regaining control of a tank barge that will reduce the likelihood of a 
tank barge's

[[Page 31807]]

grounding and spilling its cargo. These measures are necessary because 
without them a tug that loses its tow lacks ready means for regaining 
control of it. They should increase the safety of marine transport and 
protect the environment.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 19, 2000 except for 33 CFR 
155.230(b)(1) and 46 CFR 32.15-15(e), which are effective on December 
11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket 
for this rulemaking. Unless otherwise indicated, documents mentioned in 
this preamble will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find 
this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this final rule, call 
Mr. Robert Spears, Project Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation and 
Development, telephone 202-267-1099; or Mr. Allen Penn, Technical 
Advisor, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, telephone 202-267-
2997. For questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Walker, 
Chief, Documents, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

Background and Purpose

    On January 19, 1996, the tugboat SCANDIA, towing the oil barge 
NORTH CAPE, caught fire five miles off the coast of Rhode Island. The 
crew could not control the fire, and without power they were unable to 
prevent the barge, carrying 4 million gallons of oil, from grounding 
and spilling about a quarter of its contents into the coastal waters. 
The NORTH CAPE spill led Congress to add, in section 901 of the 1996 
Coast Guard Authorization Act (Pub. L. 104-324), a new statute, 46 
U.S.C. 3719. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue rules 
necessary to reduce oil spills from single-hull non-self-propelled tank 
vessels. On October 6, 1997, we published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on safety of towing vessels and tank barges (62 FR 
52057). With the interim rule we published on December 30, 1998 (63 FR 
71754), we adjusted safety measures proposed in the NPRM. With this 
final rule, instead of requiring just one emergency control measure, we 
are requiring an anchoring system (on single-hull tank barges) plus one 
other (backup) measure.

Statutory Mandate

    46 U.S.C. 3719 directs us to issue rules requiring a single-hull, 
non-self-propelled tank vessel (or the vessel towing it), operating in 
the open ocean or coastal waters, to have at least one of the three 
safety measures listed in the law. Under reasonably foreseeable sea 
conditions, without assistance, either the tank barge or the vessel 
towing it must have--
    (1) A crewmember and an operable anchor on board the tank barge 
that together can stop the barge from drifting; and either
    (2) An emergency system that will allow the retrieval of the barge 
by the towing vessel if the towline parts; or
    (3) Another measure or combination of measures that the Coast Guard 
determines will provide protection against grounding of the tank vessel 
equivalent to that provided by the measure described in paragraph (1) 
or (2).
    Another statute to reduce oil spills from single-hull tank barges, 
46 U.S.C. 4102(f)(2), directs the Coast Guard to require the use of 
fire suppression systems and other measures for towing vessels. On 
October 19, 1999, we published an interim rule, Fire Protection 
Measures for Towing Vessels (USCG 1998-4445) that implements some of 
the fire protection measures we had proposed in the NPRM of October 6, 
1997. A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking will propose further 
measures in response to comments we received. Both statutes mandating 
new rules direct the Coast Guard to consult with the Towing Safety 
Advisory Committee (TSAC) in developing them. As we noted in the NPRM, 
we considered the recommendations of the TSAC and incorporated them as 
we deemed appropriate.

Regulatory Approach

    In response to these statutory mandates, the Coast Guard proposed 
rules for fire protection and fire-fighting on towing vessels operating 
anywhere in U.S. waters, and rules for arresting and retrieving tank 
barges. This final rule applies to single-hull tank barges, as 
specified in 46 U.S.C. 3719. Rules in 33 CFR 155.230 before this 
rulemaking required emergency towing capability for both single-hull 
and double-hull barges operating outside the boundary line. So double-
hull tank barges already satisfy 33 CFR 155.230 as amended by this 
rule. The rules for barge control require any single-hull tank barge or 
the vessel towing it on certain waters to have two of three emergency 
control systems, where one serves for anchoring the barge while one of 
the other two serves for arresting or retrieving it.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received a total of 23 documents containing 38 
comments to the public docket of the interim rule on emergency control 
measures for tank barges. Of these comments, 11 concerned anchoring 
systems, 5 concerned the rule as applied, or not applied, to barges 
being pushed or towed alongside on limited routes, 12 concerned 
specific sections of 33 CFR Part 155, and the rest concerned general 
features of the proposed rule. We held a public meeting on May 12, 
1999, at the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. This 
final rule addresses the comments from the meeting and all other 
comments noted above. The following paragraphs contain summaries of the 
comments and explanations of any changes made by this rule to the 
interim rule.

Anchoring Systems

    Eleven comments received from companies, organizations, or 
individuals on the West Coast opposed the use of anchoring systems 
there. They offered many reasons to support some alternative means of 
maintaining control of barges along the West Coast; many cited the 
unsuitability of anchors as a means to control barges due to the lack 
of anchorage areas. The comments also cited the high costs to retrofit 
their barges, arguing that water depths on the West Coast drop off into 
significantly deeper water closer to shore than along the East Coast. 
Some comments reported that the heavy surge gear and bridle legs used 
in towing on the West Coast act as anchors in shallow water when they 
lie on the bottom; it is not uncommon for operators to use this 
equipment to ``anchor'' barges in sheltered areas until storms or 
dangerous seas subside. The Coast Guard acknowledges these comments and 
has changed the interim rule to give those operating barges on the West 
Coast the option of using the heavy surge gear and bridle legs in place 
of the anchoring systems otherwise required by this final rule. We do 
not extend this option to barges operating on the East Coast and the 
Gulf Coast, since the anchoring system required by the final rule is 
both feasible and effective in the shallower waters of those Coasts. 
Further, the heavy surge gear and bridle legs have not been shown to be 
an effective means of anchoring barges in those waters.

[[Page 31808]]

Application to Barges Pushed or Towed Alongside on Limited Routes

    Five comments opposed applying this rule to barges not towed astern 
or barges towed on limited routes. The Coast Guard agrees with these 
comments and has changed the rule to exempt these specific kinds of 
towing.

Comments Relating to Specific Sections of the CFR

    1. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(i)(C). One comment suggests letting the 
operator of the system consult either the master or mate regarding 
appropriate length of line, cable, or chain. The Coast Guard agrees 
with the comment and has changed this section of the rule by adding the 
mate as an alternative to the operator of the system.
    2. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(i)(D). Three comments opposed requiring the 
operator of the system to wear a safety belt or harness secured by 
lanyard to a lifeline, a drop line, or a fixed structure. The Coast 
Guard partially agrees with these comments and has changed this section 
of the rule to recommend that the operator of the system wear a safety 
belt or harness only during rough seas or foul weather.
    3. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(iii). One comment opposed requiring 
training all crewmembers on manned barges in the operation of the 
anchoring system. The Coast Guard disagrees. To avoid having to place a 
person on a barge for a genuinely emergent anchoring or retrieval, it 
is essential that every crewmember already on the barge know how to 
operate the anchoring system. Another comment suggests that the Coast 
Guard require exam questions or training to improve safety of 
anchoring. The Coast Guard partially agrees, yet has not changed the 
rule, since this section already requires crew training in anchoring.
    4. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(2)(iv). Seven comments opposed requiring 
drills that involve actually retrieving a drifting barge. They state 
that requiring such drills will place one or more crewmembers in danger 
and impose high costs of re-rigging the system. A related comment 
suggested a one-time training ``exercise'' for each master, and 
quarterly ``tabletop'' retrieval drills and gear inspection. The Coast 
Guard agrees with these comments and has changed the rule to require an 
annual barge-retrieval drill, and a drill not more than one month after 
the employment of the master or mate responsible for supervising 
retrieval. This requirement allows for methods other than actually 
retrieving a drifting barge to demonstrate each participant's ability 
to perform his or her part in regaining control of a barge.

General Comments

    1. One comment opposed the applicability of this rule to the Strait 
of Juan de Fuca and parts of Puget Sound. It states that the open-ocean 
type swells that can cause towline failures are not common in the 
Strait, and that there are ample sheltered areas for vessels to wait 
for changes in unfavorable winds or tides. The Coast Guard does not 
agree with this comment; towline failures may occur in these waters, 
and this rule's measures may reduce the likelihood of tank barges 
grounding and spilling cargo there. We have not changed the 
applicability of this rule.
    2. Two comments support the use of escort tugs in certain areas, 
such as ``sensitive'' waters. This issue is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    3. Three comments opposed remote-control anchoring systems. This is 
outside the scope of this rule because it does not require such 
anchoring systems. However, one could propose the use of such a system, 
and seek Coast Guard approval for it.
    4. Two comments suggest grandfathering existing anchoring systems 
on tank barges. This would allow existing systems to meet less 
stringent standards (ones other than those from the American Bureau of 
Shipping (ABS)). The Coast Guard partially agrees, and has changed the 
wording to require ``general conformity'' rather than ``substantial 
agreement'' with ABS (or another recognized class society's) standards. 
If a Coast Guard representative inspects your anchoring system you 
should indicate which standards you are using as guidance. The Coast 
Guard may decide to establish whether or not your anchoring system is 
in general conformity with that standard or another acceptable 
standard. We will inform you of any corrective action needed. We will 
review this practice after getting some experience with it and will 
modify it as necessary.
    5. One comment requested the use of synthetic line, instead of 
chain or wire, as approved equipment for the anchoring system. The 
wording in this final rule calls for anchor systems to generally 
conform with standards from ABS (or another recognized class society). 
It does not prohibit the use of new system components that are found 
(by ABS or another recognized class society) to be comparable to 
accepted or approved equipment in widespread use. However, wire cable 
may substitute for chain under current applicable rules of ABS; there 
is no mention in those rules of line (natural or synthetic) as a 
suitable substitute for anchor chain. Since it is not addressed in ABS 
rules, synthetic line is not yet acceptable.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that Order. However, it is significant under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) [44 FR 11040 (February 26, 1979)]; because of public interest 
generated by the NPRM, it has been reviewed by the Office of the 
Secretary.
    A Regulatory Assessment under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 
Assessment follows; unless otherwise indicated, the Assessment 
expresses costs and benefits in end-of-1998 values:

Summary of Benefits

    Measures published in this rule should yield a net cost of $307 per 
barrel of oil not spilled. This preventive cost compares favorably, for 
example, with costs of property damage and actual restoration and 
cleanup (excluding intangibles and transfer costs such as fines, 
judgments resulting from litigation, and insurance benefits paid) 
incurred thus far as a result of the 20,000-barrel spill from the barge 
NORTH CAPE in January of 1996. The costs of that spill thus far total 
about $50.2 million, which averages about $2,550 per barrel spilled. 
This per-barrel cost for only one spill is nearly seven times the per-
barrel costs of this rule to avert similar events industry-wide.
    Table 1 illustrates the calculation of net cost-effectiveness from 
total quantifiable costs and benefits resulting from implementation of 
this rule. It normalizes the benefits into cost-effectiveness ratios to 
reflect the cost per unit of oil not spilled. Here's how: The total 
estimated dollar cost of this rule appears on Line (1); the total 
property damage averted, an avoided cost expressed in dollars, appears 
on Line (2) and is subtracted from total dollar costs to yield a net 
cost, which appears on Line (3); pollution averted, the principal 
benefit, which is expressed in barrels of oil not spilled, appears on 
Line (4); and the net cost from Line (3), divided by the pollution-
averted benefit from Line (4) to yield an expression of cost-

[[Page 31809]]

effectiveness shown in units of net discounted dollars per discounted 
barrels of oil not spilled, appears on the bottom line. This procedure 
permits us to treat benefits from avoidance of pollution and property 
damage together in terms of net cost-effectiveness.

     Table 1.--Control Measures for Tank Barges (Barge Anchoring and
  Retrieval): Cost Effectiveness Expressed in Dollars Per Barrel of Oil
                               not Spilled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Type of benefits & costs       Quantity                Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Cost of this rule.......       8,803,031  Dollars (PV).
(2) Property damage-averted        5,667,792  Dollars (PV).
 1.
(3) (1) minus (2) Net cost..       3,135,239  Dollars (PV).
(4) Pollution averted  2....          10,205  Barrels of oil unspilled
                                               (PV).
(3)(4) Net cost                  307  Dollars per barrel
 effectiveness.                                unspilled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: benefits, shown on lines (2) and (4), are italicized. Net cost
  effectiveness is shown in bold.
1 Damage to vessels and equipment.
2 Oil not spilled overboard into bodies of water.

    The principal benefit of this rule is protection against oil 
spillage and property damage that may result when a tow line to a tank 
barge parts or the towing vessel otherwise loses control over the tank 
barge, permitting it to run aground. Quantifiable benefits accrue from 
averted pollution measured in barrels of oil not spilled and in averted 
damage to property such as vessels and machinery, measured in dollars. 
The latter is an avoided cost. During 1999-2014 inclusive, this rule 
will avert 10,205 barrels of oil spillage and $5.7 million of property 
damage.
    To construct the benefits analysis, the Coast Guard used data from 
its Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) and underlying reports to 
provide a reasonable approximation for modeling marine casualties and 
pollution incidents. The model postulates that, if requirements in this 
rule were not enacted, the normalized frequency and severity of 
pollution and damage due to towline ruptures would continue at about 
the same magnitude as during a representative five-year base period, 
which the Coast Guard identified as 1992-1996. This period captures the 
maritime environment after the Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90); the Coast 
Guard considers the period long enough to capture a representative 
history, while short enough to be reasonably current. Reports for 1992-
96 are largely complete. (We considered using 1992-1997, but rejected 
it because report histories for 1997 remain open and we consider them 
too preliminary to present a fair sample.)
    The analysis recognized that a range of variables extant in the 
marine interface of people, vessels, machines, and the sea may result 
in the occurrence of some of the casualties targeted by this rule after 
it is in force. Accordingly, the Coast Guard assembled an analytical 
team comprised of marine inspectors, program analysts, and economists, 
who reviewed data and individual case files and who obtained 
consultations from a range of subject-matter experts. This team 
proceeded through a multi-step risk assessment that considered the 
combined and interactive effects of this rule and several related rules 
that are in effect or mandated by law for completion in the near 
future. The analysis yielded a probability of 32 percent that installed 
and working powered anchoring-systems and emergency-retrieval devices 
on the affected tank barges, both single-hull and double-hull vessels, 
would have prevented or mitigated pollution and property damage 
resulting from that particular casualty.
    The benefits analysis uses the phase-out of tank-barge capacity due 
under OPA 90 as a proxy for the reduction of exposure and spill 
potential, an innovation that helped to guard against the overstatement 
of benefits, since, during 1998-2014 and before the final phase-out of 
all single-hull tank barges, single-hull tank barge capacity, which 
represents the segment of industry primarily affected by this rule, 
will likely decrease at a much sharper rate than will the actual count 
of available in-service single-hull tank barges. This is because the 
phase-out favors longevity for the smallest single-hull tank barges.
    We used the phase-out schedule and probabilities of effectiveness 
to weigh capacity, and used this in turn to calculate the benefits and 
avoided costs. In addition, we reflated the avoided costs--averted 
dollar damages to property such as vessels and machinery--from base-
period calculations to end-of-1998 values, by relying on an adjustment 
factor based on a Consumer Price Index.
    The Coast Guard considered several non-quantifiable benefits. No 
injuries, deaths, or missing persons turned up in casualty reports for 
the base period. However, the types of casualties addressed in this 
rule, particularly ones that occur in inclement weather, are inherently 
dangerous; a future casualty of the kind that this rule will mitigate 
could otherwise result in some deaths and injuries. Further, while the 
pool of oil-pollution benefit analyzed in the assessment of this rule 
totaled slightly less than 39,000 barrels of oil during the base 
period, the upper bound of oil at risk in those casualties--the total 
cargo of oil aboard affected tank barges when accidents occurred--
exceeded 180,000 barrels. Future casualties of the kind that this rule 
will mitigate could otherwise result in far more serious spills than 
this regulatory assessment indicates.

Summary of Costs

    Firms running tank barges, along with a few State and local 
governments, will incur costs primarily to purchase, install, and 
maintain powered anchoring systems and owners' and operators' choices 
among retrieval systems on certain tank barges, and in some instances, 
on towing vessels. The Coast Guard will incur modest incremental 
inspection costs. Costs of this rule will total $8.8 million. We 
subtracted avoided costs from total costs to yield a $3.1 million net 
cost.
    Where we adjusted benefit calculations to reflect phase-out of 
tank-barge capacity due under OPA 90 to approximate both declining 
exposure and declining potential for volume of spills, we also adjusted 
cost calculations to accommodate the phase-out of hulls instead of 
volume. We did this because we quantify the purchase, installation, and 
maintenance of equipment required by this rule hull by hull.
    Purchase and installation costs accrue to owners and operators of 
tank barges

[[Page 31810]]

and their towboats between 90 days and two years after the publication 
of the interim rule [63 FR 71754 (December 30, 1998)]. They should 
total between $7.93 million and $7.98 million. Fleet-wide, costs for 
purchase and installation of powered anchoring systems will total $7.82 
million, 98 percent of the total; and, fleet-wide, costs for retrieval 
systems will range between $112,000 and $157,000, depending on how 
individual owners and operators weigh the lower initial investment 
required for powered anchoring systems against the lower maintenance 
costs for retrieval systems using hooks. A sensitivity analysis 
contained in the regulatory assessment showed that a typical decision, 
if made on an economic basis, will depend on the particular deal that 
the owner or operator can drive and the remaining life of the barge. 
Beyond all those, qualitative decision factors include not only 
availability of up-front capital but personal or corporate preferences.
    Recurring costs to industry comprise maintenance, repair, and, in 
some cases, replacement of components. The present value of these costs 
total about $751,000 for powered anchoring systems, and range between 
$49,000 for retrieval systems using hooks and $117,000 powered 
anchoring systems. Recurring incremental costs borne by the Coast Guard 
for inspections and law enforcement should total about $4,500 at 
present value.
    Double-hull tank barges are already in compliance with this rule as 
a result of their satisfying 33 CFR 155.230 before this rulemaking. 
This rule should affect up to 180 single-hull tank barges operating on 
open oceans or in coastal waters. We believe that many of these barges 
are already in compliance. The costs that we report account for our 
estimates that, of the 180 barges, 97 will need to install powered 
anchoring systems and 24 barges or towing vessels will need to install 
retrieval systems. The Coast Guard does not expect economic abandonment 
of any barges on account of this rule. The per-barge costs are 
relatively low, and the first phase-out among the affected tank barges 
does not occur until January 1, 2004. The two-year phase-in for the 
more costly powered anchoring systems obviates the need for an extra, 
out-of-cycle dry-dock period for the installation. Most tank barges 
incurring new costs as a result of this rule are eligible to remain in 
service until 2015.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) [2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538] and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership [58 
FR 58093, (October 28, 1993)], govern the issuance of Federal rules 
that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a requirement 
that a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector incur 
direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the 
funds to pay those costs. If any Federal mandate causes those entities 
to spend, in the aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year, an 
analysis under the UMRA is necessary.
    While several State and local governments operate some tank barges, 
entities in the private sector own and operate most of the affected 
barges. This final rule will not directly affect tribal governments. 
The total burden of Federal mandates imposed by this rule is about $8.8 
million and will not result in annual expenditures of $100 million or 
more. Therefore, this rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is 
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the 
Coast Guard considers the economic impact on small entities of each 
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required. 
``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.
    An analysis of impacts on small entities for this final rule 
appears in the regulatory assessment; it is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    Double-hull tank barges are already in compliance with this rule's 
requirements for equipment by virtue of their compliance with 33 CFR 
155.230 before the interim rule on emergency control measures became 
effective. That section required an emergency towline, the most common 
form of barge-retrieval system, on any oil barge operating offshore. 
The requirements of this rule for anchoring systems apply only to 
single-hull barges. Further, most towing vessels are now in voluntary 
compliance with requirements, or their owners may choose an option that 
shifts requirements to a few barges that are not now in voluntary 
compliance. As a result, most towing vessels should not incur 
compliance costs.
    The impact of this rule will fall primarily on single-hull tank 
barges and, perhaps, several towing vessels. The rule will require: (1) 
Owners and operators of single-hull tank barges that do not already 
have emergency anchoring systems to purchase and install them; (2) 
owners and operators of vessels towing tank barges, regardless of size, 
to purchase and carry emergency retrieval systems if they do not 
already have them; and (3) masters of towing vessels to learn, and 
train crews, to deploy anchors and operate retrieval systems. Owners 
and operators of tank barges and towing vessels are responsible for 
both inspecting their systems and maintaining them in good working 
order. The purpose is to decrease the probability of barge breakaways 
and of the oil spillage, pollution, and property damage that could 
result.
    The Coast Guard established a two-year phase-in period for the 
requirements of anchoring systems. Although the Coast Guard received no 
comments concerning small entities, we recognize that some of the 
single-hull tank barges are likely owned and operated by small firms 
not dominant in the industry. Barges affected by this rule must undergo 
two drydock inspections in five years, no more than three years apart. 
The two-year phase-in permits barges to undergo the installation of a 
powered anchoring system during normal yard availability. So they may 
both avoid incurring the extra cost of a third drydocking during a 
five-year period and avoid incurring the opportunity costs of lost 
revenue during a third drydocking. The long phase-in will thus permit 
most small entities to explore the market, plan, and schedule

[[Page 31811]]

installations during normal yard availability. It reduces the pressure 
for small entities to compete with major operators for this 
availability.
    Small owners and operators of single-hull tank barges do incur 
costs from the phase-out mandated by OPA 90. However, we believe that 
smaller barges affected by this rule are the very ones likeliest to be 
owned by small owners and operators, many of whom will have the 
opportunity to amortize purchase and installation costs associated with 
this rule through the end of the year 2014. The 146 relatively small 
barges among the 180 barges directly affected by this rule may remain 
in service until January 1, 2015, the end of the phase-out period: the 
last vessels to be phased out under OPA 90.
    The equipment required by this rule is in common use in the 
industry and does not represent novel or untried technology. Some small 
entities, no doubt, are among the majority of owners and operators who 
already meet some or all of the requirements. Others will incur a 
financial burden under this rule, those who must purchase and install 
equipment. But the costs are fairly low in comparison with the 
replacement cost of a tank barge, very low in comparison with the 
replacement cost of a towing vessel, and extremely low in comparison 
with the damage that could be caused by, and the liability that could 
result from, an accident and resultant spill.
    The crafting of this rule so that many affected vessels are already 
in compliance, and the two-year phase-in period for installation of 
retrievable anchoring systems, together provide important 
accommodations to, and significant flexibility for, small entities and 
others affected by this rule.
    Accordingly, we certify 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

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist 
small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this 
rule affects your small business or organization and you have questions 
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Mr. 
Robert Spears, telephone 202-267-1099.
    The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments 
from small businesses about enforcement by Federal agencies. The 
Ombudsman will annually evaluate this enforcement and rate each 
agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on 
enforcement by the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This final rule does not provide for a collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.].

Impact on Federalism

    This final rule revises the regulations at 33 CFR 155.230 
addressing equipment, equipment operation, maintenance, manning, and 
training (personnel qualification) for tank barges and the vessels 
towing them. It also revises those regulations at 46 CFR 32.15-15 that 
address equipment for tank barges. We have analyzed this final rule in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order (E.O.) 13132. It is well settled that States are preempted from 
establishing any requirements for tank vessels and the vessels that tow 
them in the categories of design, construction, alteration, repair, 
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and 
manning. See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated 
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke ______ U.S. 
______, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1895 (March 6, 2000). Thus, this entire rule 
falls within preempted categories. Because States may not promulgate 
regulations within the categories discussed above, preemption is not an 
issue under E.O. 13132.
    The NPRM and an effective interim rule for this rulemaking were 
issued before the E.O. went into effect. However, we are aware that 
this is a national rule of great interest to coastal States. As a 
result, we provided States and the public ample opportunity to consult 
and comment during the comment periods and public meetings first for 
the NPRM and also following the publication of the interim rule that 
was in place before promulgation of this final rule. We have considered 
their comments on this rulemaking--whether received through 
consultation, letters to the docket, or public meetings--and believe 
that we have accommodated their concerns.

Barges Carrying Non-Petroleum Oil

    The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act [Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 
546-547 (1995)] requires federal agencies to differentiate between 
classes of oils and consider different treatment of these classes, if 
appropriate. 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, tank barges carrying these products must comply 
with this final rule.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final 
rule and concluded that under Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(c) and (d) of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. A Determination of 
Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket for inspection or 
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

46 CFR Part 32

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 155 and 46 CFR part 32, as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for part 155 and the note following it 
continue to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3715, 3719; 
sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 
1.46, 1.46(iii).
    Sections 155.110-155.130, 155.350-155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 
155.470, 155.1030 (j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33 
U.S.C. 1903(b); and Secs. 155.1110-155.1150 also issued under 33 
U.S.C. 2735.

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



    2. Revise Sec. 155.230 to read as follows:


Sec. 155.230  Emergency control systems for tank barges.

    (a) Application. This section does not apply to foreign vessels 
engaged in innocent passage (that is, neither entering nor leaving a 
U.S. port); it applies to tank barges and vessels towing them on the 
following waters:

[[Page 31812]]

    (1) On the territorial sea of the U.S. [as defined in Presidential 
Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, it is the belt of waters 12 
nautical miles wide with its shoreward boundary the baseline of the 
territorial sea], unless--
    (i) The barge is being pushed ahead of, or towed alongside, the 
towing vessel; and
    (ii) The barge's coastwise route is restricted, on its certificate 
of inspection (COI), so the barge may operate ``in fair weather only, 
within 20 miles of shore,'' or with words to that effect. The Officer 
in Charge, Marine Inspection, may define ``fair weather'' on the COI.
    (2) In Great Lakes service unless--
    (i) The barge is being pushed ahead of, or towed alongside, the 
towing vessel; and
    (ii) The barge's route is restricted, on its certificate of 
inspection (COI), so the barge may operate ``in fair weather only, 
within 5 miles of a harbor,'' or with words to that effect. The Officer 
in Charge, Marine Inspection, may define ``fair weather'' on the COI.
    (3) On Long Island Sound. For the purposes of this section, Long 
Island Sound comprises the waters between the baseline of the 
territorial sea on the eastern end (from Watch Hill Point, Rhode 
Island, to Montauk Point, Long Island) and a line drawn north and south 
from Premium Point, New York (about 40 deg.54.5'N, 73 deg.45.5'W), to 
Hewlett Point, Long Island (about 40 deg.50.5'N, 73 deg.45.3'W), on the 
western end.
    (4) In the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
    (5) On the waters of Admiralty Inlet north of Marrowstone Point 
(approximately 48 deg.06'N, 122 deg.41'W).
    (b) Safety program. If you are the owner or operator of a single-
hull tank barge or of a vessel towing it, you must adequately man and 
equip either the barge or the vessel towing it so the crew can arrest 
the barge by employing Measure 1, described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section. Moreover, the crew must be able to arrest or retrieve the 
barge by employing either Measure 2 or Measure 3, described in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, respectively. If you are the 
owner or operator of a double-hull tank barge, you must adequately 
equip it and train its crew or, if it is unmanned, train the crew of 
the vessel towing it, so the crew can retrieve the barge by employing 
Measure 2 described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Measure 1. Each single-hull tank barge, whether manned or 
unmanned, must be equipped with an operable anchoring system that 
conforms to 46 CFR 32.15-15; except that, for barges operating only on 
the West Coast of the U.S., a system comprising heavy surge gear and 
bridle legs may serve instead of the anchoring system. Because these 
systems will also serve as emergency control systems, the owner or 
operator must ensure that they meet the following criteria:
    (i) Operation and performance. When the barge is underway--
    (A) The system is ready for immediate use;
    (B) No more than two crewmembers are needed to operate the system 
and anchor the barge or arrest its movement;
    (C) While preparing to anchor the barge or arrest its movement, the 
operator of the system should confer with the master or mate of the 
towing vessel regarding appropriate length of cable or chain to use; 
and
    (D) Each operator of the system should wear a safety belt or 
harness secured by a lanyard to a lifeline, drop line, or fixed 
structure such as a welded padeye, if the sea or the weather warrants 
this precaution. Each safety belt, harness, lanyard, lifeline, and drop 
line must meet the specifications of ANSI A10.14.
    (ii) Maintenance and inspections. The owner or operator of the 
system shall inspect it annually. The inspection must verify that the 
system is ready for immediate use, and must include a visual inspection 
of the equipment that comprises the system in accordance with the 
manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection must also verify that 
the system is being maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's 
recommendations. The inspection need not include actual demonstration 
of the operation of the equipment or system.
    (iii) Training. On each manned barge, every crewmember must be 
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the system. On each vessel 
towing an unmanned barge, every deck crewmember must be thoroughly 
familiar with the operation of the system installed on the barge. If 
during the last 12 months the system was not used to anchor or arrest 
the movement of the barge, then a drill on the use of the system must 
be conducted within the next month. The drill need not involve actual 
deployment of the system. However, it must allow every participant to 
demonstrate the competencies (that is, the knowledge, skills, and 
abilities) needed to ensure that everyone assigned a duty in anchoring 
or arresting the movement of the barge is ready to do his or her duty.
    (2) Measure 2. If you are the owner or operator of a tank barge or 
a vessel towing it and this section applies to you by virtue of 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must have installed an emergency 
retrieval system or some other measure acceptable to the Coast Guard, 
as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Any such system must 
meet the following criteria:
    (i) Design. The system must use an emergency towline with at least 
the same pulling strength as required of the primary towline. The 
emergency towline must be readily available on either the barge or the 
vessel towing it. The towing vessel must have on board equipment to 
regain control of the barge and continue towing (using the emergency 
towline), without having to place personnel on board the barge.
    (ii) Operation and performance. The system must use a stowage 
arrangement that ensures the readiness of the emergency towline and the 
availability of all retrieval equipment for immediate use in an 
emergency whenever the barge is being towed astern.
    (iii) Maintenance and inspection. The owner or operator of the 
system shall inspect it annually. The inspection must verify that the 
emergency retrieval system is ready for immediate use, and must include 
a visual inspection of the equipment that comprises the system in 
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection must 
also verify that the system is being maintained in accordance with the 
manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection need not include actual 
demonstration of the operation of the equipment or system. Details 
concerning maintenance of towlines appear in 33 CFR 164.74(a)(3) and 
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 5-92. Our NVICs 
are available online at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/index.htm.
    (iv) Training. Barge-retrieval drills must take place annually, and 
not more than one month after a master or mate responsible for 
supervising barge retrieval begins employment on a vessel that tows 
tank barges.
    (A) Each drill must allow every participant to demonstrate the 
competencies (that is, the knowledge, skills, and abilities) needed to 
ensure that everyone assigned a duty in barge retrieval is ready to do 
his or her part to regain control of a drifting barge.
    (B) If the drill includes actual operation of a retrieval system, 
it must be conducted under the supervision of the master or mate 
responsible for retrieval, and preferably in open waters free from 
navigational hazards so as to minimize risk to personnel and the 
environment.
    (3) Measure 3. If you are the owner or operator of a tank barge or 
a vessel towing it and this section applies to you by virtue of 
paragraph (a) of this section,

[[Page 31813]]

you may use an alternative measure or system fit for retrieving a barge 
or arresting its movement as a substitute for Measure 2, described in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Before you use such a measure or 
system, however, it must receive the approval of the Commandant (G-
MSE). It will receive this approval if it provides protection against 
grounding of the tank vessel comparable to that provided by one of the 
other two measures described in this section.

46 CFR PART 32--SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIRMENTS

    3. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 3719; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46; Subpart 32.59 also 
issued under the authority of Sect. 4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 
515.


    4. In Sec. 32.15-15, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 32.15-15  Anchors, Chains, and Hawsers-TB/ALL.

* * * * *
    (e) Barges Equipped with Anchors to Comply with 33 CFR 
155.230(b)(1). Each barge equipped with an anchor, to comply with 33 
CFR 155.230(b)(1), must be fitted with an operable anchoring system 
that includes a cable or chain, and a winch or windlass. All components 
of the system must be in general conformity with the standards issued 
by a recognized classification society. A list of recognized 
classification societies, including information for ordering copies of 
approved standards, is available from Commandant (G-MSE), 2100 Second 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001; telephone (202) 267-6925 or fax 
(202) 267-4816. If the Coast Guard finds that your anchoring system is 
not in general conformity with an approved standard, it will advise you 
how to bring it into such conformity.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
J.C. Card,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 00-12570 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P