[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49877-49886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 156

46 CFR Part 32

[USCG-2001-9046]
RIN 2115-AG10


Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In December of 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Coast Guard must promulgate 
a regulation for tank vessels to use tank level or pressure monitoring 
(TLPM) devices as mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). 
We are of the opinion that these regulations must apply in some manner 
to single-hull tank vessels. Within this notice of proposed rulemaking, 
we present eight proposed regulatory options and regulatory text for 
each option regarding minimum standards for the performance and use of 
these devices on single-hull tank ships and single-hull tank barges 
carrying oil as cargo. Due to the extreme variance in impact to the 
classes of tank vessels subject to this proposed rule, and, taking into 
account the cost-effectiveness ratio relative to the other significant 
OPA 90 regulations, we are also soliciting comments on financial, 
energy, safety, and environmental considerations. The Coast Guard is 
seeking information from commenters in order to select the best 
alternative for the final rule. In accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act, once we receive and evaluate the public comments from 
this notice, we intend to implement this statutory mandate through some 
form of these proposed regulations as the final rule. However, in view 
of the cost-effectiveness ratios of the alternatives, as well as the 
numerous requirements throughout OPA 90 to report back to Congress on 
the impacts of this legislation, Coast Guard will share with Congress 
any information provided by the public that addresses the 
reasonableness of implementing the statute.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure that your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2001-9046), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400

[[Page 49878]]

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-
366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
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: If you have general questions on this 
proposed rule, call Lieutenant Commander Glen Mine, Project Manager, 
Standards Evaluations and Analysis Division (G-MSR-1), Coast Guard, 
telephone 202-267-1303. For technical questions concerning the 
performance standards for TLPM devices call Dolores Mercier, Project 
Manager, Engineering Systems Division (G-MSE-3), Coast Guard, telephone 
202-267-0658. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material 
to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of 
Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-
9046), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic 
means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 
but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you 
submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, 
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they 
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard 
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    A public meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on November 6, 
2001 in room 6200-6204, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. This 
meeting may close early if all business is finished.
    Persons who are unable to attend the public meeting are encouraged 
to send written comments to Docket Management Facility as directed 
under ADDRESSES during the comment period.

Regulatory History

    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) Public Law 101-380, directed 
the Coast Guard to promulgate a number of regulations, including a 
variety of standards for the design and operation of equipment to 
reduce the number and severity of tank vessel oil spill incidents. 
Section 4110 of OPA 90 mandates that the Coast Guard: (1) establish 
standards for devices that measure oil levels in cargo tanks or devices 
that monitor cargo tank pressure level, and (2) issue regulations 
establishing requirements concerning the use of these devices. 
Functionally, these tank level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) devices 
measure changes in cargo volume, thereby detecting possible oil leaks 
into the marine environment.
    In May of 1991, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (56 FR 21116) that 
solicited public comments relating to TLPMs on tank vessels carrying 
oil. We received 20 comments.
    In August of 1992, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
completed a feasibility study (Volpe study) on TLPM devices. Then, in 
January of the following year, we made this study available to the 
public for comment by publishing it in a notice of availability (58 FR 
7292).
    As announced in a notice of public meeting (59 FR 58810), we held a 
public meeting at Coast Guard Headquarters in December of 1994 to 
discuss this rulemaking. This meeting gave the public an opportunity to 
provide further input into the development of the proposed regulations. 
As a result of the public meeting nine comments were received.
    In 1995, we proposed a regulation that set minimum standards for 
leak detection devices (60 FR 43427). Upon review of the risks of oil 
spills, we determined that the minimum detection threshold for such 
devices should be the lesser of either 0.5 percent below the quantity 
to which the tank was loaded or 1,000 gallons, which matched the 
criteria for an inland medium and coastal minor oil spill. This notice 
of proposed rulemaking received 10 comments.
    In 1997, we published a temporary rule [62 FR 14828 (March 28, 
1997)] establishing the minimum standards for TLPM devices. In the 
temporary rule, we requested the submission of TLPM devices that could 
meet the performance standard set out in the rule. For TLPM devices 
submitted for review, we would have evaluated the device to ensure that 
it met the performance standards required by the temporary rule and 
would have assessed the costs and benefits associated with the device 
to consider implementing use requirements. When the rule expired in 
April 1999, no devices had been submitted to us for evaluation.
    In 1999, Bluewater Network and Ocean Advocates brought suit in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In their 
suit, the petitioners asked the Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering 
us to promulgate TLPM regulations. In December of 2000, the Court 
agreed with the petitioners on this item and directed the Coast Guard 
to promptly promulgate regulations setting TLPM standards and requiring 
use of TLPM on tank vessels.

Background and Purpose

    The purpose of TLPM devices is to reduce the size and impact of oil 
spills by alerting the tank vessel operator that an accidental 
discharge of cargo oil is occurring.
    We published a temporary rule (62 FR 14828), which expired in 1999, 
requesting TLPM devices that alarm once a detection of a spill of the 
lesser of 1,000 gallons or 0.5 percent below the level to which the 
tank was loaded to be submitted to the Coast Guard for evaluation. 
However, no devices were submitted that could potentially meet this 
requirement. Based on a review of the devices currently available, 
there do not appear to be any devices that can be independently 
verified as meeting this standard. In this notice we present eight 
options with different categories of tank vessel types, which establish 
TLPM requirements with different standards and use requirements from 
the temporary rule.
    In developing our eight options we closely examined the type of 
tank vessel to which this rule would apply, the performance standard 
for TLPM

[[Page 49879]]

devices, and the phase-in period of the rule.
    We first examined to which tank vessels this rule should apply 
based on the hull type (single-hull or double-hull). These TLPM devices 
are intended to warn the operators of possible loss of cargo oil due to 
leaks they might otherwise not notice from cargo tanks into the water. 
Double-hull vessels are intrinsically designed to prevent this type of 
discharge. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply only to single-hull 
tank vessels.
    Another criteria we examined when applying this rule was based on 
the gross tonnage of the tank vessel. In the 1997 temporary rule, we 
proposed that TLPM devices be installed on single-hull tank vessels 
greater than or equal to 5,000 gross tons. After examining the single-
hull tank vessel population, we found that 92 percent of tank ships are 
greater or equal to 5,000 gross tons and 88 percent of the barges are 
less than 5,000 gross tons. We believe that rather than using the gross 
tonnage criteria, it is less confusing and more practical to use the 
vessel type criteria. A barge greater than 5,000 gross tons will 
encounter the same TLPM installation and operational challenges as a 
smaller barge. For these reasons, a gross tonnage criterion is not used 
for this proposed rule. Instead, tank vessels for this proposed rule 
are classified by vessel type, whether it is a ship or barge.
    Next we examined the impact of this rule on single-hull tank ships 
and single-hull tank barges. The regulatory analysis for this rule 
showed that barges caused most of the oil spills where TLPM devices 
would have been effective on single-hull tank vessels. In fact, out of 
the 27 oil spill incident cases, 20 incidents were from tank barges and 
seven from tank ships. In these incidents tank barges contribute 75 
percent of the amount of actual oil spilled. Additionally, a majority 
of current tank barges will be in existence for much longer than will 
tank ships. Approximately, 91 percent of the single-hull tank barges 
will be allowed to operate after 2010, compared to 54 percent of the 
tank ships. (All single-hull tank vessels will be phased-out by 2015.) 
Also, section 4110(b) of OPA 90, which requires the installation of 
TLPM devices, was added in part because of an oil spill from a barge 
resulting in the spill of 4,000 barrels of oil during a night transit 
in the Chesapeake Bay.
    Even though the 27 oil spill incident cases revealed that tank 
barges spilled more oil than tank ships, tank ships, on the other hand, 
present a greater potential for a massive spill when a leak occurs. A 
one percent leak from a typical tank ship translates to approximately 
36,078 gallons (859 barrels). In comparison, a one percent leak from an 
average tank barge is 4,536 gallons (108 barrels).
    In developing the TLPM performance standards, we applied the 1992 
Volpe study. The study surveyed a wide variety of liquid level gauging 
devices for marine and shoreside applications. Liquid cargo 
accountability during cargo custody transfer has been the primary use 
of tank level devices in the oil tanker industry. These devices are 
primarily meant for gauging during cargo loading and unloading 
operations, and their use as a TLPM device in a dynamic underway 
environment is beyond their current design. As such, we know of no TLPM 
devices installed on board existing vessels.
    We considered having tank vessels use their existing onboard liquid 
level gauging device to meet the requirement of section 4110 of OPA 90. 
As noted above and in the Volpe study, these devices are not designed 
for continuous monitoring or to be used as a TLPM device without 
modifications. These modifications may include, but are not limited to, 
provisions for detection of a change in tank level beyond the threshold 
established and provisions for an alarm for watchstanders. Furthermore, 
the use of existing onboard liquid level gauging devices without any 
modification may not provide for this ability to compensate for 
internal and external uncertainties, such as, temperature changes, 
cargo movement, and tank deformations, which will result in decreased 
accuracy in dynamic underway conditions, thus, increasing the amount of 
leakage that would occur prior to detection or causing false leak 
indications.
    We feel that false leak indications from unmodified liquid level 
gauging devices set to alarm at the proposed one percent standard may 
present a safety risk for the vessel and crew. The repetitive false 
alarms may become distracting to the crew, taking them away from their 
normal navigational, engineering, and maintenance duties onboard. These 
distractions may cause inattention to the performance of their duties 
leading to marine casualties such as groundings, collisions, and 
allisions. To deal with the extra duty of monitoring cargo levels and 
responding to the frequent false alarms from an unmodified liquid level 
gauging device, additional changes to the vessel's manning requirements 
may be required, increasing the cost of operating the vessel. The Volpe 
study did not thoroughly address the safety issues associated with the 
operation of TLPM devices or unmodified liquid level gauging devices 
used as TLPM devices on board tank vessels. We are seeking public 
comment on these and other safety risks of unmodified liquid level 
gauging devices being used as TLPM devices and TLPM devices on board 
tank vessels.
    The Volpe study concluded that the attainable accuracy, defined as 
the limit outside of which false leak indications may be ruled out, is 
expected to be one to two percent. Even though the study acknowledged 
the claims of some manufacturers that their device(s) could achieve 
accuracy levels of 0.1 percent, Volpe concluded that one percent is the 
best attainable tank level accuracy achievable in the wide variety of 
sea conditions and that any claims made by manufacturers ``must be 
viewed skeptically until proven.''
    Modifications to existing onboard liquid level gauging devices may 
include installation of stilling wells and computers that monitor and 
compensate for constant changes in the tank level readings due to 
temperature variations, hull structural deformations, and ullage 
conditions. Modifications also include alarm thresholds for each 
device. The Volpe study did not evaluate the degree of accuracy that 
could be afforded in dynamic underway conditions, ruling out false 
indications, by TLPM devices and existing onboard liquid level gauging 
devices with or without modifications less than those necessary to 
fully attain a one to two percent accuracy standard. We are seeking 
public input as to the attainable accuracy of unmodified liquid level 
gauging devices.
    In selecting the standard, we considered two performance-based TLPM 
standards for the leak detection threshold. Applying the Volpe study 
and our survey of currently available technology as the basis, we 
examined three percent and one percent leak detection thresholds as the 
two possible standard designations.
    Opting for the three percent standard would allow average tank ship 
spills of up to 2,577 barrels and tank barge spills of up to 324 
barrels to go undetected.
    The one percent performance standard requires TLPM devices to alarm 
when the quantity of the cargo oil increases or decreases by one 
percent. With this standard in place, we would be able to detect oil 
spills of approximately 859 barrels and 108 barrels from a typical tank 
ship and tank barge, respectively.
    We determined that modifications would have to be made to existing 
onboard liquid level gauging devices to meet a one or three percent 
standard,

[[Page 49880]]

and that the costs of the modifications would be the same regardless of 
what standard we proposed. The procurement cost of a typical TLPM 
device would be approximately $6,000, and the cost of a liquid level 
gauging device is also approximately $6,000. Furthermore, the cost of 
modifying liquid level gauging devices to meet the functional 
requirements of a TLPM device would also cost approximately $6,000. The 
installation of a TLPM device or a modified or unmodified liquid level 
gauging devices is estimated to cost approximately $9,000 per tank.
    As noted above, we found the costs of TLPM devices or modifying 
existing onboard liquid level gauging devices with an accuracy level of 
three percent versus one percent to be essentially equal. For this 
reason, we propose the one percent TLPM performance standard.
    Lastly, we examined a phase-in period for the installation and 
operation of the TLPM devices. We recognize that installing the devices 
requires costly gas-freeing of cargo tanks. As a result, the phase-in 
period will coordinate the installation of TLPM devices with the gas-
freeing of tanks for other required purposes (either under Coast Guard 
regulations for U.S.-flag vessels or under the requirements of the flag 
administration for foreign-flag vessels). The phase-in period would 
also allow companies to spread out the installation costs over a number 
of years rather than have to absorb them immediately, greatly 
benefiting the tank vessel industry and especially small businesses. 
However, the phase-out date for single-hull tank vessels must also be 
considered when deciding an installation phase-in period. Owners may 
decide to take the vessel out of service early rather than installing 
the devices.
    We have provided alternatives for either a three year or a five 
year phase-in period. Any earlier period would place undue financial 
and logistical burden on industry. Any period beyond five years would 
reduce benefits in protecting the environment from oil spills before 
the single-hull tank vessels are phased out.
    Our eight regulatory options reflect all the reasonable approaches 
we have examined in developing this proposed regulation. These eight 
options are designed to be performance based, allowing maximum 
flexibility to meet the regulatory and statutory intent. In developing 
our eight options we assume that this rule will apply only to single-
hull tank vessels with a TLPM device that will detect a one percent 
change in cargo volume.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes removing the temporary regulations of 
Subpart 32.22T-Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices found in 46 
CFR Part 32. We would remove this subpart because the effective period 
of the standard has passed. We also propose adding new, permanent 
performance and use standards for tank level or pressure monitoring 
devices in 33 CFR Parts 155 and 156. The new standards we propose for 
the TLPM devices are intended for installation and operation on cargo 
tanks on U.S. and foreign-flag single-hull tank ships and tank barges 
carrying oil or oil residue as cargo. Section 4110(b) of OPA 90 (Public 
Law 101-380) authorizes the Coast Guard to require the use of TLPM 
devices on all U.S. and foreign-flag vessels constructed or adapted to 
carry oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue on the United States 
navigable waters or exclusive economic zone.
    The affected single-hull tank vessels are intended to comply with 
this rule within either three or five years from the effective date of 
a final rule, depending upon which alternative is adopted. Any current 
devices on board meeting the performance standards will be accepted to 
meet these proposed regulations.
    We recognize that there may be technical challenges of processing, 
transmitting, and receiving signals from TLPM devices located on tank 
barges being towed or pushed by a single tugboat. We are seeking public 
comment on this issue, whether there should be a standard to address 
signal uniformity or compatibility among TLPM devices, and any other 
alternative methods that may notify the operator of a leak.
    To maximize public involvement, we propose eight options for 
comment. The eight options proposed vary by applicable vessel types and 
by phase-in dates for those vessels. We request public comments 
addressing the safety, environmental, financial, and energy impacts of 
these devices on the proposed options. This approach will allow a fair 
and balanced evaluation in selecting the final rule.
    Based on the consideration of all the previously discussed 
information, we propose these eight options. After evaluating our 
regulatory analysis and all of the comments we will receive addressing 
this notice of proposed rulemaking, we will publish a final rule based 
on all or part of the proposed options. This proposed action will amend 
part 155 by adding Section 155.490, Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring 
Device.
    The eight options are characterized by the affected single-hull 
tank vessel type and the installation phase-in of TLPM devices with the 
one percent performance standard. The following table outlines the 
eight proposed options.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        How long do the
                                 What type of single-   affected vessels
                                 hull tank vessel is     have to comply
                                   affected by this        with TLPM
                                        rule?             regulations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative One:
    Option One................  Tank Ships...........  3 years
    Option Two................  Tank Ships...........  5 years
Alternative Two:
    Option One................  Tank Barges..........  3 years
    Option Two................  Tank Barges..........  5 years
Alternative Three
    Option One................  Tank Vessels.........  3 years
    Option Two................  Tank Vessels.........  5 years
Alternative Four:
    Option One................  Tank Ships...........  3 years
                                Tank Barges..........  5 years

[[Page 49881]]

 
    Option Two................  Tank Ships...........  5 years
                                Tank Barges..........  3 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Alternatives indicate the possible affected vessels. Options
  indicate the possible phase-in dates for the affected vessels.

    Alternative One, Option One would require single-hull tank ships to 
install and use TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance 
standard within three years. Option Two would affect the same vessels 
as Option One (single-hull tank ships), though it would require those 
vessels to comply with the TLPM requirements within five years.
    Alternative Two, Option One would require single-hull tank barges 
to install and use TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance 
standard within three years. Option Two would affect the same vessels 
as Option One (single-hull tank barges), though it would require those 
vessels to comply with the TLPM requirements within five years.
    Alternative Three, Option One would require all single-hull tank 
vessels to install and use TLPM devices meeting the one percent 
performance standard within three years. Option Two would affect the 
all vessels as Option One (single-hull tank vessels), though it would 
require those vessels to comply with the TLPM requirements within five 
years.
    Alternative Four, Option One would require single-hull tank ships 
to install TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance standard 
within three years, and would require single-hull tank barges to 
install TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance standard 
within five years. Option Two would require single-hull tank ships to 
install TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance standard 
within five years, and would require single-hull tank barges to install 
TLPM devices meeting the one percent performance standard within three 
years.
    OPA 90 defined ``oil'' to mean oil of any kind or in any form, 
including but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, 
and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. We are applying 
this definition of ``oil'' for this section.
    The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act [Public Law 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. We have considered the difference in the physical, 
chemical, biological, and other properties and environmental effects of 
non-petroleum oils including those of animal, marine and vegetable 
origin. We have determined that bulk spills of all oils are damaging to 
the environment. Therefore, being consistent with OPA 90, single-hull 
tank vessels carrying these products must comply with this proposed 
rule.
    Due to the properties and difficulties in measuring the cargo 
quantity of asphalt, asphalt-only tank vessels are exempt from this 
rule. The dense properties of asphalt do not allow leaks from cargo 
tanks detectable by TLPM devices.
    The Coast Guard proposes to add a new paragraph (ee) to 
Sec. 156.120, requiring that TLPM devices be activated and monitored 
whenever the tank is not actively being subjected to cargo transfer 
operations. Even though the original temporary rule did not address the 
issue of overfill, a review of oil spill cases found eight spills that 
were due to overfill of cargo tanks that were not actively being 
subjected to cargo operations because of faulty or misaligned cargo 
transfer valves. TLPM devices can detect such changes that may indicate 
not only leaks, but possible overfill situations during cargo transfer 
operations. Because of this added benefit with little or no additional 
costs, we are proposing to require the activation of TLPM devices on 
cargo tanks that are not being actively filled.
    Even though 46 CFR 155.480 requires overfill devices on tank 
vessels and 46 CFR 156.120(bb) requires these devices to be operating 
when loading oil, this TLPM rule differs by alerting the operator of 
overfills during internal cargo transfers and inadvertent filling of a 
cargo tank due to faulty or misaligned valves. This can happen when the 
connecting valve between cargo tanks is not completely secured or 
faulty allowing oil to inadvertently overfill an unintended cargo tank.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has 
reviewed it under that Order. It is ``significant'' under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket as indicated 
under ADDRESSES. A summary of the evaluation follows:
    When fully implemented, the measures outlined in this notice should 
reduce environmental and property damages resulting from oil pollution. 
The net cost-effectiveness of the eight options in the proposed 
rulemaking would range approximately from $111,000 to $315,000 per 
barrel of pollution avoided. This means that it will cost society from 
$111,000 to $315,000 to keep each barrel of oil out of the water.
    The present value of the total cost of the eight options in this 
proposed rule over the 13-year period of analysis (2002-2014) would 
range from $64 million to $211 million. All the costs will be incurred 
during the three-year or five-year phase-in period. We realize that 
there may be incidental costs incurred after the phase-in period, but 
we consider these to be de minimis.
    Over the 13-year period of analysis, we estimate that TLPMs would 
help reduce the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters. The benefits 
derived from the eight options in this proposed rule have a range of 
211 barrels to 1,425 barrels. The costs and benefits of each option are 
summarized in the table below:

[[Page 49882]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  PV barrels not    PV cost of         Cost
      Alternative/Option            Vessels      Phase-in period      spilled          rule        effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1:
    Option One...............  Tank Ships......  3 years........          259.02     $81,549,724        $314,839
    Option Two...............  Tank Ships......  5 years........          210.71      64,354,236         305,416
Alternative 2:
    Option One...............  Tank Barges.....  3 years........        1,165.92     129,197,083         110,811
    Option Two...............  Tank Barges.....  5 years........        1,002.76     118,226,280         117,901
Alternative 3:
    Option One...............  Tank Vessels....  3 years........        1,424.92     210,746,807         147,901
    Option Two...............  Tank Vessels....  5 years........        1,213.46     182,580,516         150,463
Alternative 4:
    Option One...............  Tank Ships/Tank   3 years/5 years        1,261.76     199,776,004         158,331
                                Barges.
    Option Two...............  Tank Ships/Tank   5 years/3 years        1,376.62     193,551,319         140,599
                                Barges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison With Other OPA 90 Rulemakings

    It is useful to compare the cost, benefit, and cost effectiveness 
of the proposed rule with other rulemakings mandated by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990. The Coast Guard published over 40 rules in the 
1990s under OPA 90. Once the majority of these rules were in place, the 
Coast Guard conducted a Programmatic Regulatory Assessment (PRA) to 
analyze the multiple effects of these rules on marine safety and the 
environment. We selected a ``core group'' of 11 of the most important 
and significant OPA 90 rules to serve as a proxy for the entire suite 
of rules. The PRA assessed cost effectiveness of the core group by 
accounting for the overlapping effects of these rules. Without 
addressing these overlapping effects, we would have double-counted the 
true benefit and effect of these 11 significant rules. As with the 
proposed rule, benefit was estimated as the barrels of oil not spilled 
or spilled and recovered from the marine environment.
    The cost (Present Value $1996), benefit (PV barrels), and cost-
effectiveness (PV $/barrel) of the 11 core group rules is presented in 
the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Cost
                          Rule                             PV Cost (1996     PV Benefit (1996  effectiveness ($/
                                                             $billions)          barrels)           barrel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 11 core group rules................................            $10.600          1,221,000             $8,700
Financial responsibility *.............................             -0.106            525,000              -$200
Lightering of single hull vessels......................              0.007              6,000              1,200
Facility response plans................................              0.179             59,000              3,000
Spill source control and containment...................              0.200             57,000              3,500
Operational measures for single hulls..................              0.102             28,000              3,700
Licenses, certificates, documents......................              0.062             14,000              4,500
Overfill devices.......................................              0.183              6,000             29,100
Deck spill control.....................................              0.013              1,000             31,100
Vessel response plans..................................              3.252             50,000             64,600
Double hulls...........................................              6.411             94,000             68,100
Equipment and personnel in Prince William Sound, AK....              0.325              3,000           108,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cost and cost effectiveness was negative for this rule because avoided cost (value of avoided injuries,
  deaths, and cargo loss) exceeded the capital and labor cost.

    When compared to the other major OPA 90 rulemakings, the proposed 
alternatives are less cost-effective. The overall cost effectiveness of 
the 11 core group rules in OPA 90 is approximately $8,700 per barrel 
not spilled. The cost effectiveness of the alternatives discussed for 
this proposed rule range from $110,811 to $314,839 per barrel in 2001 
dollars ($97,670 to $277,520 per barrel expressed in 1996 dollars). We 
estimate that the amount of oil prevented from entering the environment 
due to the 11 major OPA 90 rulemakings is 1,221,000 barrels over the 
period of analysis (1996-2025). The amount of oil we estimate that will 
be prevented from entering the environment due to the proposed 
rulemaking ranges from 210 to 1,425 barrels depending on the selected 
alternative. In percentage terms, the pollution that would be averted 
due to the proposed rule represents approximately one tenth of one 
percent of the total pollution averted from the 11 major OPA 90 
rulemakings.
    When comparing the proposed rule to the cost and benefit estimates 
above, caveats should be noted. The assessment period for the OPA 90 
PRA was 1996-2025 while the assessment period for the proposed rule is 
2001-2015. This is not overly problematic because after 2015, the 
proposed rule will no longer affect single-hull vessels because they 
are scheduled to be phased-out by 2015. The cost and benefit of the 
rule after 2015, therefore, is expected to be zero. Extending the 
assessment period for the proposed rule to 2025 to align with the OPA 
90 PRA would not change the results noticeably. Finally, the cost, 
benefit, and cost effectiveness estimates presented above represent an 
entire system of overlapping rulemakings. The cost effectiveness of 
each core group rule is the effectiveness when analyzed concurrently 
with all the other core group rules to assure benefit is not double-
counted. For this reason, the overall benefit of the rule does not 
equal the sum of the benefits from all the rules because the amount of 
the overlapping benefit is not included in the individual benefit of 
the individual rule. The proposed rule is a stand-alone rulemaking and 
is analyzed as such.
    The Coast Guard is interested in receiving comments discussing the 
benefits and costs of the alternatives contained in the proposed 
rulemaking with the benefits and costs associated with the other 
significant OPA 90 rules. Also, the Coast Guard is interested in 
receiving comments discussing the technologies required to implement 
the different alternatives contained in this

[[Page 49883]]

proposed rulemaking with the technologies needed to implement the other 
significant OPA 90 rules.
    A copy of the OPA 90 PRA is available in the docket for further 
review and comparison [US Coast Guard, 2001. OPA 90 Programmatic 
Regulatory Assessment (PRA): Benefit, Cost, and Cost Effectiveness of 
Eleven Major Rulemakings of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Volpe 
National Transportation Center, May 2001.]

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises 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.
    From our analysis (copy available in the docket), we conclude that 
requiring TLPM devices to be installed on single-hull tank vessels 
might have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Consequently, by establishing a phase-in period for the 
systems, we would provide flexibility and accommodation for small 
entities affected. This would give small entities the time needed to 
explore markets, plan, and schedule installations during normal 
downtimes.
    We are considering eight regulatory options for the proposed rule. 
The impacts of these options on small businesses are discussed in the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As stated above, the Oil 
Pollution Act states that TLPM requirements must be established for 
tank vessels. As a result, we do not believe we have the discretion to 
exempt small business tank vessel owners from the requirements of this 
proposed rule.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please consult Lieutenant Commander Glen Mine, 
(202) 267-1303.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, 
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, 
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, 
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), 
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which 
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's 
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the 
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated 
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) This proposed rule on the performance 
standards and use of TLPM devices fall into the category of vessel 
equipment and operation. Because the States may not regulate within 
these categories, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an 
issue.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory 
actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act 
addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, 
or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would 
not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule 
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule would not create an environmental risk to health or 
risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. This proposed rule is categorically 
excluded because it concerns equipping of tank vessels with tank level 
or pressure monitoring devices. A ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this might be classified 
as a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it is a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and might 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply,

[[Page 49884]]

distribution, or use of energy. The Coast Guard is establishing either 
a three year or a five year phase-in period for this proposed rule, and 
we do not anticipate adverse energy consequences during that time. 
After this initial three year or five year phase in period, we can not 
conclusively rule out the possibility that this regulation would have a 
national impact on energy supply, distribution, or use. We are seeking 
comments from the public in order to assist us in making that 
determination. An example of how this regulation may adversely affect 
oil distribution is that it may impact the OPA 90 phase-out schedule. A 
company may make the business decision to phase out a tank vessel 
earlier than scheduled instead of incurring the costs of complying with 
this regulation. If vessel owners made the decision to phase out their 
vessels early instead of incurring the necessary compliance costs, tank 
vessel shortages are possible.
    The distribution of petroleum in the U.S. is an efficient, but 
complex, system involving the movement of crude oil into U.S. 
refineries from domestic and foreign sources and the movement of 
product out of refineries, primarily by pipeline and tank vessels. In 
order to facilitate meaningful public comment on this critical issue, 
it is helpful to discuss the specific segments that comprise the 
national waterborne distribution system of petroleum.
    The Maritime Administration describes the U.S. waterborne petroleum 
trade as five distinct and interrelated market segments: domestic 
product tankers, coastal tank barges, domestic crude carriers, foreign 
tankers (imports), and inland tank barges.
    Domestic product tankers compete with tank barges in medium haul 
(500-1,500 mile) coastal trades; product tankers supplement crude 
carriers in West Coast crude oil trades; and product tankers and tank 
barges lighter (transfer) cargoes from crude carriers to oil terminals. 
While tank barges compete with domestic product tankers in medium haul 
trades, they complement tankers and pipelines by transshipping products 
in short-haul trades.
    Foreign product tankers compete indirectly with domestic product 
tankers through import trades, and provide product shipments to Middle 
Atlantic and Northeast states directly from a foreign port rather than 
from another domestic port. The Jones Act, which reserves U.S. 
coastwise shipments for U.S.-flag vessels, should not be be viewed, 
therefore, as absolute protection for domestic product tankers.
    Over the period 1994 to 1999, the role of pipelines, foreign 
tankers and coastal tank barges has grown significantly in U.S. 
petroleum trades. Based on recent pipeline upgrades, year-end 2000 
newbuilding orders and OPA 90 phase-out schedules, these trends should 
continue over the next five years.

Domestic Product Tankers

    The primary domestic product tanker trades--U.S. Gulf/Atlantic, 
U.S. Gulf/West Coast, and intra West Coast have declined over the 
period 1994 to 1999. The declines can be attributed to a decline in 
Alaska crude oil production, increases in pipeline shipments, increases 
in product imports, increases in local refinery production of 
reformulated gas, and increases in medium-haul (500-1,500 mile) tank 
barge shipments. These trends are expected to continue over the next 
five years.
    Product tanker freight markets have been efficient in allocating 
capacity to U.S. domestic and import trades. To meet their distribution 
requirements, oil companies have used foreign product tankers (imports) 
and/or domestic tank barges in lieu of domestic product tankers. The 
domestic product tanker fleet will continue to decline over the next 
five years reflecting an aging fleet, OPA 90 phase-out requirements, 
and high newbuilding prices/operating costs relative to charter rates.

Coastal Tank Barges

    The market for coastal tank barge services can be divided into two 
broad segments: short-haul trades ( 500 miles), in which tank barge 
services complement tanker and pipeline services; and 500+ mile trades 
in which tank barge services substitute for tanker services. In 1999, 
long-haul ton-miles were about 3.5 times short-haul ton-miles.
    Coastal tank barge traffic (ton-miles) will continue recent trends 
and grow at 2-3 percent per year over the next five years, reflecting 
fleet productivity increases and the substitution of large tank barges 
(10,000+ DWT) for product tankers in the 500+ mile coastal petroleum 
products trades.
    The coastal tank barge fleet will not be significantly affected by 
OPA 90 double-hull requirements until 2005, when there will be a 
substantial impact (a decrease of 0.5 million DWT capacity) on the 
10,000+ DWT fleet.
    As of year-end 2000 there were nine large coastal tank barges (0.2 
million DWT) on order for delivery in 2001 and 2002. For tank barges, 
the orderbook does not show deliveries beyond the next 2 years. There 
are, however, pending contracts for seven additional newbuildings and 
eight retrofits.

Domestic Crude Carriers

    The Alaska crude oil trades are the primary source of demand for 
U.S. crude carriers. These trades are examples of ``Industrial 
Shipping'' in which shippers (oil companies) bear market risks by 
owning or time chartering tankers. In 1999, ninety-nine percent of the 
Alaska crude oil trades were controlled by oil companies or oil company 
affiliates. As a result, Alaska crude oil production, U.S. crude 
carrier capacity, and coastal crude oil traffic tend to move together 
over time.
    Based on the Energy Information Agency's forecast for Alaska crude 
oil production, Alaska/U.S. West Coast crude oil trades will fall from 
85 billion ton-miles in 1999 to 64 billion ton-miles in 2005, reducing 
crude carrier demand by about 500 thousand DWT or four 125,000 DWT 
tankers.
    As of year-end 2000, there were eight newbuilding double-hull crude 
carriers (1.2 million DWT) on order, 0.2 million DWT more than the 
capacity scheduled to be phased-out under OPA-90 double-hull 
requirements by 2005. However, owners have typically retired crude 
carriers well before their OPA 90 phase-out dates. The average age of 
the 22 U.S. crude carriers removed from service in the last five years 
was 21-years, or an average of 4 years before their OPA 90 phase out 
dates. As of year-end 2000, 17 of the 21 active U.S. crude carriers 
were older than 21 years. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that owners 
will retire redundant crude carriers as newbuildings enter service.

Foreign Tankers

    The U.S. relies on the foreign-flag segment of the international 
tanker fleet to deliver virtually all of its petroleum imports. At 
year-end 2000, the foreign-flag tanker fleet eligible to operate in 
U.S. trades was about 237 million DWT, or 80 percent of the 
international fleet. This tonnage was eligible to operate in U.S. 
petroleum trades either because it had a double hull or had not yet 
reached its OPA 90 phase-out date. Over time, additional capacity will 
be reaching its OPA 90 phase-out date and dropping out of the U.S. 
petroleum trade. In the next five years, an additional 34 million DWT 
of foreign-flag capacity will become ineligible to operate in U.S. 
trades. There is no risk of any shortage of tankers available to serve 
U.S. import trades, however, because--
     Newbuilding deliveries have been about 20 million DWT per 
year in the late 1990s and should continue at about that rate over the 
next five years.
     Based on 2000 data, only 42 percent of the tanker capacity 
eligible for U.S.

[[Page 49885]]

trades actually served U.S. trades. That is, there is a substantial 
pool of existing vessels that can move into U.S. trades; and
     Tankers calling at the LOOP (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port) 
and four Gulf of Mexico lightering areas are exempt from OPA 90 double-
hull rules, though they would not be exempted this rule. In 2000, 40 
percent of the 150,000+ DWT foreign-flag tanker calls to the U.S. were 
at these five areas.

Inland Tank Barges

    Inland tank barge capacity should decline by 1 to 2 percent per 
year over the next five years. The decline reflects an expected decline 
in inland tank barge traffic, fleet attrition, tank barge replacements 
tied to affreightment contracts (traffic), and fleet productivity 
increases (i.e., new barges are more productive, require less 
maintenance/drydocking time) than those they replace.
    The expected decline in inland tank barge traffic (0.5-1.0 percent 
per year) reflects a substitution of natural gas (shipped by pipeline) 
for fuel oils (shipped by barge) by electric utilities.
    In 1999, charter rates for inland tank barges were generally above 
full-employment, newbuilding breakeven rates. Charter rates should 
remain above full-employment breakeven rates over the next five years, 
reflecting fleet attrition, industry consolidation, and fleet 
replacement tied to freight contracts (traffic).

Niche Markets

    In addition to seeking comments on the five previously discussed 
market segments, we suspect this regulation may have effects on small 
businesses that serve local niche markets. Our Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis indicates that many small businesses will be 
required to spend a substantial portion of their annual revenue to fit 
their tank vessels with TLPM devices. It is possible that many of these 
small businesses will be unable to comply with this regulation and will 
leave their respective markets. These companies that leave the market 
may be serving small niche markets where other sources of oil 
distribution are not readily available. For example, a small barge 
company may be the sole or primary source of transportation of fuel oil 
to an island. If that particular company leaves the market as a result 
of this rule, the island would be without a distributor until another 
means of oil transportation becomes available.

Comments

    We are requesting comments to assist us in identifying any likely 
significant adverse effects our proposed rule may have on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. We do not expect any adverse impacts in 
the foreign tankers (imports) segment due to the large number of double 
hull tankers already operating in that trade. However, we cannot 
conclusively rule out the possibility that this proposed regulation 
would have a national impact on energy supply, distribution, or use in 
the four domestic market segments previously discussed. We are 
especially interested in comments considering the impact this proposed 
regulation might have on the OPA 90 phase-out schedule. If vessel 
owners made the decision to phase out their vessels early instead of 
incurring the necessary compliance costs, tank vessel shortages are 
possible. A shortage of tank vessels could lead to an adverse energy 
effect. In addition, we are interested in receiving comments that 
address how this proposed rule will affect the ability of the tank 
vessel owners and/or operators to meet their customers' requirements. 
We also seek comments on whether this rule should be modified if 
compliance would be economically infeasible for specific vessels or 
categories of vessels.
    Our analysis also suggests a possibility of potential adverse 
effects in unidentified small, local areas. Submit these and any other 
comments on possible adverse energy effects that the proposed rule may 
have to one of the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will analyze 
all comments and, if necessary, prepare a full Statement of Energy 
Effects with the Final Rule for this project.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

    Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control.

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 proposes 
to amend 33 CFR Parts 155 and 156 and 46 CFR Part 32 as follows:

33 CFR Chapter I

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

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 
Comp., p. 793. Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 through 
155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and 
155.1065(g) are also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Sections 
155.480, 155.490, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are also issued under 46 
U.S.C. 3703.

    Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or 
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR Parts 30 through 40, 
150, 151, and 153.

    2. Add Sec. 155.490 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec. 155.490  Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring devices.

ALTERNATIVE ONE to paragraph (a)

    (a) By [Either OPTION ONE, three years after effective date, or 
OPTION TWO, five years after the effective date], each U.S. and 
foreign-flag single-hull tank ship carrying oil or oil residue as 
cargo, must have a tank level or pressure monitoring device that is 
permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of 
this section.

ALTERNATIVE TWO to paragraph (a)

    (a) By [Either OPTION ONE, three years after effective date, or 
OPTION TWO, five years after the effective date], each U.S. and 
foreign-flag single-hull tank barge carrying oil or oil residue as 
cargo, must have a tank level or pressure monitoring device that is 
permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of 
this section.

ALTERNATIVE THREE to paragraph (a)

    (a) By [Either OPTION ONE, three years after effective date, or 
OPTION TWO, five years after the effective date], each U.S. and 
foreign-flag single-hull tank vessel carrying oil or oil residue as 
cargo, must have a tank level or pressure monitoring device that is 
permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of 
this section.

ALTERNATIVE FOUR to paragraph (a)

    (a) Each U.S. and foreign-flag single-hull tank ship carrying oil 
or oil residue as cargo must have a tank level or pressure monitoring 
device that is permanently installed on each cargo tank by [Either 
OPTION ONE, three years after effective date, or OPTION TWO, five years 
after the effective date], and each U.S. and foreign-flag single-hull 
tank barge carrying oil or oil residue as cargo must have a tank level 
or pressure

[[Page 49886]]

monitoring device that is permanently installed on each cargo tank by 
[Either OPTION ONE, five years after effective date, or OPTION TWO, 
three years after the effective date].
    (b) Each device must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Be intrinsically safe as per 46 CFR 111.105;
    (2) Indicate any loss of power or failure of the tank level or 
pressure monitoring device and monitor the condition of the alarm 
circuitry and sensor by an electronic self-testing feature;
    (3) Alarm at or before the cargo in the cargo tank either increases 
or decreases by a level of one percent from the cargo quantity in the 
tank after securing cargo transfer operations;
    (4) Operate in heavy seas, moisture, and varying weather 
conditions; and
    (5) Have audible and visual alarm indicators which are distinctly 
identifiable as cargo tank level or pressure monitoring alarms that can 
be seen and heard on the navigation bridge of the tank ship or towing 
vessel and on the cargo deck area.
    (c) Double-hull tank vessels are exempt from the requirements of 
this section.
    (d) This section does not apply to tank vessels that carry asphalt 
as their only cargo.

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

    3. The authority citation for 33 CFR Part 156 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703a, 3715; E.O. 
11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793. Section 156.120(bb) and (ee) 
are also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3703.

    4. Add in Sec. 156.120 paragraph (ee) as follows:


Sec. 156.120  Requirements for transfer.

* * * * *
    (ee) Each tank level or pressure monitoring device must be 
activated and monitored whenever the tank is not actively being 
subjected to cargo operations.

46 CFR Chapter I

PART 32--SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIREMENTS

    5. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 3719; E.O. 12234, 3 CFR, 
1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46; Subpart 32.59 also issued under the 
authority of Sec. 4109, Pub. L. 101-308, 104 Stat. 515.

Subpart 32.22T [Removed]

    6. Remove subpart 32.22T 
(Secs. 32.22 T-1 and 32.22T-5).

    Dated: September 26, 2001.
James M. Loy,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 01-24493 Filed 9-26-01; 4:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P