[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58515-58524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23621]


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

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: Final rule.

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

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). 
The Coast Guard is implementing regulations to include minimum 
standards for the performance and use of TLPM devices on single-hull 
tank ships and single-hull tank barges carrying oil or oil residue as 
cargo.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 17, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2001-9046 and are available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 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 questions on this rule, 
call Martin L. Jackson, Project Manager, Standards Evaluations and 
Analysis Division (G-MSR-1), Coast Guard, at 202-267-1140. For 
technical questions concerning the performance standards for TLPM 
devices call Dolores Mercier, Technical Program Manager, Engineering 
Systems Division (G-MSE-3), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-0658. If you 
have questions on viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, 
Dockets, Department of Transportation, at 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 on tank 
vessels carrying oil or oil residue as cargo. 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 TLPM devices 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 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 Volpe study 
and 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. The Coast Guard 
would have evaluated the submitted TLPM devices to ensure that they met 
the performance standards required by the temporary rule. We would have 
assessed the costs and benefits associated with any devices that met 
this performance standard to support decisions regarding implementing 
use requirements. At the time 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.
    On October 1, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices in the 
Federal Register (66 FR 49877). Within that notice of proposed 
rulemaking, we presented a minimum performance standard and eight 
proposed regulatory options, and corresponding regulatory text for each 
option, regarding the use of TLPM devices on single-hull tank ships and 
single-hull tank barges carrying oil as cargo. A public meeting was 
held on November 6, 2001, in Washington, DC. As a result of the notice 
and public meeting, we received 129 letters commenting on the proposal.

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. In the NPRM [October 1, 2001 (66 
FR 49877)], the Coast Guard

[[Page 58516]]

proposed removing the temporary regulations of Subpart 32.22T-Tank 
Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices found in 46 CFR part 32. We 
proposed removing this subpart because the effective period of the 
standard has passed. We also proposed 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 proposed included 
regulating the installation and operation of TLPM devices 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 (Pub. 
L. 101-380) authorizes the Coast Guard to require the use of TLPM 
devices on 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.
    We did not propose requiring the use of TLPM devices on double-hull 
vessels. These TLPM devices are intended to warn the operators of 
possible loss of cargo oil into the water due to leaks they might 
otherwise not notice from cargo tanks. As stated in previous notices, 
double-hull vessels are intrinsically designed to prevent this type of 
discharge, having a redundant tank boundary. Therefore, the proposal 
exempted double-hull tank vessels.
    During the development of the proposal, 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 of all single-hull tank 
vessels, 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, with only 
seven from tank ships. In these 27 cases tank barges contributed 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.) 
Furthermore, section 4110 of OPA 90, which requires the installation 
and use of TLPM devices, was added in part as a result 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 leaking great quantities should a leak 
occur. 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).
    To allow for the maximum flexibility to meet the regulatory and 
statutory intent, we proposed in the NPRM eight regulatory options that 
reflect all the reasonable approaches we have examined in developing 
this proposed regulation. The eight options were designed to be 
performance based. In developing them, we assumed that this rulemaking 
will apply only to single-hull tank vessels with a TLPM device that 
will detect a one percent change in cargo volume.
    Each of the eight options was categorized under one of four 
alternatives (two options per alternative). The alternatives indicated 
the possible affected vessels. The options indicated either a three-
year or a five-year phase-in period for the affected vessels. 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. Therefore, the options were 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              What type of single-     How long do the
                               hull tank vessel is    affected vessels
                                affected by this     have to comply with
                                      rule?          TLPM  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.
  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

    .The one percent performance standard required 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.
    As previously stated in this final rule, the Coast Guard received 
several comment letters addressing our prior NPRM. None of the comments 
received address our proposal to remove the temporary regulations of 
Subpart 32.22T--Tank Level or Pressure Monitoring Devices found in 46 
CFR part 32. We are removing the temporary regulations of Subpart 
32.22T. After consideration of all the comments received, we have 
elected to implement Alternative Three, Option Two (all single-hull 
tank vessels, 5-year implementation).

[[Page 58517]]

Preface to Discussion of Comments and Changes

    From the comments we received from the NPRM and the lack of the 
response from the manufacturers during the affective period of the 
temporary rule, the Coast Guard acknowledges that there are no TLPM 
devices being marketed. However, as discussed in the regulatory 
analysis, devices capable of measuring cargo levels are being 
manufactured. Properly modified, these devices would be able to meet 
the requirements established by this rulemaking. The actual type of 
system designed and installed is dependent on the manufacturer of the 
system and the vessel operator.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 129 letters commenting on the NPRM 
[October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49877)]. Seventy-two of those letters were 
copies of the same form letter. Also, some comments were iterated or 
similarly addressed in other comment letters. When considering all of 
the comments submitted, we gave each comment received the same degree 
of consideration. Comments that were submitted in multiple do not 
receive priority over a comment that was submitted only once. We 
present the following responses to each comment that addressed our 
proposed rule.
    The majority of the comments express support for adding permanent 
performance and use standards for tank level or pressure monitoring 
devices in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156. The comments have been grouped in 
specific topics related to this rulemaking.

Vessels Required To Install and Use TLPM Devices

    The applicability requirements of this rule were addressed within 
96 of the comment letters. We received comments stating that we should 
expand our applicability requirements to include vessels with double 
hulls, while other comments supported exempting them from the TLPM 
requirements. One argument cited in several comments interpreted ``tank 
vessels'' as used in section 4110(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
as including both single-hull and double-hull vessels. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. Although there is legislative history to support the 
proposition that not all tank vessels must be equipped with the device, 
there is nothing in the law and legislative history describing that 
double-hull tank vessels were intended to have the device. These TLPM 
devices are intended to warn the operators of possible loss of cargo 
oil from cargo tanks due to leaks they might otherwise not notice. As 
stated earlier, double-hull vessels are intrinsically designed to 
prevent this type of discharge. Therefore, this final rule will apply 
only to single-hull tank vessels, exempting double-hull tank vessels.
    One comment requested that vessels with type-2 and type-1 location 
requirements that have a Certificate of Fitness be exempt from this 
rule. The Coast Guard disagrees. Type-2 and type-1 vessels are not 
considered double-hull vessels, nor would they offer the same level of 
protection. Therefore, type-2 and type-1 vessels are subject to TLPM 
requirements.
    We received two comments concerning the applicability of the 
rulemaking based on the vessel's flag-state. One commenter believes 
that this rulemaking should be incorporated into our ``good neighbor 
policy'' toward other nations that are subject to pollution from ships 
registered in the United States. The other comment states that the 
proposed rule was not specific enough as to whether this rule applies 
to foreign-flag vessels all of the time or only when it is in the 
navigable waters of the U.S.
    These regulations apply to tank vessels that operate in the 
navigable waters of the United States and the exclusive economic zone, 
consistent with international law. The TLPM requirements apply to U.S. 
single-hull tank ships and tank barges carrying oil or oil residue as 
cargo no matter the location. Foreign-flag single-hull tank vessels 
carrying oil or oil residue as cargo are required to meet the TLPM 
requirements whenever they are operating in the waters set forth above 
when bound for a port or place within the jurisdiction of the United 
States.
    One comment recommended that bitumen carriers be exempt from these 
requirements. Bitumen is a mixture of tar-like hydrocarbons derived 
from petroleum. Black or brown, it varies from viscous to solid; the 
solid form is usually called asphalt. As detailed in 33 CFR 155.490(d), 
asphalt carriers are exempt from this requirement.
    We received comments arguing that retrofitting TLPM devices on 
oceangoing vessels costs less than retrofitting the devices on inland 
tank vessels. Because of the retrofitting cost differential between 
these tank vessel types, the commenters recommended that we develop 
cost effective performance standards for inland tank vessels. The Coast 
Guard disagrees. An inland oil spill will potentially have a greater 
environmental impact than out at sea. Relaxing the requirement for 
inland tank vessels will not provide the same level of protection as 
ocean-going tank vessels. Case analysis revealed that most spills for 
which TLPMs would have been effective were inland spills.

Installation Date

    We received 82 letters addressing the phase-in period for vessels 
required to install TLPM devices. Half of the commenters specifically 
recommended codifying proposed Alternative Three, Option One, meaning 
all single-hull tank vessels installing TLPM device within a three-year 
phase-in period. The remainder of commenters promoted a five-year 
phase-in period to provide the necessary flexibility for a vessel to 
integrate scheduling installation of the devices during the vessel's 
normal shipyard cycle.
    This rulemaking sets the installation date at five years from the 
effective date of this rule. Currently, no devices meet the performance 
standards established by this rulemaking. The rationale of the five-
year phase-in period is to provide industry manufacturers time to test 
a device that will meet the performance standards of this rule in a 
dynamic sea state and to give each owner of single-hull tank vessels 
time to schedule installation of the TLPM device during normal shipyard 
cycles.

Justification for Requiring the Installation and Use of TLPM Devices on 
All Single-Hull Tank Vessels

    We received 86 comments requesting the Coast Guard to qualify its 
authority and reasoning for requiring single-hull tank vessels to equip 
each tank on the vessel with a TLPM device. Commenters pointed out that 
if a tank ship were involved in a collision, allision, or hard 
grounding and as a result of the casualty the vessel's cargo was 
flowing out of a damaged tank, the TLPM devices will not provide the 
crew with any additional information about the tank and its cargo. 
Another commenter stated that a TLPM device would not prevent cargo 
from leaking out of a vessel's tank. We agree with both comments. The 
purpose of TLPM devices is not to stop a leak, but to inform the crew 
of a cargo leak from a tank otherwise not noticed, and so that spill 
abatement procedures can be initiated. The requirement is for an alarm 
to actuate when the cargo tank level has increased or decreased by one 
percent. Large flow rate spills are not likely to be helped by the use 
of the TLPM equipment. Requiring the use of a TLPM device does not 
replace the standard practices associated with tank vessels or the good 
seamanship practices. It is up to the vessel's master

[[Page 58518]]

to deem which actions are appropriate responses to the alarm's 
actuation.
    Commenters acknowledged that the Coast Guard has been ordered by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals to promptly satisfy the statutory mandates of 
section 4110 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. While they support the 
ideas of requiring leak detection of cargo tanks on tank vessels, the 
respondents believe that both the IMO and the Coast Guard have already 
promulgated rules addressing the statute. The Coast Guard disagrees. 
Both the U.S. Court of Appeals and Section 4110 are clear on the 
specific requirements the Coast Guard shall implement. Currently there 
are no other regulations or rules regulating TLPM devices, even though 
there are rules and regulations concerning overfill devices, high level 
alarms and cargo gauging systems, however, none of these provide the 
functionality of a TLPM device.
    Additional commenters questioned the Coast Guard's interpretation 
of the statute. The statute says that the Coast Guard is to issue 
regulations establishing requirements concerning the use of devices 
that measure oil levels in cargo tanks or devices that monitor cargo 
tank pressure level. The respondents addressed the wording of the 
statute by saying that it does not say ``require the use'' or ``require 
the installation of''. The respondents believe that because the statute 
mandates the development of regulations ``concerning the use'' of a 
TLPM device, the Congress did not intend to require the installation 
and use of these devices. The Coast Guard disagrees. There is nothing 
in the act itself or the legislative history that would support such 
interpretation. In fact, the legislative history is to the contrary, 
supporting the installation of TLPM devices on tank vessels.

Performance Standards

    We also received 107 comments addressing the performance standards. 
Several of the commenters pointed out their inability to locate a 
monitoring device that will satisfy the requirements of this rule. The 
comments continued by stating that the leak detection standard should 
be written in a way that would help to avoid false alarms. One comment 
suggested requiring an alarm to sound if the level in any cargo tank 
drops three percent over a period of 30 minutes. The respondent 
believes that this requirement would help to prevent false alarms. 
Another comment recommended developing a monitoring standard that is 
not based solely on measuring the percentage of the cargo in the cargo 
tank. The respondent believes that this type of measurement lends to 
false alarms. One comment detailed scenarios, such as draft 
restrictions en route to the discharge port or specific gravity of 
product, limiting the amount of cargo loaded into any tank, resulting 
in the need to reset or recalibrate each tank loaded. The respondent 
argues that this would be time consuming and has the potential of 
creating errors. Another comment stated the unlikelihood of obtaining 
the required accuracy by averaging liquid level data with computer 
software. The respondent believes that such a system would be dependent 
upon perfectly tight tanks, because even the slightest leak would 
compromise the effectiveness of the system.
    Since no TLPM device currently exists that meets our standards the 
actual type of system designed and installed is dependent on the 
manufacturer of the system and the vessel operator. We believe that the 
various concerns expressed in the comment letters, such as false 
alarms, cargo tank re-calibration, and accuracy requirements can be 
addressed through the system design.
    In the NPRM we proposed that the TLPM device must be able to 
properly function in a heavy sea state. We received comments addressing 
this standard. One comment recommended that we define ``heavy seas''. 
Another comment asked us to develop a test case for operation in heavy 
seas. Commenters urged that the leak detection device must be able to 
make calculative adjustments for operating conditions and tank 
environments, such as cargo sloshing, changes in barometric pressure, 
and vapor space temperature. One of the respondents suggested basing 
the software used to detect these changes on the Finite Element Method 
modeling and study.
    The Coast Guard agrees that ``heavy seas'' is not an explicit sea 
condition. To clarify the intent of our standard, we have replaced the 
phrase ``heavy seas'' with ``sea state 5'' as defined in The American 
Practical Navigator, commonly known as Bowditch. We will also add to 
our regulations a definition for sea state 5 so that the sea condition 
by which a TLPM must properly operate is clearly understandable.
    We received comments addressing the proposed requirements for 
audible and visual alarm indicators that must be 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 as well as on the cargo deck area. One comment suggested that 
the alarm for inland tank barges should be a simple visual strobe light 
that can be seen from the bridge of the towing vessel. The comment also 
recommended that the visual strobe light alarm should be powered by 
replaceable batteries, possible using a wireless system. Another 
comment recommended that inland tank barges without a normal source of 
power be allowed to use an alarm for all tanks on the barge and allowed 
to use a common shore alarm receptacle.
    We also received comments requesting guidance on how a signal from 
a tank barge will be transmitted to the vessel towing the barge. One 
comment urged the Coast Guard to develop a communication standard from 
existing standards. Another comment suggested a radio signal as a 
possible method of an unmanned barge to communicate with the alarm on 
the towing vessel. Still another comment acknowledged the possible use 
of cable connections. This respondent also pointed out that it would be 
extremely difficult to ensure a reliable dry connection that will 
remain connected through out the entire voyage.
    Another comment urged the Coast Guard to develop training 
requirements for crewmembers on a towing vessel. The comment stated 
that during a single voyage it is common practice for a barge to be 
towed by several different towing vessels. The respondent argues that 
not all of the crew of those different towing vessels will be trained 
to operate the various components of each TLPM manufactured, nor will 
all of the devices be compatible with one another.
    The requirement remains the same as stated in the NPRM. An audible 
and visual alarm indicators must be distinctly identifiable as cargo 
tank level or pressure monitoring alarms. The alarms must be seen and 
heard on the navigation bridge of the tank ship or towing vessel as 
well as on the cargo deck area. The requirement is to have an alarm to 
indicate to the vessel's master that there is the potential cargo tank 
leak. The basic design of this indicator and its system are to be 
determined by the manufacturer of the device and the vessel operator. 
Enhancements or variations to the system, such as its ability to be 
compatible with multiple leak detection indicators and others cited 
above, are left to the discretion of the manufacturer of the device or 
the operator of the vessel.
    One comment urged the Coast Guard to set testing standards by which 
the operator of a vessel can test the TLPM device and the alarm system 
to ensure that it is properly working. The respondent also urged that 
we set procedures for the operator of the vessel

[[Page 58519]]

to follow when responding to the actuation of a leak detection alarm. 
We disagree with the suggestions. The master will deem which actions 
are appropriate to perform whenever an alarm is actuated, using 
standard practices of good seamanship.

Safety Concerns When Responding to Alarms

    We received 21 comments expressing concerns for the safety of a 
towing vessel and its crew when responding to an alarm that had been 
activated by a TLPM device on a tank barge being towed by the vessel. 
One issue raised was the risk to navigational safety posed by a 
distracted wheelman trying to navigate bridges or narrow channels while 
attempting to monitor as many as 100 leak detection indicators warning 
of the potential cargo tank leak. Another issue raised was the risk of 
collision and injury when maneuvering the towing vessel alongside a 
barge in order to place a crewmember on board the barge to check for 
the presence of a leak. A third comment plainly stated that no company 
should risk the lives of its crew by placing a repair team or 
investigation team on board a barge.
    The alarm requirement remains the same as stated in the NPRM. The 
Coast Guard agrees that the safety of a vessel's crew should always 
come first when evaluating how to best respond to any alarm. An audible 
and visual alarm indicator must be distinctly identifiable as cargo 
tank level or pressure monitoring alarm. The alarm must be seen and 
heard on the navigation bridge of the tank ship or towing vessel as 
well as on the cargo deck area. The requirement is to have an alarm to 
indicate to the vessel's master that there is the potential cargo tank 
leak. Once the alarm is actuated, it is up to the vessel's master to 
deem which actions are an appropriate response.
    We received a comment concerned about the numerous risks associated 
with supplying power to a tank barge. Since no TLPM device currently 
exists that meets our standards, the actual system designed and 
installed is dependent on the manufacturer of the system and the vessel 
operator. In the NPRM, we assumed that these devices on a barge to be 
battery powered, such as the batteries used to provide power for 
navigation lights. However, we did not mandate that power come from a 
battery.

Costs and Benefits Presented in the Regulatory Analysis of the NPRM

    We received 249 comments addressing the costs and benefits detailed 
in the regulatory analysis of this rulemaking. One comment disagreed 
with the analysis including economic costs for foreign vessels. The 
respondent believes by including these costs the cost-effectiveness 
contains inflated values. The respondent recommended that the cost 
assumptions and cost-effectiveness criteria be revised.
    Within the same comment letter, the respondent urged that we 
include the benefits of reducing oil spillage from foreign ships in the 
U.S. waters. The respondent recommended including the benefits in the 
cost-effectiveness data, despite their prior recommendation to delete 
the foreign-flag vessel data. The respondent plainly recommended that 
the methodology used to calculate the cost-effectiveness be corrected.
    The purpose of the regulatory analysis is to estimate the impact of 
the rule on society. It is reasonable to assume that the costs incurred 
by foreign-flag vessels operating in U.S. water will eventually be 
passed on to consumers in the U.S. through the price of goods brought 
to our ports on a foreign-flag vessel. Regarding the benefits, this 
rule will be enforced on international vessels while transiting U.S. 
waters, and it is reasonable to expect a reduction of oil spilled into 
our waters by foreign-flag vessels.
    Another comment addressed assumptions made about foreign-flag 
vessels. The respondent believed that the analysis should not use labor 
rates of the U.S. to calculate cost for a foreign-flag tank vessel to 
install a TLPM device. We disagree. Labor rates of other countries vary 
too greatly to suggest a global labor rate. We used the labor rates of 
the U.S. as the best proxy available. We consider this assumption to be 
reasonable.
    We received comments objecting to what one respondent called 
``devastating real-world impacts'' on the single-hull tank vessels and 
their companies. One commenter said he could not accept the cost of 
installing a TLPM device on his fleet, which is scheduled for 
retirement from service. He believes that these costs will not be 
recovered from the companies expected earnings before his fleet is 
retired.
    Our regulatory analysis shows that this rule is costly to the 
maritime industry. As mandated by the Court and section 4110(b) of OPA 
90, we must establish regulations concerning the installation and use 
of TLPM devices.
    Some commenters were more specific with their cost estimates for 
this rulemaking on the single-hull tank vessel owner. One commenter 
believes that the costs would be $20,000 per cargo tank for the device, 
equipment, and installation. Other commenters believed that the cost 
estimates generated in the regulatory analysis for the device, 
equipment, and installation were too low, whereas still other 
commenters believed that our cost estimates were accurate.
    Of all the cargo level measuring devices that could meet the 
requirements of this rule when properly modified, we priced each device 
then disregarded the most and least expensive devices. We developed our 
cost estimate by identifying the mean cost of the remaining devices. 
Therefore, our cost estimate fell in the center of the price range of 
the devices.
    One comment stated the higher one (1) percent accuracy standard for 
each TLPM device equates to more expensive equipment. The comment went 
further by stating the higher accuracy standard also increases the 
chances of false alarms. The comment recommended that a 1 percent 
standard be imposed on tank ships and a three (3) percent standard be 
imposed on tank barges.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. In our analysis we 
found that the costs of TLPM devices that could meet the requirements 
of this rule with an accuracy of 3 percent versus 1 percent to be 
essentially equal. Specifically, the cost to a tank barge for 
purchasing the device and equipment and having it installed will not 
differ if the device has an accuracy standard of either 3 or 1 percent. 
We elected to require the 1 percent standard due to the added benefits 
this standard brings to the environment. As far as the potential for 
the 1 percent standard to cause a greater number of false alarms, no 
such device exists to our knowledge. Therefore, the design of the 
device and its effectiveness is to be determined by the vessel operator 
and the manufacturer of the TLPM device. Such concerns could and should 
be taken into consideration during the development of such devices.
    We received three comments requesting that additional analysis be 
incorporated into the regulatory evaluation of this rulemaking. The 
first comment wished to include in our benefits the oil spills that may 
be prevented in a worst-case scenario where a captain's unawareness of 
a leak on board his vessel may cause the loss of the entire vessel, 
cargo and crew. We disagree with the comment. The purpose of this 
rulemaking is to provide early detection of leaks coming from single-
hull tank vessels. Installing and using a TLPM device will not prevent 
worst-case casualties. Having an alarm will not provide new information 
to the crew of a vessel suffering a catastrophic

[[Page 58520]]

casualty. Therefore, the benefits of this rule can only be estimated 
for cases where TLPM devices provide early indications of potential 
cargo leaks that lead to a reduction of oil spilled.
    One of the comments wanted the costs of this rule to be viewed in a 
context of the costs of all rules mandated by OPA 90 as a whole. We 
agree that this comparison should be part of the regulatory analysis. 
The comparison can already be found in the ``Regulatory Evaluations'' 
sections of the NPRM and in this final rule.
    The third comment requested the cost associated with equipping or 
configuring an electrical power supply on tank barges be included in 
the analysis. We agree that these costs should be included in the cost 
and benefit analysis of this rulemaking, which is why we included them 
in our analysis. These costs can be found in the analysis for the 
proposed rule, which is part of the docket for this rulemaking. The 
data will also be placed in the final regulatory analysis for this 
final rule and will also appear in the DMS docket for review.
    One commenter believed that a computer would have to be installed 
as a component of the TLPM device for this rulemaking to be successful. 
The commenter said that a computer would be able to detect all 
variables and conditions both on and off of the vessel to accurately 
calculate the contents of the tank. The commenter believed this is the 
only way to succeed, and that we should adjust our analysis to include 
the costs for a computing component in each TLPM device. The Coast 
Guard disagrees with this comment; designing TLPM devices with 
computers may not be the only design. Seeing that no TLPM device that 
meets our standards currently exists, the actual type of system 
designed and installed is dependent on the manufacturer of the system 
and the vessel operator.
    In addition, we are not revising our analysis to include the cost 
for a computer component on all TLPM devices. Our analysis looks at the 
costs of several sensors that could be modified with ``off the shelf 
components'' to meet the requirements of this rulemaking. We 
disregarded the most expensive and the less expensive device assuming 
that consumers would not purchase either of them. We averaged the costs 
of the remaining devices and performed our analysis using the device 
closest in cost to the mean cost of the devices as a basis. The device 
we used as a basis did not have a computer component.

General

    We received a few comments that touch on issues not directly 
related to the requirements and analysis proposed in the NPRM. One 
comment requested that we set a moratorium on our proposed rule and 
allow the industry to prepare for the replacement of single-hull tank 
vessels with double-hull tank vessel by 2015. Two comments explained 
that retrofitting TLPM devices on single-hull tank vessels that are 
scheduled for retirement might result in earlier retirements of the 
vessels. Early retirement, says one of the commenters, would create a 
tonnage shortage that may impact the nation's commerce and its 
security. The commenter presented data from the Shipbuilders Council of 
America. The data claims that by the year 2004, 28 percent of existing 
tank vessel capacity, and 45 percent of all large ocean-going tank 
barge capacity will be lost.
    We considered these comments, but are constrained by the Court to 
establish regulations concerning the installation and use of TLPM 
devices. The data attributed to the Shipbuilders Council of America is 
based on Maritime Administration (MARAD) data that reflects a subset of 
the population that this rulemaking will affect. In particular, that 
data only includes tank vessels over 10,000 dead weight tons (DWT). Our 
phase-out data includes tank vessels of all sizes.
    We received a comment noting that our summarization of the 
Intertanko decision from the Supreme Court, found in the Federalism 
section in the NPRM preamble, omitted discussion of the savings clause 
regarding liability requirements under OPA 90. We note that this was 
omitted merely because it is inapplicable to the subject matter of this 
rule.
    We received a comment from a mariner who has installed video 
cameras to monitor the respondent's fleet and facilities for security. 
The respondent asked if this monitoring system would satisfy our TLPM 
requirement. While this may be good practice, the monitoring system 
described would not satisfy our requirements because it presents many 
of the same visibility problems that occur by just looking out at the 
wake of the vessel. TLPM devices, however, would not be faced with 
problems of visibility.

Regulatory Evaluation

Assessment

    This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of 
Management and Budget has reviewed it under that Order. It requires an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. It is significant under the regulatory policies and 
procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11040, (February 
26, 1979)]. A final Assessment is available in the docket as indicated 
under ADDRESSES. A summary of the Assessment 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 rule is approximately $190,000 per 
barrel of pollution avoided. This means that it will cost society 
approximately $190,000 to keep each barrel of oil out of the water.
    The present value of the total cost over the 12-year period of 
analysis (2003-2014) is approximately $166.4 million. All the costs 
will be incurred during the 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 12-year period of analysis, we estimate that TLPMs would 
help reduce the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters. The benefits 
derived for this rule is 874 barrels of oil not spilled.

Comparison With Other OPA 90 Rulemakings

    It is useful to compare the cost, benefit, and cost effectiveness 
of this 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 this 
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:

[[Page 58521]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   PV cost     PV benefit       Cost
              Rule                  (1996        (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              0.007        6,000         1,200
 vessels.......................
Facility response plans........        0.179       59,000         3,000
Spill source control and               0.200       57,000         3,500
 containment...................
Operational measures for single        0.102       28,000         3,700
 hulls.........................
Licenses, certificates,                0.062       14,000         4,500
 documents.....................
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             0.325        3,000      108,900
 Prince William Sound, AK......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\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, this rule is 
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 this rule is $190,000 per barrel in 2002 
dollars ($168,330 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 this rule is 874 barrels 
over the period of the analysis. In percentage terms, the pollution 
that will be averted due to this rule represents less then one tenth of 
one percent of the total pollution averted from the 11 major OPA 90 
rulemakings.
    When comparing this 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 this rule is 2003-2014. This 
is not overly problematic because after 1 January 2015, the 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 
noticeably change the results. 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.
    A copy of the OPA 90 PRA is available in the docket [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 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 may 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Consequently, by establishing a five-year phase-in period for 
the systems, we provide flexibility and accommodation for small 
entities affected. This gives small entities the time needed to explore 
markets, plan, and schedule installations during normal downtimes.
    We estimate that 181 entities will be affected by this rule, 124 of 
which we consider to be small entities. Approximately 26 percent of the 
affected entities are in either petroleum wholesale or navigational 
services to shipping. The respective North American Industry 
Classification System codes are 422720 and 488330. We estimate that 55 
percent of the small entities will have more than a 5 percent reduction 
in annual revenues during the installation of TLPM devices.
    More details about the impacts of this rule on small businesses are 
discussed in the Final 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 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The NPRM 
provided small businesses, organizations or governmental jurisdictions 
a Coast Guard contact to ask questions concerning this rule's 
provisions or options for compliance.
    After the effective date of this rule, a small entity compliance 
guide will be made available in the public docket for this rulemaking 
project. The compliance guide will explain the required action of small 
businesses to comply with this final rule.
    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).

[[Page 58522]]

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule calls 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 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 discretionary 
regulatory actions. 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we 
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order. Although it is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action.
    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 explain 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 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

[[Page 58523]]

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 order book 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--
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] Based on 2000 data, only 42 percent of the tanker capacity 
eligible for U.S. trades actually served U.S. trades. That is, there is 
a substantial pool of existing vessels that can move into U.S. trades; 
and
    [sbull] 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 from 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).

Comments

    The comments we received to the NPRM did not lead us to believe 
that this rule is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution or use of energy. For a summary of the comments 
and Coast Guard responses, please read the ``Discussion of Comments and 
Changes'' section in this rule.
    We specifically requested comments regarding the effect of this 
rule on niche markets. We wanted to know of any markets where there 
might be one small company serving the entire market, and what effect 
would be if that company dropped out of existence as a result of this 
rule. We did not receive comments addressing this concern. This along 
with our review of the distribution segments above, leads us to believe 
that this rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect.

Environment

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

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 is 
amending 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 and 46 CFR part 32 as follows:

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. Section 155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of 
Pub. L. 101-380.

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


[[Page 58524]]



    2. In Sec.  155.200, add the definition for ``Sea state 5'' in 
alphabetic order to read as follows:


Sec.  155.200  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Sea state 5, the equivalent of Beaufort number or force 6, is a sea 
condition with winds speeds of 22 to 27 knots and classified as 
``strong breeze'', and with waves measuring 2.5 to 4 meters in height 
and classified as ``rough''.
* * * * *

    3. Add Sec.  155.490 to read as follows:


Sec.  155.490  Tank level or pressure monitoring devices.

    (a) Applicability. The tank level or pressure monitoring (TLPM) 
device requirements of this section apply to--
    (1) U.S.-flag single-hull tank vessels carrying oil or oil residue 
as cargo; and
    (2) Foreign-flag single-hull tank vessels carrying oil or oil 
residue as cargo when operating in the navigable waters of the United 
States and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) when bound to or from a 
port or place in the United States.
    (b) By October 17, 2007, each vessel required under paragraph (a) 
of this section to meet the requirements of this section, must have a 
tank level or pressure monitoring device that is permanently installed 
on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of this section.
    (c) 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 conditions up to sea state 5, 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.
    (d) Double-hull tank vessels are exempt from the requirements of 
this section.
    (e) This section does not apply to tank vessels that carry asphalt 
as their only cargo.

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

    4. 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.

    5. In Sec.  156.120 add paragraph (ee) as follows:


Sec.  156.120  Requirements for transfer.

* * * * *
    (ee) Each tank level or pressure monitoring device required under 
33 CFR 155.490 must be activated and monitored whenever the tank is not 
actively being subjected to cargo operations.

46 CFR

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

    6. 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.


Sec.  32.22T  [Removed]

    7. Remove subpart 32.22T.

    Dated: September 11, 2002.
Thomas H. Collins,
Admiral, Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 02-23621 Filed 9-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P