![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 19, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 98)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31806-31813]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19my00-7]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
46 CFR Part 32
[USCG 1998-4443]
RIN 2115-AF65
Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements measures for maintaining or
regaining control of a tank barge that will reduce the likelihood of a
tank barge's
[[Page 31807]]
grounding and spilling its cargo. These measures are necessary because
without them a tug that loses its tow lacks ready means for regaining
control of it. They should increase the safety of marine transport and
protect the environment.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 19, 2000 except for 33 CFR
155.230(b)(1) and 46 CFR 32.15-15(e), which are effective on December
11, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking. Unless otherwise indicated, documents mentioned in
this preamble will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this final rule, call
Mr. Robert Spears, Project Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation and
Development, telephone 202-267-1099; or Mr. Allen Penn, Technical
Advisor, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, telephone 202-267-
2997. For questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Walker,
Chief, Documents, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
Background and Purpose
On January 19, 1996, the tugboat SCANDIA, towing the oil barge
NORTH CAPE, caught fire five miles off the coast of Rhode Island. The
crew could not control the fire, and without power they were unable to
prevent the barge, carrying 4 million gallons of oil, from grounding
and spilling about a quarter of its contents into the coastal waters.
The NORTH CAPE spill led Congress to add, in section 901 of the 1996
Coast Guard Authorization Act (Pub. L. 104-324), a new statute, 46
U.S.C. 3719. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue rules
necessary to reduce oil spills from single-hull non-self-propelled tank
vessels. On October 6, 1997, we published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on safety of towing vessels and tank barges (62 FR
52057). With the interim rule we published on December 30, 1998 (63 FR
71754), we adjusted safety measures proposed in the NPRM. With this
final rule, instead of requiring just one emergency control measure, we
are requiring an anchoring system (on single-hull tank barges) plus one
other (backup) measure.
Statutory Mandate
46 U.S.C. 3719 directs us to issue rules requiring a single-hull,
non-self-propelled tank vessel (or the vessel towing it), operating in
the open ocean or coastal waters, to have at least one of the three
safety measures listed in the law. Under reasonably foreseeable sea
conditions, without assistance, either the tank barge or the vessel
towing it must have--
(1) A crewmember and an operable anchor on board the tank barge
that together can stop the barge from drifting; and either
(2) An emergency system that will allow the retrieval of the barge
by the towing vessel if the towline parts; or
(3) Another measure or combination of measures that the Coast Guard
determines will provide protection against grounding of the tank vessel
equivalent to that provided by the measure described in paragraph (1)
or (2).
Another statute to reduce oil spills from single-hull tank barges,
46 U.S.C. 4102(f)(2), directs the Coast Guard to require the use of
fire suppression systems and other measures for towing vessels. On
October 19, 1999, we published an interim rule, Fire Protection
Measures for Towing Vessels (USCG 1998-4445) that implements some of
the fire protection measures we had proposed in the NPRM of October 6,
1997. A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking will propose further
measures in response to comments we received. Both statutes mandating
new rules direct the Coast Guard to consult with the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee (TSAC) in developing them. As we noted in the NPRM,
we considered the recommendations of the TSAC and incorporated them as
we deemed appropriate.
Regulatory Approach
In response to these statutory mandates, the Coast Guard proposed
rules for fire protection and fire-fighting on towing vessels operating
anywhere in U.S. waters, and rules for arresting and retrieving tank
barges. This final rule applies to single-hull tank barges, as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 3719. Rules in 33 CFR 155.230 before this
rulemaking required emergency towing capability for both single-hull
and double-hull barges operating outside the boundary line. So double-
hull tank barges already satisfy 33 CFR 155.230 as amended by this
rule. The rules for barge control require any single-hull tank barge or
the vessel towing it on certain waters to have two of three emergency
control systems, where one serves for anchoring the barge while one of
the other two serves for arresting or retrieving it.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of 23 documents containing 38
comments to the public docket of the interim rule on emergency control
measures for tank barges. Of these comments, 11 concerned anchoring
systems, 5 concerned the rule as applied, or not applied, to barges
being pushed or towed alongside on limited routes, 12 concerned
specific sections of 33 CFR Part 155, and the rest concerned general
features of the proposed rule. We held a public meeting on May 12,
1999, at the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. This
final rule addresses the comments from the meeting and all other
comments noted above. The following paragraphs contain summaries of the
comments and explanations of any changes made by this rule to the
interim rule.
Anchoring Systems
Eleven comments received from companies, organizations, or
individuals on the West Coast opposed the use of anchoring systems
there. They offered many reasons to support some alternative means of
maintaining control of barges along the West Coast; many cited the
unsuitability of anchors as a means to control barges due to the lack
of anchorage areas. The comments also cited the high costs to retrofit
their barges, arguing that water depths on the West Coast drop off into
significantly deeper water closer to shore than along the East Coast.
Some comments reported that the heavy surge gear and bridle legs used
in towing on the West Coast act as anchors in shallow water when they
lie on the bottom; it is not uncommon for operators to use this
equipment to ``anchor'' barges in sheltered areas until storms or
dangerous seas subside. The Coast Guard acknowledges these comments and
has changed the interim rule to give those operating barges on the West
Coast the option of using the heavy surge gear and bridle legs in place
of the anchoring systems otherwise required by this final rule. We do
not extend this option to barges operating on the East Coast and the
Gulf Coast, since the anchoring system required by the final rule is
both feasible and effective in the shallower waters of those Coasts.
Further, the heavy surge gear and bridle legs have not been shown to be
an effective means of anchoring barges in those waters.
[[Page 31808]]
Application to Barges Pushed or Towed Alongside on Limited Routes
Five comments opposed applying this rule to barges not towed astern
or barges towed on limited routes. The Coast Guard agrees with these
comments and has changed the rule to exempt these specific kinds of
towing.
Comments Relating to Specific Sections of the CFR
1. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(i)(C). One comment suggests letting the
operator of the system consult either the master or mate regarding
appropriate length of line, cable, or chain. The Coast Guard agrees
with the comment and has changed this section of the rule by adding the
mate as an alternative to the operator of the system.
2. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(i)(D). Three comments opposed requiring the
operator of the system to wear a safety belt or harness secured by
lanyard to a lifeline, a drop line, or a fixed structure. The Coast
Guard partially agrees with these comments and has changed this section
of the rule to recommend that the operator of the system wear a safety
belt or harness only during rough seas or foul weather.
3. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1)(iii). One comment opposed requiring
training all crewmembers on manned barges in the operation of the
anchoring system. The Coast Guard disagrees. To avoid having to place a
person on a barge for a genuinely emergent anchoring or retrieval, it
is essential that every crewmember already on the barge know how to
operate the anchoring system. Another comment suggests that the Coast
Guard require exam questions or training to improve safety of
anchoring. The Coast Guard partially agrees, yet has not changed the
rule, since this section already requires crew training in anchoring.
4. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(2)(iv). Seven comments opposed requiring
drills that involve actually retrieving a drifting barge. They state
that requiring such drills will place one or more crewmembers in danger
and impose high costs of re-rigging the system. A related comment
suggested a one-time training ``exercise'' for each master, and
quarterly ``tabletop'' retrieval drills and gear inspection. The Coast
Guard agrees with these comments and has changed the rule to require an
annual barge-retrieval drill, and a drill not more than one month after
the employment of the master or mate responsible for supervising
retrieval. This requirement allows for methods other than actually
retrieving a drifting barge to demonstrate each participant's ability
to perform his or her part in regaining control of a barge.
General Comments
1. One comment opposed the applicability of this rule to the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and parts of Puget Sound. It states that the open-ocean
type swells that can cause towline failures are not common in the
Strait, and that there are ample sheltered areas for vessels to wait
for changes in unfavorable winds or tides. The Coast Guard does not
agree with this comment; towline failures may occur in these waters,
and this rule's measures may reduce the likelihood of tank barges
grounding and spilling cargo there. We have not changed the
applicability of this rule.
2. Two comments support the use of escort tugs in certain areas,
such as ``sensitive'' waters. This issue is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
3. Three comments opposed remote-control anchoring systems. This is
outside the scope of this rule because it does not require such
anchoring systems. However, one could propose the use of such a system,
and seek Coast Guard approval for it.
4. Two comments suggest grandfathering existing anchoring systems
on tank barges. This would allow existing systems to meet less
stringent standards (ones other than those from the American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS)). The Coast Guard partially agrees, and has changed the
wording to require ``general conformity'' rather than ``substantial
agreement'' with ABS (or another recognized class society's) standards.
If a Coast Guard representative inspects your anchoring system you
should indicate which standards you are using as guidance. The Coast
Guard may decide to establish whether or not your anchoring system is
in general conformity with that standard or another acceptable
standard. We will inform you of any corrective action needed. We will
review this practice after getting some experience with it and will
modify it as necessary.
5. One comment requested the use of synthetic line, instead of
chain or wire, as approved equipment for the anchoring system. The
wording in this final rule calls for anchor systems to generally
conform with standards from ABS (or another recognized class society).
It does not prohibit the use of new system components that are found
(by ABS or another recognized class society) to be comparable to
accepted or approved equipment in widespread use. However, wire cable
may substitute for chain under current applicable rules of ABS; there
is no mention in those rules of line (natural or synthetic) as a
suitable substitute for anchor chain. Since it is not addressed in ABS
rules, synthetic line is not yet acceptable.
Regulatory Evaluation
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Order. However, it is significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) [44 FR 11040 (February 26, 1979)]; because of public interest
generated by the NPRM, it has been reviewed by the Office of the
Secretary.
A Regulatory Assessment under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the
Assessment follows; unless otherwise indicated, the Assessment
expresses costs and benefits in end-of-1998 values:
Summary of Benefits
Measures published in this rule should yield a net cost of $307 per
barrel of oil not spilled. This preventive cost compares favorably, for
example, with costs of property damage and actual restoration and
cleanup (excluding intangibles and transfer costs such as fines,
judgments resulting from litigation, and insurance benefits paid)
incurred thus far as a result of the 20,000-barrel spill from the barge
NORTH CAPE in January of 1996. The costs of that spill thus far total
about $50.2 million, which averages about $2,550 per barrel spilled.
This per-barrel cost for only one spill is nearly seven times the per-
barrel costs of this rule to avert similar events industry-wide.
Table 1 illustrates the calculation of net cost-effectiveness from
total quantifiable costs and benefits resulting from implementation of
this rule. It normalizes the benefits into cost-effectiveness ratios to
reflect the cost per unit of oil not spilled. Here's how: The total
estimated dollar cost of this rule appears on Line (1); the total
property damage averted, an avoided cost expressed in dollars, appears
on Line (2) and is subtracted from total dollar costs to yield a net
cost, which appears on Line (3); pollution averted, the principal
benefit, which is expressed in barrels of oil not spilled, appears on
Line (4); and the net cost from Line (3), divided by the pollution-
averted benefit from Line (4) to yield an expression of cost-
[[Page 31809]]
effectiveness shown in units of net discounted dollars per discounted
barrels of oil not spilled, appears on the bottom line. This procedure
permits us to treat benefits from avoidance of pollution and property
damage together in terms of net cost-effectiveness.
Table 1.--Control Measures for Tank Barges (Barge Anchoring and
Retrieval): Cost Effectiveness Expressed in Dollars Per Barrel of Oil
not Spilled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of benefits & costs Quantity Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Cost of this rule....... 8,803,031 Dollars (PV).
(2) Property damage-averted 5,667,792 Dollars (PV).
1.
(3) (1) minus (2) Net cost.. 3,135,239 Dollars (PV).
(4) Pollution averted 2.... 10,205 Barrels of oil unspilled
(PV).
(3)(4) Net cost 307 Dollars per barrel
effectiveness. unspilled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: benefits, shown on lines (2) and (4), are italicized. Net cost
effectiveness is shown in bold.
1 Damage to vessels and equipment.
2 Oil not spilled overboard into bodies of water.
The principal benefit of this rule is protection against oil
spillage and property damage that may result when a tow line to a tank
barge parts or the towing vessel otherwise loses control over the tank
barge, permitting it to run aground. Quantifiable benefits accrue from
averted pollution measured in barrels of oil not spilled and in averted
damage to property such as vessels and machinery, measured in dollars.
The latter is an avoided cost. During 1999-2014 inclusive, this rule
will avert 10,205 barrels of oil spillage and $5.7 million of property
damage.
To construct the benefits analysis, the Coast Guard used data from
its Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) and underlying reports to
provide a reasonable approximation for modeling marine casualties and
pollution incidents. The model postulates that, if requirements in this
rule were not enacted, the normalized frequency and severity of
pollution and damage due to towline ruptures would continue at about
the same magnitude as during a representative five-year base period,
which the Coast Guard identified as 1992-1996. This period captures the
maritime environment after the Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90); the Coast
Guard considers the period long enough to capture a representative
history, while short enough to be reasonably current. Reports for 1992-
96 are largely complete. (We considered using 1992-1997, but rejected
it because report histories for 1997 remain open and we consider them
too preliminary to present a fair sample.)
The analysis recognized that a range of variables extant in the
marine interface of people, vessels, machines, and the sea may result
in the occurrence of some of the casualties targeted by this rule after
it is in force. Accordingly, the Coast Guard assembled an analytical
team comprised of marine inspectors, program analysts, and economists,
who reviewed data and individual case files and who obtained
consultations from a range of subject-matter experts. This team
proceeded through a multi-step risk assessment that considered the
combined and interactive effects of this rule and several related rules
that are in effect or mandated by law for completion in the near
future. The analysis yielded a probability of 32 percent that installed
and working powered anchoring-systems and emergency-retrieval devices
on the affected tank barges, both single-hull and double-hull vessels,
would have prevented or mitigated pollution and property damage
resulting from that particular casualty.
The benefits analysis uses the phase-out of tank-barge capacity due
under OPA 90 as a proxy for the reduction of exposure and spill
potential, an innovation that helped to guard against the overstatement
of benefits, since, during 1998-2014 and before the final phase-out of
all single-hull tank barges, single-hull tank barge capacity, which
represents the segment of industry primarily affected by this rule,
will likely decrease at a much sharper rate than will the actual count
of available in-service single-hull tank barges. This is because the
phase-out favors longevity for the smallest single-hull tank barges.
We used the phase-out schedule and probabilities of effectiveness
to weigh capacity, and used this in turn to calculate the benefits and
avoided costs. In addition, we reflated the avoided costs--averted
dollar damages to property such as vessels and machinery--from base-
period calculations to end-of-1998 values, by relying on an adjustment
factor based on a Consumer Price Index.
The Coast Guard considered several non-quantifiable benefits. No
injuries, deaths, or missing persons turned up in casualty reports for
the base period. However, the types of casualties addressed in this
rule, particularly ones that occur in inclement weather, are inherently
dangerous; a future casualty of the kind that this rule will mitigate
could otherwise result in some deaths and injuries. Further, while the
pool of oil-pollution benefit analyzed in the assessment of this rule
totaled slightly less than 39,000 barrels of oil during the base
period, the upper bound of oil at risk in those casualties--the total
cargo of oil aboard affected tank barges when accidents occurred--
exceeded 180,000 barrels. Future casualties of the kind that this rule
will mitigate could otherwise result in far more serious spills than
this regulatory assessment indicates.
Summary of Costs
Firms running tank barges, along with a few State and local
governments, will incur costs primarily to purchase, install, and
maintain powered anchoring systems and owners' and operators' choices
among retrieval systems on certain tank barges, and in some instances,
on towing vessels. The Coast Guard will incur modest incremental
inspection costs. Costs of this rule will total $8.8 million. We
subtracted avoided costs from total costs to yield a $3.1 million net
cost.
Where we adjusted benefit calculations to reflect phase-out of
tank-barge capacity due under OPA 90 to approximate both declining
exposure and declining potential for volume of spills, we also adjusted
cost calculations to accommodate the phase-out of hulls instead of
volume. We did this because we quantify the purchase, installation, and
maintenance of equipment required by this rule hull by hull.
Purchase and installation costs accrue to owners and operators of
tank barges
[[Page 31810]]
and their towboats between 90 days and two years after the publication
of the interim rule [63 FR 71754 (December 30, 1998)]. They should
total between $7.93 million and $7.98 million. Fleet-wide, costs for
purchase and installation of powered anchoring systems will total $7.82
million, 98 percent of the total; and, fleet-wide, costs for retrieval
systems will range between $112,000 and $157,000, depending on how
individual owners and operators weigh the lower initial investment
required for powered anchoring systems against the lower maintenance
costs for retrieval systems using hooks. A sensitivity analysis
contained in the regulatory assessment showed that a typical decision,
if made on an economic basis, will depend on the particular deal that
the owner or operator can drive and the remaining life of the barge.
Beyond all those, qualitative decision factors include not only
availability of up-front capital but personal or corporate preferences.
Recurring costs to industry comprise maintenance, repair, and, in
some cases, replacement of components. The present value of these costs
total about $751,000 for powered anchoring systems, and range between
$49,000 for retrieval systems using hooks and $117,000 powered
anchoring systems. Recurring incremental costs borne by the Coast Guard
for inspections and law enforcement should total about $4,500 at
present value.
Double-hull tank barges are already in compliance with this rule as
a result of their satisfying 33 CFR 155.230 before this rulemaking.
This rule should affect up to 180 single-hull tank barges operating on
open oceans or in coastal waters. We believe that many of these barges
are already in compliance. The costs that we report account for our
estimates that, of the 180 barges, 97 will need to install powered
anchoring systems and 24 barges or towing vessels will need to install
retrieval systems. The Coast Guard does not expect economic abandonment
of any barges on account of this rule. The per-barge costs are
relatively low, and the first phase-out among the affected tank barges
does not occur until January 1, 2004. The two-year phase-in for the
more costly powered anchoring systems obviates the need for an extra,
out-of-cycle dry-dock period for the installation. Most tank barges
incurring new costs as a result of this rule are eligible to remain in
service until 2015.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) [2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538] and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership [58
FR 58093, (October 28, 1993)], govern the issuance of Federal rules
that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a requirement
that a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector incur
direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the
funds to pay those costs. If any Federal mandate causes those entities
to spend, in the aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year, an
analysis under the UMRA is necessary.
While several State and local governments operate some tank barges,
entities in the private sector own and operate most of the affected
barges. This final rule will not directly affect tribal governments.
The total burden of Federal mandates imposed by this rule is about $8.8
million and will not result in annual expenditures of $100 million or
more. Therefore, this rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the
Coast Guard considers the economic impact on small entities of each
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
An analysis of impacts on small entities for this final rule
appears in the regulatory assessment; it is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Double-hull tank barges are already in compliance with this rule's
requirements for equipment by virtue of their compliance with 33 CFR
155.230 before the interim rule on emergency control measures became
effective. That section required an emergency towline, the most common
form of barge-retrieval system, on any oil barge operating offshore.
The requirements of this rule for anchoring systems apply only to
single-hull barges. Further, most towing vessels are now in voluntary
compliance with requirements, or their owners may choose an option that
shifts requirements to a few barges that are not now in voluntary
compliance. As a result, most towing vessels should not incur
compliance costs.
The impact of this rule will fall primarily on single-hull tank
barges and, perhaps, several towing vessels. The rule will require: (1)
Owners and operators of single-hull tank barges that do not already
have emergency anchoring systems to purchase and install them; (2)
owners and operators of vessels towing tank barges, regardless of size,
to purchase and carry emergency retrieval systems if they do not
already have them; and (3) masters of towing vessels to learn, and
train crews, to deploy anchors and operate retrieval systems. Owners
and operators of tank barges and towing vessels are responsible for
both inspecting their systems and maintaining them in good working
order. The purpose is to decrease the probability of barge breakaways
and of the oil spillage, pollution, and property damage that could
result.
The Coast Guard established a two-year phase-in period for the
requirements of anchoring systems. Although the Coast Guard received no
comments concerning small entities, we recognize that some of the
single-hull tank barges are likely owned and operated by small firms
not dominant in the industry. Barges affected by this rule must undergo
two drydock inspections in five years, no more than three years apart.
The two-year phase-in permits barges to undergo the installation of a
powered anchoring system during normal yard availability. So they may
both avoid incurring the extra cost of a third drydocking during a
five-year period and avoid incurring the opportunity costs of lost
revenue during a third drydocking. The long phase-in will thus permit
most small entities to explore the market, plan, and schedule
[[Page 31811]]
installations during normal yard availability. It reduces the pressure
for small entities to compete with major operators for this
availability.
Small owners and operators of single-hull tank barges do incur
costs from the phase-out mandated by OPA 90. However, we believe that
smaller barges affected by this rule are the very ones likeliest to be
owned by small owners and operators, many of whom will have the
opportunity to amortize purchase and installation costs associated with
this rule through the end of the year 2014. The 146 relatively small
barges among the 180 barges directly affected by this rule may remain
in service until January 1, 2015, the end of the phase-out period: the
last vessels to be phased out under OPA 90.
The equipment required by this rule is in common use in the
industry and does not represent novel or untried technology. Some small
entities, no doubt, are among the majority of owners and operators who
already meet some or all of the requirements. Others will incur a
financial burden under this rule, those who must purchase and install
equipment. But the costs are fairly low in comparison with the
replacement cost of a tank barge, very low in comparison with the
replacement cost of a towing vessel, and extremely low in comparison
with the damage that could be caused by, and the liability that could
result from, an accident and resultant spill.
The crafting of this rule so that many affected vessels are already
in compliance, and the two-year phase-in period for installation of
retrievable anchoring systems, together provide important
accommodations to, and significant flexibility for, small entities and
others affected by this rule.
Accordingly, we certify under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this
rule affects your small business or organization and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Mr.
Robert Spears, telephone 202-267-1099.
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments
from small businesses about enforcement by Federal agencies. The
Ombudsman will annually evaluate this enforcement and rate each
agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on
enforcement by the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This final rule does not provide for a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.].
Impact on Federalism
This final rule revises the regulations at 33 CFR 155.230
addressing equipment, equipment operation, maintenance, manning, and
training (personnel qualification) for tank barges and the vessels
towing them. It also revises those regulations at 46 CFR 32.15-15 that
address equipment for tank barges. We have analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order (E.O.) 13132. It is well settled that States are preempted from
establishing any requirements for tank vessels and the vessels that tow
them in the categories of design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and
manning. See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke ______ U.S.
______, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1895 (March 6, 2000). Thus, this entire rule
falls within preempted categories. Because States may not promulgate
regulations within the categories discussed above, preemption is not an
issue under E.O. 13132.
The NPRM and an effective interim rule for this rulemaking were
issued before the E.O. went into effect. However, we are aware that
this is a national rule of great interest to coastal States. As a
result, we provided States and the public ample opportunity to consult
and comment during the comment periods and public meetings first for
the NPRM and also following the publication of the interim rule that
was in place before promulgation of this final rule. We have considered
their comments on this rulemaking--whether received through
consultation, letters to the docket, or public meetings--and believe
that we have accommodated their concerns.
Barges Carrying Non-Petroleum Oil
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act [Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat.
546-547 (1995)] requires federal agencies to differentiate between
classes of oils and consider different treatment of these classes, if
appropriate. The Coast Guard has determined that bulk spills of animal
fat, vegetable oil, and other non-petroleum oil can be damaging to the
environment; therefore, tank barges carrying these products must comply
with this final rule.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final
rule and concluded that under Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(c) and (d) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. A Determination of
Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 155
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 32
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 155 and 46 CFR part 32, as follows:
33 CFR PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for part 155 and the note following it
continue to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3715, 3719;
sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46, 1.46(iii).
Sections 155.110-155.130, 155.350-155.400, 155.430, 155.440,
155.470, 155.1030 (j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33
U.S.C. 1903(b); and Secs. 155.1110-155.1150 also issued under 33
U.S.C. 2735.
Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials appear in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 150, 151,
and 153.
2. Revise Sec. 155.230 to read as follows:
Sec. 155.230 Emergency control systems for tank barges.
(a) Application. This section does not apply to foreign vessels
engaged in innocent passage (that is, neither entering nor leaving a
U.S. port); it applies to tank barges and vessels towing them on the
following waters:
[[Page 31812]]
(1) On the territorial sea of the U.S. [as defined in Presidential
Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, it is the belt of waters 12
nautical miles wide with its shoreward boundary the baseline of the
territorial sea], unless--
(i) The barge is being pushed ahead of, or towed alongside, the
towing vessel; and
(ii) The barge's coastwise route is restricted, on its certificate
of inspection (COI), so the barge may operate ``in fair weather only,
within 20 miles of shore,'' or with words to that effect. The Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection, may define ``fair weather'' on the COI.
(2) In Great Lakes service unless--
(i) The barge is being pushed ahead of, or towed alongside, the
towing vessel; and
(ii) The barge's route is restricted, on its certificate of
inspection (COI), so the barge may operate ``in fair weather only,
within 5 miles of a harbor,'' or with words to that effect. The Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection, may define ``fair weather'' on the COI.
(3) On Long Island Sound. For the purposes of this section, Long
Island Sound comprises the waters between the baseline of the
territorial sea on the eastern end (from Watch Hill Point, Rhode
Island, to Montauk Point, Long Island) and a line drawn north and south
from Premium Point, New York (about 40 deg.54.5'N, 73 deg.45.5'W), to
Hewlett Point, Long Island (about 40 deg.50.5'N, 73 deg.45.3'W), on the
western end.
(4) In the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
(5) On the waters of Admiralty Inlet north of Marrowstone Point
(approximately 48 deg.06'N, 122 deg.41'W).
(b) Safety program. If you are the owner or operator of a single-
hull tank barge or of a vessel towing it, you must adequately man and
equip either the barge or the vessel towing it so the crew can arrest
the barge by employing Measure 1, described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. Moreover, the crew must be able to arrest or retrieve the
barge by employing either Measure 2 or Measure 3, described in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, respectively. If you are the
owner or operator of a double-hull tank barge, you must adequately
equip it and train its crew or, if it is unmanned, train the crew of
the vessel towing it, so the crew can retrieve the barge by employing
Measure 2 described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Measure 1. Each single-hull tank barge, whether manned or
unmanned, must be equipped with an operable anchoring system that
conforms to 46 CFR 32.15-15; except that, for barges operating only on
the West Coast of the U.S., a system comprising heavy surge gear and
bridle legs may serve instead of the anchoring system. Because these
systems will also serve as emergency control systems, the owner or
operator must ensure that they meet the following criteria:
(i) Operation and performance. When the barge is underway--
(A) The system is ready for immediate use;
(B) No more than two crewmembers are needed to operate the system
and anchor the barge or arrest its movement;
(C) While preparing to anchor the barge or arrest its movement, the
operator of the system should confer with the master or mate of the
towing vessel regarding appropriate length of cable or chain to use;
and
(D) Each operator of the system should wear a safety belt or
harness secured by a lanyard to a lifeline, drop line, or fixed
structure such as a welded padeye, if the sea or the weather warrants
this precaution. Each safety belt, harness, lanyard, lifeline, and drop
line must meet the specifications of ANSI A10.14.
(ii) Maintenance and inspections. The owner or operator of the
system shall inspect it annually. The inspection must verify that the
system is ready for immediate use, and must include a visual inspection
of the equipment that comprises the system in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection must also verify that
the system is being maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. The inspection need not include actual demonstration
of the operation of the equipment or system.
(iii) Training. On each manned barge, every crewmember must be
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the system. On each vessel
towing an unmanned barge, every deck crewmember must be thoroughly
familiar with the operation of the system installed on the barge. If
during the last 12 months the system was not used to anchor or arrest
the movement of the barge, then a drill on the use of the system must
be conducted within the next month. The drill need not involve actual
deployment of the system. However, it must allow every participant to
demonstrate the competencies (that is, the knowledge, skills, and
abilities) needed to ensure that everyone assigned a duty in anchoring
or arresting the movement of the barge is ready to do his or her duty.
(2) Measure 2. If you are the owner or operator of a tank barge or
a vessel towing it and this section applies to you by virtue of
paragraph (a) of this section, you must have installed an emergency
retrieval system or some other measure acceptable to the Coast Guard,
as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Any such system must
meet the following criteria:
(i) Design. The system must use an emergency towline with at least
the same pulling strength as required of the primary towline. The
emergency towline must be readily available on either the barge or the
vessel towing it. The towing vessel must have on board equipment to
regain control of the barge and continue towing (using the emergency
towline), without having to place personnel on board the barge.
(ii) Operation and performance. The system must use a stowage
arrangement that ensures the readiness of the emergency towline and the
availability of all retrieval equipment for immediate use in an
emergency whenever the barge is being towed astern.
(iii) Maintenance and inspection. The owner or operator of the
system shall inspect it annually. The inspection must verify that the
emergency retrieval system is ready for immediate use, and must include
a visual inspection of the equipment that comprises the system in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection must
also verify that the system is being maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations. The inspection need not include actual
demonstration of the operation of the equipment or system. Details
concerning maintenance of towlines appear in 33 CFR 164.74(a)(3) and
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 5-92. Our NVICs
are available online at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/index.htm.
(iv) Training. Barge-retrieval drills must take place annually, and
not more than one month after a master or mate responsible for
supervising barge retrieval begins employment on a vessel that tows
tank barges.
(A) Each drill must allow every participant to demonstrate the
competencies (that is, the knowledge, skills, and abilities) needed to
ensure that everyone assigned a duty in barge retrieval is ready to do
his or her part to regain control of a drifting barge.
(B) If the drill includes actual operation of a retrieval system,
it must be conducted under the supervision of the master or mate
responsible for retrieval, and preferably in open waters free from
navigational hazards so as to minimize risk to personnel and the
environment.
(3) Measure 3. If you are the owner or operator of a tank barge or
a vessel towing it and this section applies to you by virtue of
paragraph (a) of this section,
[[Page 31813]]
you may use an alternative measure or system fit for retrieving a barge
or arresting its movement as a substitute for Measure 2, described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Before you use such a measure or
system, however, it must receive the approval of the Commandant (G-
MSE). It will receive this approval if it provides protection against
grounding of the tank vessel comparable to that provided by one of the
other two measures described in this section.
46 CFR PART 32--SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIRMENTS
3. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 3719; E.O. 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46; Subpart 32.59 also
issued under the authority of Sect. 4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat.
515.
4. In Sec. 32.15-15, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.15-15 Anchors, Chains, and Hawsers-TB/ALL.
* * * * *
(e) Barges Equipped with Anchors to Comply with 33 CFR
155.230(b)(1). Each barge equipped with an anchor, to comply with 33
CFR 155.230(b)(1), must be fitted with an operable anchoring system
that includes a cable or chain, and a winch or windlass. All components
of the system must be in general conformity with the standards issued
by a recognized classification society. A list of recognized
classification societies, including information for ordering copies of
approved standards, is available from Commandant (G-MSE), 2100 Second
Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001; telephone (202) 267-6925 or fax
(202) 267-4816. If the Coast Guard finds that your anchoring system is
not in general conformity with an approved standard, it will advise you
how to bring it into such conformity.
* * * * *
Dated: May 8, 2000.
J.C. Card,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 00-12570 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P