[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25998]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 21, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
33 CFR Part 155 et al.
Overfill Devices; Interim Final Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 155 and 156
[CGD 90-071a]
RIN 2115-AD87
Overfill Devices
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing an interim final rule (IFR) that
establishes minimum standards for overfill devices and requires the
phased-in installation and use of devices on the cargo tanks of certain
tank vessels that carry oil or oil residue as primary cargo.
Regulations addressing minimum standards for and concerning the use of
overfill devices are required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA
90). The purpose of the interim regulations is to reduce the likelihood
of spills when oil is loaded as cargo.
DATES: The interim final rule is effective on January 19, 1995.
Comments must be received by January 19, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 90-071a), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for the
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Jeff Brager, Office of Marine
Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-MVI-1), (202) 267-
1046.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify
the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) and the specific section of this rule to
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.
Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are
Randall Crenwelge, Project Manager, and Pamela Pelcovits, Project
Counsel, OPA 90 Staff.
Regulatory History
Section 4110 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L.
101-380) adds a statutory note following 46 U.S.C. 3703 requiring, in
part, the establishment of minimum standards for overfill warning
devices and requirements concerning the use of overfill devices on
certain tank vessels.
To meet the statutory requirements, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Overfill Devices,'' in
the Federal Register (58 FR 4040; January 12, 1993). The Coast Guard
received 32 letters commenting on the proposal.
In response to some comments, the Coast Guard published a notice
(58 FR 54315; October 21, 1993) and held a public meeting at U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters on November 17, 1993. Twenty-eight people attended
the meeting, and a list of the attendees and audio tapes of the meeting
are available in the public docket for the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) at
the address listed under ADDRESSES. Statements made at the meeting have
been treated like written comments in the preamble.
Background and Purpose
Detailed information on overfill spills and devices is found in the
preamble to the NPRM.
An overfill spill occurs when too much oil is pumped or gravitated
into a cargo tank during a transfer operation (e.g., from a facility to
a tank vessel or from one tank vessel to another). Human error is the
most often reported cause of this type of spill. Many overfill spills
are small; however, some reported overfill spills have involved large
quantities of oil.
Coast Guard regulations require vessel owners and operators to
follow pollution prevention procedures during oil transfer operations
(33 CFR parts 155 and 156). Existing regulations do not require devices
on cargo tanks to detect and warn of impending overfills.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
Location of Regulations
One comment objected to the proposed placement of the regulations
in 33 CFR subchapter O as too cumbersome and confusing due to cross
references, applicability sections, exceptions, and definitions. The
comment recommended a comprehensive reorganization of the regulations
based on statutory authorities. A reorganization of 33 CFR subchapter O
is outside the scope of the rulemaking; however, the interim
regulations amending 33 CFR subchapter O have been drafted to be as
clear and concise as possible.
Applicability
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed requiring overfill devices on
tank vessels with a cargo capacity of more than 40 cubic meters
(M3) (approximately 250 barrels, 1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons). One
comment suggested that the threshold was inappropriate and that
additional ``small vessels'' should be excluded from the regulations.
The comment stated that current oil transfer procedure requirements
found in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 are adequate to prevent overflow
spills from smaller tank vessels because these vessels have simple oil
transfer systems. The comment also stated that the cost of installing
and maintaining overfill devices would be a significant financial
burden to the company submitting the comment.
The Coast Guard reviewed spill data from tank vessels for the years
1989, 1990, and 1991 and found that tank overflow spills occurred
infrequently aboard vessels with cargo carrying capacities of less than
1,000 M3 (approximately 6,290 barrels). Specifically, a total of
279 cargo tank overflow spills were recorded during the 3-year period.
Of those overfill spills, 215 cargo tank overflow incidents occurred
from tank barges. Only four of the 215 overflows were from barges with
a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting in 0.6 M3
(159 gallons) oil spilled. During the same period, 64 similar incidents
occurred aboard tankships. Of these incidents, only two occurred from
tankships with a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting
in 0.4 M3(106 gals) oil spilled.
In response to this comment and its review of available data, the
Coast Guard has raised the applicability threshold in Sec. 155.480(a)
to a cargo capacity of 1,000 M3. The Coast Guard requests comments
concerning this change. The data on which the Coast Guard made its
decision is available in the docket for review.
One comment specified that the phase-in requirements proposed in 33
CFR 155.480(c) did not cover Canadian tank barges because they are not
subject to the requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and
the International Load Line Conventions. The Coast Guard did not intend
for Canadian barges which operate in U.S. waters to be treated
differently from U.S. flag barges under the regulations. The Coast
Guard expects that overfill devices will be installed on such Canadian
tank barges at their next scheduled drydocking or internal tank
examination.
One comment recommended that tank vessels required to be equipped
with double hulls within the next 5 years under the double hull
requirements of OPA 90 should be excluded from the overfill device
requirements. The comment contends that many of these vessels will be
phased out of service in 5 years and that the costs of upgrading
overfill devices on these vessels would not be recovered within 5
years. The Coast Guard agrees and has added Sec. 155.480(e) to reflect
the exemption of vessels that under 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c) can not operate
on the navigable waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States
after the year 2000, unless equipped with a double hull.
One comment requested that the regulations not apply to open-hopper
barges which are limited to carrying non-hazardous oil-field waste
material. Because such cargo operations are not covered by 33 CFR parts
155 and 156, the requirements for overfill devices do not apply to
these barges.
One comment at the public meeting requested that the regulations
not apply to tank vessels which carry only asphalt. Participants at the
public meeting noted that because of the density of asphalt, vessels
carrying this product are usually not fully loaded. Also, the
participants reported no overfill spills from asphalt carriers.
Currently, technology is not available to provide a cost-effective
means of overfill detection for asphalt carriers. Therefore, the Coast
Guard has decided to exempt tank vessels that are dedicated to carrying
asphalt as cargo from the overfill device requirements. This change is
reflected in Sec. 155.480(f). The Coast Guard requests comments
concerning the exemption of tank vessels carrying asphalt from this
interim rulemaking.
One comment asked the Coast Guard to require overfill devices to be
activated during all types of cargo transfers, including internal
transfers from tank to tank and cargo discharges. Although overfill
incidents do occur during internal cargo transfers and discharges,
these incidents are infrequent and do not result in large spills into
the water. Tank vessel owners and operators are encouraged to use
overfill devices for all transfer operations, but the regulations
continue to apply only during loading.
Two comments asked that the regulations not apply to deck tanks
used to store barge generator and pump fuel, or oil slops. The
regulations only require installation of overfill devices on cargo
tanks. Deck tanks used for slops and barge generator and pump fuel are
not covered by the regulations.
Seven comments stated that high viscosity oils prevent overfill
devices from functioning properly. The Coast Guard finds that heavy
oils are just as likely to overflow from cargo tanks as lower viscosity
oils. Vessel owners and operators must choose overfill devices best
suited for the oil they carry and, in accordance with 33 CFR
155.750(e)(2), 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(3), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(b)(3), they
must test their equipment prior to each cargo loading. If a method of
overfill detection is not technologically available for a particular
type of high temperature service oil, such as Number 6 oil, the owner
or operator of a vessel, on a case by case basis, may request an
alternative means of compliance in accordance with 33 CFR 155.120(c) of
this regulation. The Coast Guard requests comments concerning the
application of alternative means of compliance with the interim
regulations for vessels carrying high temperature service oils.
One State agency requested that the Coast Guard require overfill
devices on vessels which carry non-petroleum oils as cargo. A barge
company submitted a comment recommending the continued exclusion of
vessels carrying non-petroleum oil cargoes. In the NPRM, the Coast
Guard explained that it is interested in addressing overfill spills of
MARPOL Annex I oils because these products represent the most
significant risk. They are the most frequently transported cargoes with
the greatest volume transported and spilled. Non-petroleum oils are not
MARPOL Annex I oils. The Coast Guard may extend the regulations to
additional oils in the future, but for now will not impose overfill
device regulations on tank vessels which exclusively carry non-
petroleum oils.
In accordance with 33 CFR 155.1015, this rule does not apply to
foreign tank vessels engaged in innocent passage in the territorial
sea. These vessels do not engage in cargo loading operations in U.S.
waters and, therefore, the Coast Guard is not exercising jurisdiction
over these vessels for this interim rulemaking.
Minimum Standards for Overfill Devices: Tankers
One comment from an industry association recommended that only one
overfill alarm instead of two, as proposed in the NPRM, should be
required in each tank. The comment argued that the standards for vapor
recovery equipment should not be applied automatically to overfill
devices because of the particular nature of vapor recovery. For vapor
recovery systems, the potential for cargo tank overpressure and
rupturing of vapor recovery piping dictated a two-alarm system. The
Coast Guard agrees that one overfill alarm per cargo tank is sufficient
and Sec. 155.480 has been revised to reflect this. This change also
applies to cargo tanks with closed loading systems.
Minimum Standards For Overfill Devices: Barges
Much of the discussion in the NPRM concerning standards for
overfill devices dealt with barges. Twelve comments responded to the
question posed in the NPRM on whether a high level indicating device,
such as a stick gauge, would be an adequate overfill warning device on
a barge. Six comments, all from the barge industry, favored the use of
stick gauges.
At the public meeting, representatives from the barge industry
stated that most barges currently have no overfill devices. In most
cases, the level of liquid in a barge is determined by the use of
sounding tapes, ullage measuring devices, or inspection ports. Several
participants at the meeting expressed the view that adding an overfill
alarm system for each tank would be extremely expensive for barge
owners and operators. Barge owners and operators currently using stick
gauges as well as the vapor recovery systems would incur significant
costs if an additional alarm system were required.
Barge industry representatives contended that the visual signal
provided by high level indicating devices is, in some ways, superior to
the audible signal provided by overfill alarms, which only sound when
an overfill is about to occur. High level indicating devices, when
properly installed and utilized, provide the person-in-charge (PIC) of
the loading operation with a continuous reading of how the later stages
of the loading operation are progressing.
The Coast Guard will allow the owners and operators of tank barges
to select one of three alternatives: (1) an overfill alarm on each tank
which includes circuitry to sufficiently identify which individual
tanks overfill system is alarming, (2) an automatic shutdown system for
the entire barge and transfer facility, or (3) a high level indicating
device installed on each tank, such as a stick gauge.
Two of the comments also recommended that the Coast Guard allow
portable stick gauges, which would be moved from tank to tank, as the
tanks were sequentially topped off. This recommendation assumes that
tanks will always be sequentially topped off, which may not be the
case. Accordingly, the Coast Guard will require that when stick gauges
are used, they must be permanently installed on each tank.
Six comments stated that a stick gauge was inadequate to warn of an
imminent spill when the PIC was off the barge or performing other
duties. These comments favored alarms and automatic shutdown systems.
However, the Coast Guard finds that audible alarms are just as
ineffective as stick gauges if the PIC is not in the immediate vicinity
of the transfer operation.
The Coast Guard encourages the use of systems which automatically
shut down the transfer pumps before an overfill spill occurs; however,
the Coast Guard does not require these systems to be used, for several
reasons. The requirement would be cost-prohibitive for some owners and
operators; it would require additional maintenance; and extra people
would be needed to perform this maintenance. Additionally, industry
standards for the necessary shoreside and barge interface would need to
be developed. Developing these standards would be time-consuming.
Over the next 5 years, the Coast Guard will monitor the
effectiveness of high level indicating devices. If at the end of this
period, the Coast Guard determines that the overfill spill record of
tank barges equipped with these devices is not essentially as good or
better than the overfill spill record of other tank vessels covered by
the regulations, the Coast Guard may remove the provision in the
regulation allowing use of high level indicating devices as substitutes
for overfill alarms.
Two comments recommended requiring only one overfill alarm on a
tank instead of two as required by the NPRM, because only one alarm is
needed to alert the PIC to act to prevent an overfill. The Coast Guard
has decided to allow as an option, the use of one high level indicating
alarm or one alarm with an independent visual or audible device
installed on each tank, which must function as an overfill device for
each tank on a tank barge. Its purpose is to warn the PIC that
immediate action must be taken to prevent a tank overfill and oil spill
during loading operations. Section 155.480 has been revised to reflect
this.
Some comments recommended technical specifications for the overfill
devices. Presently, the Coast Guard does not find a need to develop
technical specifications for overfill devices. Many of the devices that
meet the requirements of the regulations are already in service as high
level indicating devices aboard tank vessels. The Coast Guard finds
that cross referencing its performance criteria to those provided in
the vapor control regulations is the most efficient manner of setting
these regulatory requirements. Vessel owners and operators should
utilize devices which conform to the flag state or classification
society inspection criteria and are most suitable for their vessels'
operating environments.
Training
Four comments stated that trained, professional tankermen are
essential on board tank barges to prevent oil spills, and that the
Coast Guard should establish requirements to improve PIC performance
rather than require new equipment. One comment stated that only
qualified people who have received proper training should be allowed to
use the required overfill warning devices. The Coast Guard strongly
encourages owners, operators, and tankermen's services to provide
complete and adequate training in the proper use of high level
indicating devices, but the setting of training requirements exceeds
the scope of this rulemaking.
Another comment stated that tankermen on unmanned barges may not be
as familiar with the barge as tankermen on manned barges. Tankermen on
a manned barge are often assigned to that barge on a long-term basis.
They become intimately familiar with their barges; whereas, tankermen
on unmanned barges are temporarily assigned to a barge only for a
loading or unloading operation. Regardless of whether a barge is manned
or unmanned, it is the duty of the tankerman to conduct safe and
pollution-free transfer operations.
At this time, the Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR 156.120 do not
require specific training for the PIC to perform an oil transfer
operation; however, each individual is required to meet the
qualifications for a PIC found in 33 CFR 155.710, and each vessel owner
and operator must keep a list with names of each person currently
designated as PIC for transfer operations.
While the Coast Guard agrees that the competency and training of
tankermen is crucial to spill prevention, it finds that additional
specific training requirements are not appropriate for this rulemaking;
however, changes to these requirements have been proposed in a separate
rulemaking (54 FR 42624; October 17, 1989).
Inspection
One comment recommended that all equipment should be subject to an
annual inspection. Overfill devices will be subject to examination
during the annual tank vessel examination for foreign flag vessels or
the inspection for certification and reinspections of U.S. flag vessels
and Canadian tank barges. In addition, 33 CFR 156.120 requires the PIC
of an oil transfer operation to test each overfill device for proper
operation prior to each transfer of cargo.
Phase-In
Two comments from tank barge operators expressed support for the
timetable for phasing in the installation of each overfill device at
regularly scheduled cargo tank internal examinations.
One comment recommended a 2-year time limit for installations on
barges. The Coast Guard considered accelerating the phase-in period but
decided that the costs associated with gas-freeing a vessel and taking
the vessel out of service would be prohibitive.
Another comment asked if a grace period for overfill device
inspection would be granted for vessels undergoing a cargo tank
internal examination immediately after the effective date of the
regulations. The effective date of the regulations is 90 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard expects that
vessel repairs or cargo tank internal examinations can be completed
within 90 days. Therefore, vessels which are being repaired or examined
would not be subject to these regulations until, as in the case of a
U.S. flag vessel, the vessel's next cargo tank internal examination.
Tank Level and Pressure Monitoring Devices
One comment suggested that this rulemaking be combined with
standards for equipment detecting leaks in cargo tanks also required
under section 4110 of OPA 90 (CGD 90-071). The Coast Guard disagrees.
Overfill devices are used to detect overfills while transferring,
discharging, or loading cargo. They have a completely different
function when compared with tank level or pressure monitoring devices
which serve to detect leaks in cargo tanks.
Maximum Cargo Level of Oil
Two vessel operators objected to limiting the amount of cargo in a
cargo tank to 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume. The Coast Guard
has not changed the requirement in the interim regulations. Both the
vapor control system regulations (46 CFR 39.30- 1(e)) and these
regulations reflect the Coast Guard's position that filling a tank more
than 98.5 percent poses too high of a risk that there will be a tank
overflow. Therefore, the rule continues to establish a 98.5 percent
level as the maximum level of fill. This rule has been revised to be
consistent with the rules for vapor control systems, to specify that a
tank may not be filled higher than either 98.5 percent or the level at
which the overfill alarms are set, for those cases where shutdown must
be initiated at a level below 98.5 percent to ensure that an overfill
does not occur.
Assessment
This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under that order. It is significant under the ``Department
of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures'' (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). Although it does not require an assessment of costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866, an
assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES.'' The
Assessment is summarized as follows.
The Coast Guard assumes that tankship and tank barge owners and
operators will purchase one high quality, float-type overfill device
for each cargo tank. The Coast Guard also assumes that 25 percent of
all vessels covered by this rulemaking already have some acceptable
form of overfill device installed. Costs for the purchase and
installation of the single alarm system required on the remaining
tankships are estimated at $3,125 per tank, or $43,750 for a tankship
with 14 cargo tanks. Costs for the purchase and installation of the
high level indicating system required on the remaining tank barges are
estimated at $1,650 per tank, or $13,200 for a tank barge with eight
cargo tanks.
The total cost of overfill devices to the industry is calculated
first by estimating cost by vessel type and use for an average size
vessel, and then by aggregating the costs for all vessels engaged in
the trade. The analysis includes self-propelled and non-self-propelled
tank vessels. Total costs, including present value costs, are estimated
separately by vessel type, use, flag, and route.
Assuming a 5-year life for alarm devices and a 15-year life for
high level indicating devices, the present value cost of compliance
through 2015 to tank vessel owners and operators is projected to range
between $103.1 million and $113 million, distributed as follows: (1) to
U.S. tank barges and tankships (commercial or privately owned), $51.8
million; (2) to foreign flag tankships, $49.2 to $59.1 million; and (3)
to U.S. Government tankships, $2.1 million. The present value of the
cost of compliance to the U.S. is $53.9 million through the scope of
this analysis (2015). The regulation will affect approximately 1,615
inland and coastal barges, 147 U.S. flag (commercial or privately
owned) tankships, 375-450 foreign flag tankships, and 23 U.S. Navy and
U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) vessels. Enforcement costs to the
Federal Government are estimated at $785,000 per year.
The analysis indicates that if the entire cost of the
implementation of the regulation were passed on to consumers, the
retail price of domestically consumed petroleum products would increase
approximately .019 dollars per ton or .000007 dollars per gallon; and
the retail price of U.S. petroleum products in export markets would
rise by approximately .112 dollars per ton or .0004 dollars per gallon.
Export markets will be impacted more heavily because 48 million tons of
oil are exported every year versus 850 million tons of oil transported
per year in domestic markets.
According to Coast Guard records, approximately 73,000 gallons of
oil and petroleum products were spilled in U.S. waters from cargo tank
overflows in 1989. The Coast Guard hopes that this regulation will
prevent 100 percent of these oil spills or save approximately 73,000
gallons of oil from spilling per year. Nevertheless, it is expected
that some failures will occur. For comparison, four models are
presented: one in which it is assumed high level indicating devices are
60 percent effective and alarms are 80 percent effective (60%-80%); and
one on which stick gauges are 80 percent effective and alarms are 100
percent effective (80%-100%). Each of these models is presented in two
cases, Case I and II. Case I assumes that there are 500 applicable
foreign vessels, Case II assumes 600.
The present value of the quantified direct benefits from the
installation of overfill warning devices on tankships and tank barges
is 634,021 gallons of oil not spilled, assuming a 60%-80% model,
calculated through 2015 and at a 7 percent discount rate. Assuming an
80%-100% model, benefits increase to 836,489 gallons of oil not
spilled.
The RA estimates four cost-benefit ratios for this rulemaking,
depending on case (Case I or II) and effectiveness (60%-80% or 80%-
100%). The ratios are defined in terms of ``net present value,'' which
is the ``present value'' of costs ($117.1 to $127 million) per
``present value'' of benefits (634,021 to 836,489 gallons of oil not
spilled). The cost to benefit ratio for tankships and tank barges is
between $140 and $200 per gallon of oil not spilled for this
rulemaking. In other words, the rulemaking results in a cost of $140 to
$200 to prevent the spillage of 1 gallon of oil.
One comment stated that the benefits of other rules need to be
reassessed according to the benefits claimed from this rule. In
particular, the comment stated that because this rule will reduce the
number of oil spills, the benefits claimed for the rulemaking entitled,
``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil'', (58 FR
67988), would be less. The comment indicated that the
interrelationships of the OPA 90 rulemakings should be assessed as each
rule is proposed. The Coast Guard is preparing a programmatic
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) which will consider the
interrelationship of all OPA 90 rulemakings, however it is considered
to be impractical to re-examine this RIA in its entirety for each
rulemaking. Where there are obvious and significant interrelationships,
the Coast Guard has taken these factors into account.
Small Entities
Based on the comments received and to lessen the burden on small
entities, the Coast Guard has revised the regulations to apply only to
tank vessels with a cargo carrying capacity of more than 1,000 M3.
This covers 21 tankships and 391 tank barges which are owned and
operated by small companies. They would have been included in the
rulemaking as it was originally proposed.
In addition, the Coast Guard has permitted the alternative of high
level indicating devices for tank barges. This is a less expensive
option and will be much less costly for the smaller entities contained
within the tank barge industry. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The
Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The
section numbers are Secs. 155.750 (Contents of transfer procedures) and
156.150 (Declaration of inspection), and the corresponding OMB approval
numbers are 2115-0120 and 2115-0506. Section 156.120 is being amended
to reflect this new collection of information requirements.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that the
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. One comment requested that
State and municipalities be allowed to adopt stricter requirements than
these Federal regulations. Because tank vessels move between U.S. ports
in the national marketplace and between U.S. and foreign ports in the
international marketplace, standards for overfill devices should be of
national scope to avoid unreasonably burdensome variations.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not necessary. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No
Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The EA discusses the action,
subsequent expected environmental impacts, and overall need for the
action. These regulations are not expected to result in a significant
impact on the quality of the human environment because overfills tend
to result in relatively small spills. Therefore, the Coast Guard has
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact which was placed in the
docket for the rulemaking.
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.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR parts 155 and 156 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 the citation are revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1), 46 U.S.C. 3715; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; 49 CFR 1.46. Sections
155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440,
155.470, and 155.1010 through 155.1070 also issued under 33 U.S.C.
1903(b). Sections 155.480, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are issued under
46 U.S.C. 2103 and section 4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515 (46
U.S.C. 3703 note).
Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36,
150, 151, and 153.
2. Section 155.110 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 155.110 Definitions.
Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in part
151 of this chapter, except for the word ``oil'', and in part 154 of
this chapter, apply to this part.
3. In Sec. 155.120, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 155.120 Equivalents.
* * * * *
(c) For tank vessels required to have overfill devices installed
under parts 155 and 156 of this chapter, the Commandant may, upon
receipt of a written request, allow any fitting, material, appliance,
or apparatus to be fitted in a tank vessel as an alternative to the
required overfill device(s) that are specified in these parts if the
proposed alternative device is at least as effective as that required
in the regulations.
4. Section 155.480 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 155.480 Overfill devices.
(a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same
definition as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.
(b) Each tank vessel with a cargo capacity of 1,000 or more cubic
meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), loading oil or oil residue as
cargo in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), must have one overfill device that is
permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of
this section. Each newly constructed tank vessel with a cargo capacity
of 1,000 or more cubic meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), which is
intended to be loaded with oil or oil residue as cargo, in order to
receive a Certificate of Inspection (COI), must have an overfill device
installed on each cargo tank that meets the requirements of this
section.
(1) On a tankship, each cargo tank must be equipped with an
overfill device (including an independent audible alarm or visible
indicator for that tank) that meets the requirements for tank overfill
alarms under 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (3), and (d)(1) through (d)(4).
(2) On a tank barge, each cargo tank must be equipped with an
overfill device that--
(i) Meets the requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (b)(3) and
(d)(1) through (d)(4), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(a)(1) through (a)(3);
(ii) Is an installed automatic shutdown system that meets the
requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-9(b); or
(iii) Is an installed high level indicating device that meets the
requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-3(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
(c) Each cargo tank of a U.S. flag tank vessel must have installed
on it an overfill device meeting the requirements of this section at
the next scheduled cargo tank internal examination performed on the
vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.
(d) Each cargo tank of a foreign flag tank vessel must have
installed on it an overfill device--
(1) At the first survey that includes dry docking, as required by
the vessel's flag administration, to meet the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended, or the
International Load Line Convention of 1966; or
(2) At the first cargo tank internal examination performed on the
tank vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.
(e) This section does not apply to a tank vessel that does not meet
the double hull requirements of Sec. 157.10d of this chapter and, under
46 U.S.C. 3703a(c), may not operate in the navigable waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States after January 1, 2000.
(f) This section does not apply to tank vessels that carry asphalt
as their only cargo.
5. In Sec. 155.750, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 155.750 Contents of transfer procedures.
* * * * *
(e) If a cargo tank of a tank vessel is fitted with an overfill
device, the transfer procedures must contain a description of the
overfill device, including:
(1) The tank overfill device system and specific procedures for the
person in charge to--
(i) Monitor the level of cargo in the tank; and
(ii) Shut down transfer operations in time to ensure that the cargo
level in each tank does not exceed the maximum amount permitted by
Sec. 155.775(b).
(2) Pre-transfer overfill device equipment inspection and test
requirements.
6. Section 155.775 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 155.775 Maximum cargo level of oil.
(a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same meaning
as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.
(b) A cargo tank on a tank vessel may not be filled with oil higher
than--
(1) 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume; or
(2) The level at which the overfill alarm required by Sec. 155.480
is set.
PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS
7. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 156 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 1321(j)(1)(C) and (D); 46 U.S.C.
3715; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46. Section 156.120(bb) is issued under the authority of section
4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.
8. Section 156.105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 156.105 Definitions.
Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in
Sec. 154.105 of this chapter apply to this subpart.
9. In Sec. 156.120, paragraph (bb) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 156.120 Requirements for transfer.
* * * * *
(bb) If the transfer operation involves loading oil, as defined in
Sec. 151.05 of this chapter, into a cargo tank, the overfill device
required by Sec. 155.480 of this chapter is installed and operating
properly.
Dated: October 13, 1994.
A.E. Henn,
Acting Commandant, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 94-25998 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
