[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49603-49608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25208]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR 157
[CGD 91-045]
RIN 2115-AF51
Operational Measures To Reduce Oil Spills From Existing Tank
Vessels Without Double Hulls
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 30, 1996, the Coast Guard published a final rule
requiring the owners, masters, or operators of tank vessels of 5,000
gross tons or more that do not have double hulls and that carry oil in
bulk as cargo to comply with certain operational measures. This final
rule included a provision requiring, in some cases, owner notification
of the vessel's calculated anticipated under-keel clearance which was
scheduled to go into effect on November 27, 1996. Following issuance of
the final rule, the Coast Guard received comments, several in the form
of petitions for rulemaking, expressing concern about the
implementation of the owner notification portion of the under-keel
clearance provision and requesting an additional opportunity to comment
on the provision. On November 27, 1996, the Coast Guard granted this
request by suspending the provision and giving the public 90 days to
comment on the under-keel clearance requirement in general. After
reviewing the additional public comments, the Coast Guard issues a
final rule which revises the under-keel clearance requirement for
single-hull tank vessels and responds to the petitions for rulemaking.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 21, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30 a.m. and
2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project Manager, Project Development Division,
at 202-267-1492 or LT Brian Willis, Vessel Compliance Division, at 202-
267-2735.
[[Page 49604]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The regulatory history for this rulemaking is recounted in the
preamble of the final rule entitled ``Operational Measures to Reduce
Oils Spills from Existing Tank Vessels without Double Hulls'' (61 FR
39770; July 30, 1996).
As the result of the petitions from industry, the Coast Guard
published a notice in the Federal Register on November 27, 1996
suspending the effective date of the owner notification provision in
the under-keel clearance requirement entitled ``Operational Measures to
Reduce Oil Spills from Existing Tank Vessels without Double Hulls;
Partial Suspension of Regulation'' (61 FR 60189) and solicited
additional comments on the entire under-keel clearance provision
contained in the final rule.
Background and Purpose
Background information on operation measures for existing vessels
without double hulls is provided in the preambles to the advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (56 FR 56284; November 1, 1991), the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR 54870; October 22, 1993),
the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (60 FR 55904;
November 3, 1995), and the final rule (61 FR 39770; July 30, 1996).
Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received 65 letters containing over 190 comments on
the under-keel clearance provision of the operational measures July
1996 final rule. Two comments strongly supported the under-keel
clearance requirement as written in the final rule. Two other comments
requested an extension of the comment period for the partial
suspension. One of these, in addition to the party's original petition,
requested specific data from the Coast Guard on the basis for the
requirement. A copy of the Coast Guard's response to this request was
added to the docket. Thereafter, the Coast Guard notified the public of
this addition to the docket and permitted the public an additional 30
days to comment (62 FR 3463; January 23, 1997).
The following discussion summarizes the remaining comments and is
divided into the following topics: (1) Removal of the under-keel
clearance requirement; (2) Owner notification; (3) Applicability; (4)
Economic analysis; (5) Master/pilot relationship; and (6) Calculations.
1. Removal of the Under-Keel Clearance Requirement
Fifty-two comments urged the Coast Guard to eliminate the under-
keel clearance requirement from the operational measures rulemaking.
Twenty-four comments argued that the under-keel clearance requirement
circumvents the knowledge and ability of the master and pilot--parties
that have historically policed themselves and have the local expertise
to safely command the vessel--and should, therefore, be removed.
Nineteen of these comments specifically suggested that it was not
necessary for the Coast Guard to regulate under-keel clearance, since
current industry practice dictates the responsible performance of
under-keel clearance calculations by the master. One comment indicated
that the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in the
operational measures final rule was similar to the recordkeeping
aspects of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and,
therefore, redundant. Another comment contended that the rules
regarding under-keel clearance were not only unnecessary, but
dangerous, and urged their immediate removal. The comment explained
that to require a discussion of under-keel clearance at night could
result in the loss of night vision and create the potential for more
accidents to occur.
The Coast Guard finds that requiring a master to calculate the
anticipated under-keel clearance of the ship, discuss the clearance and
the transit with the pilot, and ensure that the decisions being made on
the bridge comply with company policy reflects good seamanship.
Effective communication and passage planning are critical for a large
single-hull tankship entering port. The failure of either can
contribute to accidents as was presented in the quantitative risk model
for the SNPRM. Thus, an anticipated under-keel clearance provision was
required. It was recognized in both the SNPRM and the final rule that
many companies, masters, and pilots conduct ``self-imposed'' under-keel
clearance planning. The requirement in the final rule ensured all
single-hull tankship masters plan, consider, and communicate this
crucial aspect of navigation. The current regulations contained in 33
CFR 164.11 require tankship personnel to set the vessel's speed with
regard to the vessel's maneuverability when there is small under-keel
clearance. They do not require the specific calculation of clearance or
the planning of the ship's transit to identify areas of concern.
Section 164.11 also does not focus the discussion of the pilot and
master on passage planning or under-keel clearance. This final rule
amends the original prescriptive calculation requirement of
Sec. 157.455 and removes the owner notification provision, but
continues to stress the importance of communications between the pilot
and the master about the vessel's transit, including its anticipated
under-keel clearance.
The ISM code requirements also do not specifically require that
tankship masters calculate the anticipated under-keel clearance of
their vessels prior to entering or leaving port. Therefore, as required
in this final rule, the master's consideration of the vessel's
anticipated under-keel clearance and the owner's issuance of company
guidance, complement the ISM code. By recognizing the owner's
responsibility in providing safety guidance to the master and focusing
that guidance to the time single-hull tankships are most at risk of
spilling large quantities of oil (while maneuvering to or from a
facility or anchorage), this final rule will reduce the likelihood of
future casualties.
The Coast Guard disagrees that the calculation of anticipated
under-keel clearance or conferring with company personnel or referring
to company guidance poses a safety risk. Bridge personnel have
checklists, cargo calculations, pilot information cards, chart plots,
and several other items that must be completed prior to transiting a
port. During night transits, the requirements are the same.
Consultation with the company should not pose difficulty to a master of
any ship, in daylight or at night. If it does, safety is hindered by
other human factors such as a lack of clearly written guidance, no
local contact personnel, or an ineffective means of communication on
the bridge, not by an under-keel clearance requirement. Regardless, the
Coast Guard has amended the anticipated under-keel clearance
requirement by simply requiring the owner or operator to provide
written guidance to the tankship master rather than allowing the option
of either written policy or contacting company personnel. By only
requiring written guidance, the Coast Guard is ensuring a tankship
master no longer has to worry about not being able to contact company
personnel or leaving the bridge in order to comply with the
requirement.
Twenty-four comments recommended that the anticipated under-keel
clearance provision be removed and replaced with a non-regulatory
requirement that the controlling depth and proper under-keel clearance
be established by the Captain of the Port
[[Page 49605]]
(COTP), the pilot, or the Port Authority. The comments reasoned that
these entities are in the best position to develop criteria, because of
their in-depth knowledge of port conditions and their ability to
specify the limiting factors applicable to a port.
The Coast Guard does not prohibit the Port Authority or any other
port group from meeting and developing guidance for tankships. OPA 90
required the Coast Guard to implement regulatory measures that were
both economically and technologically feasible for single-hull tankship
prior to their phase-out dates. This final rule implements a planning
tool termed ``anticipated under-keel clearance'' for single-hull tank
vessels in order to implement the requirements of section 4115(b) of
OPA 90. This rule does not conflict with any existing prescribed port
authority under-keel clearance guidance.
One comment argued that the Coast Guard did not properly
substantiate the operational measures final rulemaking. The comment
proposed that the administrative record constructed by the Coast Guard
lacked the factual basis to support a determination to implement an
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement for single-hull tankships.
The comment argued that an anticipated under-keel clearance requirement
was not necessary, because lack of clearance has not been documented as
a contributing factor in any oil spills to this date. In addition, the
comment contended that the Coast Guard neglected to give the public due
notice of the anticipated under-keel clearance owner notification
requirement and its assessment in the final rule.
The regulatory analysis for the SNPRM was based on a subjective
review of single-hull vessel casualties. Generally, there are multiple
causes for each accident which are commonly termed ``chain of events.''
As explained in the SNPRM and the final rule assessment, if a
contributory cause of the reviewed casualty was a lack of passage
planning, including the failure of the master to review the vessel's
draft, depth, or route prior to a port transit, a portion of the
spilled oil was documented as being preventable by use of an under-keel
clearance requirement. Using the SNPRM's quantitative risk assessment,
this spilled oil amount was then reduced by a range of 10 to 23 percent
of the original amount to reflect the predicted effectiveness of the
proposed anticipated under-keel clearance provision. Predicting the
future avoidance of casualties based on a risk assessment is an
accepted analytical tool. The fact that a major oil spill cannot be
attributed solely to a lack of under-keel clearance, does not indicate
that potential benefits from a focused effort on under-keel clearance
do not exist. The lack of calculating anticipated under-keel clearance
and discussing the vessel's route prior to entering or leaving a port
have partially contributed to past casualties. This past history is
enough to substantiate the benefits of a passage planning requirement
that focuses on anticipated under-keel clearance to prevent groundings
by single-hull tankships.
The Coast Guard contends that the public was afforded due notice
and the opportunity to comment on the anticipated under-keel clearance
provisions. In the SNPRM the Coast Guard discussed both the mandatory
passage planning requirement and the need to involve the vessel's owner
in making navigation decisions. In fact, every relevant regulatory
document associated with operational measures has stressed the
importance the Coast Guard places on owner involvement. In response to
adverse comments to the SNPRM's proposed \1/2\ meter anticipated under-
keel clearance minimum, the Coast Guard removed the uniform under-keel
clearance requirement and replaced it with a logical outgrowth of that
concept. Both the assessments and the source documents for every
incident documented in the assessments were in the public record and
were available to the public during this rulemaking. The Coast Guard
nevertheless suspended the under-keel clearance requirement and allowed
an additional comment period to guarantee that every pubic concern was
thoroughly considered and addressed before it took this final action on
under-keel clearance for single-hull tank vessels.
2. Owner Notification
Fifty-four comments urged the Coast Guard to remove the owner
notification provisions contained in Secs. 157.455(a)(5) and (6) of the
operational measures regulation. The comments argued that shore-based
personnel contacted for a decision regarding anticipated under-keel
clearance could be located thousands of miles away from the port and
unfamiliar with the maneuvering characteristics and behavior of the
vessel in a loaded condition. In essence, they argued that the master
may have to rely on the ``expertise'' of an unqualified party in
another part of the world, who may never have been to sea, and may be
half asleep when contacted to make a decision as to whether a vessel
should proceed. However, ten comments indicated that, if the Coast
Guard deemed it necessary to regulate under-keel clearance, they would
support a requirement that owners or operators provide under-keel
guidance through a prescribed policy which could be consulted by the
master during transit. One comment fully supported the approach taken
by the Coast Guard in the final rule and endorsed it as valid. The
comment stated that conscientious operators do, and all operators
should, take under-keel clearance into account when planning a voyage.
The comment further explained that the pilot's job is made easier
knowing that the ship has been loaded with due regard for local draft
limitations and that the master and the ship's owner have considered
the limitations in planning the vessel's transit.
In the final rule, the Coast Guard issued a requirement that
involved the owner or operator at the policy level. In addition, an
alternative to supplying written company policy on under-keel clearance
was provided allowing the master to contact company personnel. This
measure ensured that company policy was checked or management was
informed of the vessel's passage situation. This final rule removes the
owner notification provision and simply requires company policy to be
provided to the master. The responsibility for estimating the
anticipated under-keel clearance along the transit route of the vessel,
including the facility or anchorage, is now placed on the master.
However, the company policy should provide the master the guidance
needed to pre-plan the transit and the direct authority to delay the
transit or take any action necessary to ensure the vessel's safe
navigation.
Three comments noted what they perceived as a ``technical defect''
in the drafting of Sec. 157.455(a)(6). The provision states that an
owner should not allow a vessel to proceed if transit ``would not be
prudent considering, but not limited to, the anticipated under-keel
clearance, any Captain of the Port (COTP) under-keel clearance
guidance, and the pilot's recommended clearance.'' The comments
contended that the ``but not limited to'' phrasing contained in this
section implies that the owner's decision to allow a vessel to proceed
could be based on unspecified criteria in addition to the specified
factors. They argued that since the provision effectively places legal
responsibility for imprudence in making under-keel clearance
determinations on the owner or operator of a vessel, the Coast Guard
should be specific as to the criteria to be applied.
The Coast Guard has removed the phrase ``but not limited to'' from
the anticipated under-keel clearance provision in this final rule. The
phrase
[[Page 49606]]
was meant to include such things as anticipated traffic, ship-specific
maneuvering characteristics with respect to small under-keel
clearances, or other existing company policies that may be affected.
The company guidance required in this final rule should cover these
types of contingencies.
3. Applicability
Twenty-one comments requested that the Coast Guard explicitly limit
the application of the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement to
single-hull tankships, and exclude all other carriers, including, but
not limited to, bulk carriers, general cargo carriers, container ships,
and Roll-on, Roll-off container ships. In contrast, one comment
recommended use of under-keel clearance guidance for all ships, not
just tankships without double hulls. The comment explained that some
other types of vessels (e.g., dry cargo vessels) routinely carry more
oil in bunkers than many tank vessels carry as cargo. Consequently, the
comment argued that whatever increased protection to the environment
results from requiring under-keel clearance for single-hull tankships
should be amplified if such measures are applied to all vessels using
the waterways.
The Coast Guard is acting under the authority of section 4115(b) of
OPA 90 and does not intent to extend implementation of operational
measures to vessels other than vessels of 5,000 gross tons (GT) or more
that do not have double hulls and that carry oil in bulk as cargo in
this final rule. Implementing the pre-planning guidance and
communication requirements of this final rule is prudent on all
vessels. However, this rule only prescribes an anticipated under-keel
requirement for single-hull tank vessels. If the Coast Guard deemed it
appropriate to expand the applicability of this rule to other vessel
types, a notice would be issued in the Federal Register and the public
would be allowed an opportunity to comment. Currently, many COTPs and
port authorities are working together to develop non-regulatory
solutions to reducing risk within their waterways. The public is
encouraged to contact their local COTPs to discuss ongoing port efforts
and become involved in these issues.
4. Economic Analysis
Eighteen comments questioned the results of the regulatory analysis
completed by the Coast Guard and requested that the General Accounting
Office study the economic impact of a requirement for the establishment
of a minimum under-keel clearance for single-hull tankships prior to
implementation of a final rule. In addition, the comments requested
that a small working group, comprised of representatives from industry
and the Coast Guard, be established specifically for the purpose of
studying the issue of under-keel clearance. Another comment also
expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement, and contended that the
Coast Guard should impose new regulations only after an attempt to
enforce current regulations fails and a reasonable risk of harm exists.
In contrast, one comment stated that the original anticipated under-
keel clearance requirement was reasonable and consistent with modern
practice.
The Coast Guard has revised the anticipated under-keel clearance
requirement in this final rule to make it less prescriptive. Because
the requirement in this final rule contains the original communication
and pre-planning under-keel clearance focus for single-hull tank
vessels, the Coast Guard estimates that the benefits from this rule
will remain as originally predicted until 2015 when these vessels no
longer transit in U.S. ports. Because this requirement reflects current
industry practice and ensures all single-hull tankships, at the very
least, take the time to plan the vessel's passage with respect to
under-keel clearance and discuss it with the pilot, the Coast Guard
does not agree that an additional economic analysis is needed. If a
COTP deems it necessary to require under-keel clearance or draft
requirements, a cost analysis would be done and presented to the public
for comment prior to implementation. Individual or small industry group
participation in local determinations of this sort are used extensively
by the Coast Guard to help it develop port requirements.
One comment expressed concern that Protection and Indemnity (P & I)
Clubs might decline claims resulting from oil spills based on a
determination that an owner, operator, or representative employee was
privy to an unsafe practice under the Marine Insurance Act of 1906.
Consequently, the company holding the Certificate of Financial
Responsibility (COFR), as guarantor, would be obligated to pay the
claim, causing insurance rates to rise significantly. As a result, the
comment argued that the cost of obtaining a COFR should have been
included in the cost calculations for the operational measures final
rule.
The Coast Guard developed the original anticipated under-keel
clearance requirement to ensure owners and operators were fully
informed of vessel operations prior to transiting port. Although this
final rule removes the owner notification provision, it remains a
preventive measure and focuses on ensuring the master follows company
guidance that contains appropriate information to navigate safely. All
of the anticipated under-keel clearance requirements discussed in this
rulemaking have focused on planning and prevention. Therefore, the
original final rule's cost analysis has not been amended to include the
cost of insurance rate increases to those companies who may be found
liable for future spills due to their own imprudence.
A separate comment maintained that the imposition of an anticipated
under-keel clearance requirement on the single-hull tanker fleet would
cause a substantial loss of cargo-carrying capacity, forcing either an
increase in the fleet size serving U.S. markets, or an increase in the
number of trips required to move a specific quantity of oil. According
to the comment, the Coast Guard failed to quantify the cargo loss
factor or evaluate its effects in the final rule regulatory assessment.
The original final rule assessment estimated the cost of cargo shut-out
for single-hull tankships. Because industry indicated that prudent
under-keel clearances were already the standard ``best practice'' for
the majority of single-hull vessels, the Coast Guard found that single-
hull tankship traffic would not be notably increased by the anticipated
under-keel clearance requirement. Therefore, this cost was not included
in the assessment.
5. Master/Pilot Relationship
One comment requested that the Coast Guard consider allowing the
master to discuss draft, anticipated under-keel clearance, and passage
planning with the boarding pilot by radio, cellular phone, or some
other method, prior to the pilot coming on board. The comment explained
that in most ports, the current pilot boarding stations are too close,
leaving no time for the pilot to discuss passage planning prior to
proceeding to the channel or river.
The Coast Guard encourages masters to contact pilots prior to
boarding stations. The operational measure requiring pilot cards
(Sec. 157.450) ensures that discussions between the master and the
pilot occur prior to entering port or getting underway. This
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement also requires a discussion
between the pilot and the master. It is the responsibility of the
master to take the time to discuss the vessel's passage with the pilot.
Safe
[[Page 49607]]
navigation of the vessel hinges on this discussion as well as the
competence of the bridge team. There is no regulation that prohibits a
master from requesting the pilot to board early or from conferring with
the pilot by radio or other means prior to boarding, or engaging in any
other communication that helps clarify conditions prior to a port
transit.
6. Calculations
Twelve comments expressed dissatisfaction with the anticipated
under-keel clearance provision relating to the calculation of squat.
Two comments contended that if squat characteristics are to be taken
into account for the anticipated under-keel clearance calculation, the
regulations should incorporate generic squat equations to avoid the
inaccuracies associated with using empirical formulas. One comment
specifically recommended that the Coast Guard establish speed curves
for various sizes and types of vessels to be used in calculating
anticipated under-keel clearance. Another comment suggested that the
local COTP, in coordination with the pilots, officially predetermine
the transit speed at each critical geographical point for each ship
type, size, and draft. The comment contended that if the COTP did not
dictate the transit speed for the purpose of calculating squat,
artificially low transit speeds that disregard the steering effect
could be used in order to obtain a minimum squat value and reduce the
ship's calculated navigational draft.
Another comment urged the Coast Guard to prescribe the form of all
required calculations in order to ensure uniformity of usage throughout
industry, and to facilitate Coast Guard inspections for compliance. One
comment recommended that Sec. 157.455(a)(1)(iii) be amended to allow
masters to rely on calculations or experience in determining the
corresponding effects of the intended transit speed on the vessel. The
comment explained that the available formulas for squat are inaccurate
for vessels in confined channels and tend to yield a much greater squat
than the vessel actually realizes. Three comments suggested that the
issue of squat should be a matter of discussion between master and
pilot and not required to be determined at the commencement of a
voyage. Three other comments argued that unless the Coast Guard was
prepared to designate a methodology for determining squat, the
calculation of squat should not be required by regulations.
One comment supported the requirement to include squat in the
anticipated under-keel clearance calculation. If, according to the
comment, Sec. 157.450 requires maneuvering characteristics (including
squat characteristics) to be recorded on the wheelhouse poster in
accordance with Appendix 2 of IMO Resolution A.601(15), then
Sec. 157.455 should be amended by removing the ``if known'' from the
tankship's deepest draft calculation. The comment explained that based
on Sec. 157.450, squat characteristics should be known, and that,
therefore, the ``if known'' phrasing should be deleted from
Sec. 157.455, in order to make the provisions consistent.
The Coast Guard has removed the prescriptive calculation criteria
for the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement in this final
rule. Consideration of squat and how it may affect the vessel's
maneuverability during a transit is required by Sec. 164.11 for all
vessels. This final rule ensures that the master and the pilot discuss
the passage plan, including the anticipated under-keel clearance. This
discussion should include speed, squat, and maneuverability criteria,
as found in the wheelhouse poster in accordance with Appendix 2 of IMO
Resolution A.601(15) and their effect on the vessel's safe transit.
While the Coast Guard could implement speed restrictions for all
single-hull tankships in this rulemaking or provide empirical formulas
for squat calculations, it has not. Diverse port needs, vessel
characteristics, and port hydrography make such requirements difficult
to develop and keep current. Local COTPs, who have knowledge of port-
specific needs, may choose to implement these types of requirements.
However, if a COTP deems if necessary to require speed restrictions or
the calculation of squat formulas, a cost analysis would be done and
presented to the public for comment prior to implementation.
Regulatory 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 required an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order, and is
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). An
Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. Revisions to the
Assessment completed for the final rule (61 FR 39770; July 30, 1996)
are summarized as follows:
The amended anticipated under-keel clearance requirement in this
final rule is less prescriptive than the provision the Coast Guard
evaluated in the Operational Measures final rule (61 FR 39770).
However, because it contains the essential elements contained in the
original anticipated under-keel clearance provision--communication,
planning, and acting to ensure safe navigation--this amended
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement should be effective as the
original, more prescriptive, requirement. Therefore, the costs and
benefits for this final rule remain as calculated in the original final
rule regulatory assessment. The estimated cost of implementing this
amended anticipated under-keel clearance requirement remains at $43.97
million. Implementing this adjusted anticipated under-keel clearance
requirement would still yield a 10 to 23 percent risk effectiveness
factor in preventing grounding or casualties of single-hull tank
vessels. The estimated benefit range remains at 5,279 to 12,142 barrels
of unspilled oil in the 19 years this requirement will be in effect.
The estimated cost-benefit range for the amended anticipated under-keel
clearance in this final rule is $3,223-$7,931 per barrel of unspilled
oil.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``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.
This final rule does not change the cost or benefit estimates of
the anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in the
original final rule. For the reasons discussed in the final rule for
operational measures (61 FR 39786), the Coast Guard certifies 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
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard
will provide assistance to small entities to determine how this rule
applies to them. If you are a small business and
[[Page 49608]]
need assistance understanding the provisions of this rule, please
contact the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) closest to your
vessel's operational area.
Unfunded Mandate
Under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4), the Coast
Guard must consider whether this rule will result in an annual
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation). The Act also requires (in Section 205) that the Coast Guard
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and, from those alternatives, select the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective
of the rule.
The cost-benefit analysis done for the original anticipated under-
keel clearance requirement remains unchanged for this final rule. The
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement contained in this final
rule is less prescriptive while achieving the same objective. The
anticipated under-keel clearance requirement, as amended in this final
rule, does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule.
Collection of Information
This final rule contains no new collection-of-information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). As stated in a notice published on December 6, 1996 (61 FR
64618), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
collection requirements under OMB control number 2115-0629.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (October 26, 1987) and
has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
for the original operational measures final rulemaking and concluded
that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not
necessary. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant
Impact are available in the docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 157
Cargo vessels, Oil Pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 157 as follows:
PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK
1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note); 49 CFR
1.46. Subparts G, H, and I are also issued under section 4115(b),
Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546.
2. The stay announced at 61 FR 60189, November 27, 1996, is lifted
and Sec. 157.455 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 157.455 Minimum under-keel clearance.
(a) The owner or operator of a tankship, that is not fitted with a
double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length, shall provide
the tankship master with written under-keel clearance guidance that
includes--
(1) Factors to consider when calculating the ship's deepest
navigational draft;
(2) Factors to consider when calculating the anticipated
controlling depth;
(3) Consideration of weather or environmental conditions; and
(4) Conditions which mandate when the tankship owner or operator
shall be contacted prior to port entry or getting underway; if no such
conditions exist, the guidance must contain a statement to that effect.
(b) Prior to entering the port or place of destination and prior to
getting underway, the master of a tankship that is not fitted with the
double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length shall plan the
ship's passage using guidance issued under paragraph (a) of this
section and estimate the anticipated under-keel clearance. The tankship
master and the pilot shall discuss the ship's planned transit including
the anticipated under-keel clearance. An entry must be made in the
tankship's official log or in other onboard documentation reflecting
discussion of the ship's anticipated passage.
(c) The owner or operator of a tank barge, that is not fitted with
a double bottom that covers the entire cargo tank length, shall not
permit the barge to be towed unless the primary towing vessel master or
operator has been provided with written under-keel clearance guidance
that includes--
(1) Factors to consider when calculating the tank barge's deepest
navigational draft;
(2) Factors to consider when calculating the anticipated
controlling depth;
(3) Consideration of weather or environmental conditions; and
(4) Conditions which mandate when the tank barge owner or operator
shall be contacted prior to port entry or getting underway; if no such
conditions exist, the guidance must contain a statement to that effect.
Dated: September 15, 1997.
Robert E. Kramek,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 97-25208 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
