13318 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157; 46 CFR

Parts 30, 32, 70, 90, and 172

[CGD 90–051]

RIN 2115–AD61

Double Hull Standards for Vessels

Carrying Oil in Bulk

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In an interim final rule (IFR)

published on August 12, 1992, the Coast

Guard established regulations for the

design standards of double hull vessels

pursuant to the requirements of section

4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990

(OPA 90 or the Act) (Pub. L. 101–380).

This rule adopts the IFR as final with

minor changes to definitions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to 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 8

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert M. Gauvin, Project Manager,

Office of Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection (G–MVI),

telephone (202) 267–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Mr. Robert

M. Gauvin, Project Manager, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection, and Mr.

Nicholas Grasselli, Project Counsel,

Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

On December 5, 1990, the Coast

Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Double

Hull Standards for Tank Vessels

Carrying Oil’’ in the Federal Register

(55 FR 50192). On September 6, 1991,

the Coast Guard published a notice in

the Federal Register (56 FR 44051)

reopening the comment period until

October 7, 1991.

On August 29, 1991, the Coast Guard

published a notice in the Federal

Register (56 FR 42763) announcing a

public meeting to obtain the views of

interested parties regarding the scope of

the environmental assessment. The

Coast Guard subsequently held the

scoping meeting on September 26, 1991.

On January 15, 1992, the Coast Guard

published a notice in the Federal

Register (57 FR 1854) announcing the

availability of the Interim Regulatory

Impact Analysis (IRIA) and

Environmental Assessment (EA). In

response to the IRIA and EA, the Coast

Guard received a total of 112 letters

commenting on this rulemaking.

On August 12, 1992, the Coast Guard

published an IFR entitled ‘‘Double Hull

Standards for Vessels Carrying Oil in

Bulk’’ in the Federal Register (57 FR

36222), which requested comments be

received on or before October 13, 1992.

On December 18, 1992, the Coast Guard

opened a second comment period for

the IFR by publishing a notice in the

Federal Register (57 FR 60402). The

Coast Guard received 61 letters during

the IFR comment periods and the Coast

Guard considered all comments

received to the rulemaking up to the

close of the second comment period on

February 26, 1993. All comments

considered by the Coast Guard on or

relating to this rulemaking are in the

docket. A public hearing was not

requested and none was held.

Background and Purpose

Section 4115 of OPA added section

3703a to Title 46 U.S. Code. Section

3703a(a) requires a double hull to be

fitted on a vessel if it is constructed or

adapted to carry, or carries, oil in bulk

as cargo or cargo residue. A vessel that

is constructed or undergoes a major

conversion under a contract placed on

June 30, 1990, or later must have a

double hull fitted at the time of

construction or major conversion (with

certain exceptions in the Act). An

existing vessel that is constructed or

that undergoes a major conversion

under an earlier contract must be fitted

with a double hull in accordance with

a timetable in 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c)(3),

which commences January 1, 1995.

Section 3703a does not provide

technical standards for a double hull.

This final rule provides marine

transportation and shipbuilding

industries with the technical standards

necessary to meet the double hull

requirements.

On September 21, 1990, the Coast

Guard issued Navigation and Vessel

Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 2–90.

This NVIC provides policy guidance on

double hull construction for a vessel

undergoing construction or major

conversion under a contract awarded on

or after June 30, 1990, but prior to the

effective date of the IFR which was

September 11, 1992. A vessel which is

built to plans that have been approved

in accordance with NVIC 2–90 under a

contract awarded before the effective

date of the IFR will satisfy the double

hull requirements in this final rule.

NVIC 2–90 may not be used for a vessel

which undergoes construction or major

conversion under a contract awarded on

or after September 11, 1992. Change 1

of NVIC 2–90, published by the Coast

Guard on November 24, 1992, clarifies

the effective dates of NVIC 2–90 as

between June 30, 1990, and September

11, 1992.

A substantial amount of oil imported

into the United States is transported

aboard foreign flag vessels. Since the

Act applies to all vessels in U.S. waters,

including foreign vessels, the Coast

Guard recognized that U.S. double hull

regulations would have a significant

global impact. Therefore, the Coast

Guard has also worked at the

international level to establish double

hull standards. The International

Maritime Organization (IMO) is a

specialized United Nation agency which

oversees international maritime affairs.

IMO has been responsible for

developing various international

conventions, such as the International

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,

1974, (SOLAS 74), and the International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution by Ships, 1973, as amended

by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/

78). The Coast Guard represents the

United States at IMO deliberations. In

November 1990, the United States

submitted a proposal to IMO’s 30th

session of the Marine Environment

Protection Committee (MEPC) for

international standards to require

double hulls for tank vessels. This

proposal resulted in a draft Regulation

13F of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78. At

the 31st session of the MEPC in July

1991 (MEPC 31), the Committee

approved draft Regulation 13F for

circulation to IMO member states for

their consideration.

In November 1991, a MEPC working

group subsequently refined Regulation

13F, which was further refined and

formally adopted at MEPC 32 on March

6, 1992. The United States reserved its

position during the adoption of

Regulation 13F, due to technical

differences with OPA 90 regarding the

applicability of double hull

requirements to certain categories of

vessels and the allowance of the middeck concept as an alternative to a

double hull. The double hull

dimensions prescribed in the IFR and

this final rule are consistent with those

in Regulation 13F as adopted at MEPC

32.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13319

The MEPC also adopted Regulation

13G to Annex I of MARPOL at its 32nd

session. Regulation 13G contains a

schedule for retrofitting (with double

hulls) or retiring existing single hull

tank vessels at 25 or 30 years after

delivery. Regulation 13G also requires

vessels built prior to requirements for

protectively located segregated ballast

(pre-MARPOL tankers) to convert tanks

protecting 30 percent of the sides or 30

percent of the bottom to non-oil carrying

wing tanks or double bottom spaces no

later than 25 years after delivery. The

United States also reserved its position

during the adoption of Regulation 13G

of Annex I to MARPOL.

On December 23, 1992, the U.S.

deposited a declaration with IMO

regarding the U.S. acceptance and

enforcement of Regulations 13F and

13G. This declaration stated that the

express approval of the U.S.

Government would be necessary before

Regulations 13F and 13G would enter

into force within the U.S. A Federal

Register Notice (58 FR 39087) was

published on July 21, 1993, discussing

the U.S. position on Regulations 13F

and 13G. The two major technical

differences between the domestic and

international standards were: (1) The

acceptance by IMO of the mid-deck

tanker design as an alternative to the

double hull; and (2) variances in phaseout schedule for existing single hull

tank vessels.

A copy of IMO paper MEPC 32/WP.3,

which contains Regulations 13F and

13G, has been placed in the public

docket. Regulations 13F and 13G, as

adopted at MEPC 32, also appeared as

an appendix to the preamble of the IFR

for the convenience of the reader.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard thanks the many

interested parties who submitted a total

of 61 documents to the public docket.

These comments provided very useful

information and afforded valuable

assistance to the completion of this final

rule.

This section discusses the comments

received as well as the Coast Guard’s

responses and changes to the IFR. This

section is divided into two subsections.

The first subsection discusses comments

regarding the specific CFR sections, and

the second subsection discusses

nonspecific comments concerning other

issues relating to this rulemaking and

double hull requirements in general.

Comments Relating to Specific CFR

Sections

All comments and changes to each

section of the rule are discussed within

the following paragraphs, and the

paragraphs are numbered in the order of

their appearance in the CFR.

1. 33 CFR 157.03(n). Two comments

were received regarding the

determination of the definition of oil.

One comment disagreed with the

applicability of the definition to include

vegetable oils and the other discussed

the need to harmonize the definition

with the MARPOL Convention.

The Coast Guard has researched the

definition of oil and found its

development based upon 46 U.S.C.

2101(20). To change this definition

would require amendment of 46 U.S.C.

2101(20), which OPA 90 has not done.

OPA 90 has reinforced the need for

tougher, and more restricted controls

over oil transportation. The Coast Guard

has chosen to implement the double

hull standards to the full extent of the

definition of oil. Therefore, the

definition of oil under this regulation

will include animal and vegetable oils.

The Coast Guard recognizes that the

definition of oil in 46 U.S.C. 2101(20) is

inconsistent with the definition of oil

under Annex I of MARPOL. Nonpetroleum based oil, such as animal and

vegetable oils are specifically designated

as Category D noxious liquid substances

(NLS) under Annex II of MARPOL. As

OPA 90 does not allow for

administrative interpretation of the

definition of oil, existing regulations

applicable to oceangoing vessels

carrying NLS apply to a vessel carrying

animal and vegetable oil in bulk, in

addition to the new double hull

requirements under this rule.

For the purpose of this rule the

definition of oil shall not be limited to

petroleum oils and shall include animal

and vegetable based oils for the double

hull requirements.

2. 33 CFR 157.03(v). Four comments

addressed the applicability of this rule

to vessels other than a tank barge or a

tankship designed primarily to carry oil.

One comment requested that offshore

supply vessels (OSVs) be exempt from

the requirements of the double hull

standards under this rule. The three

other comments strongly opposed the

application of this rule to freight vessels

involved in the Maritime Prepositioning

Ship (MPS) Program, which under a

National Defense Waiver (NDW) issued

by the Secretary of the Navy, carry a

secondary cargo of oil used to fuel the

vessel’s main cargo of military vehicles.

OPA 90 double hull requirements

apply to a tank vessel as defined in 46

U.S.C. 2101(39). On November 4, 1992,

Pub. L. 102–587 and on December 20,

1993, Pub. L. 103–206 were enacted,

with sections which clarified the

meaning of the tank vessel definition in

46 U.S.C. 2101(39).

Section 5209 of Pub. L. 102–587,

entitled, ‘‘Tank Vessel Definition

Clarification,’’ stated that the following

vessels are deemed not to be a tank

vessel for the purpose of any law: (1) An

OSV; and (2) a fishing or fish tender

vessels of not more than 750 gross tons

that transfers fuel without charge to a

fishing vessel owned by the same

person.

Section 321 of Pub. L. 103–206,

entitled, ‘‘Fishing and Fishing Tender

Vessels,’’ stated that a fishing vessel or

fish tender vessel of not more than 750

gross tons, when engaged only in the

fishing industry, shall not be deemed to

be a tank vessel for the purpose of any

law.

Therefore, an OSV would not be

required to meet this rule for the use of

tanks onboard which carry oil

(including drill mud that contains oil)

as bulk cargo. Likewise fishing and fish

tender vessels of not more than 750

gross tons, when engaged only in the

fishing industry, are not required to

meet the design standards of this rule.

Due to Section 5209 of Pub. L. 102–

587 and Section 321 of Pub. L. 103–206,

§ 157.03(v) has been amended to show

the clarification of a tank vessel

definition under the meaning of tank

vessel in 46 U.S.C. 2101(39).

On December 18, 1992, a Federal

Register Notice (57 FR 60402), was

published by the Coast Guard reopening

the original IFR comment period until

February 26, 1993. This was done to

provide the public a further opportunity

to comment on the IFR regarding:

existing double hull vessel design

requirements; and double hull

requirements for non-traditional tank

vessels carrying oil in bulk. Verbal and

written public comments received by

the Coast Guard suggested there was

some uncertainty as to the applicability

of the Act to vessels that carry oil in

bulk or cargo residue, as a secondary

cargo.

Subject to the provisions of section

4115 of the Act, this rule applies to all

vessels which carry oil in bulk or cargo

residue, which includes tank vessel,

tank barge, and a vessel certificated as

a cargo or passenger vessel that carries

limited quantities of oil in bulk.

The Maritime Prepositioning Ship

Program was initiated through the U.S.

Navy and Marine Corps, using time

chartered U.S. commercially operated

dry cargo vessels, to carry military

logistic supplies in a pre-loaded

condition. These existing vessels are

certificated to carry a limited quantity of

bulk oil, to fuel their primary cargo of

military vehicles.

The Coast Guard has no discretion to

waive or exempt requirements of double
13320 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

hull protection by the Act. Cargo tanks

on these vessels must be protected in

accordance with this rule. The Secretary

of the Navy may extend the NDW for

these vessels to include the double hull

requirements for their cargo oil tanks.

Presently, these vessels are not required

to meet the double hull rules until 23

years into their time charter with the

U.S. Government.

The notes provided in 46 CFR 70.05

and 46 CFR 90.05 to clarify the

applicability of this rule to cargo and

passenger vessels, have not changed due

to these comments.

3. 33 CFR 157.03(aa). Four comments

were received requesting interpretations

on the cargo tank length definition.

These four comments were from vessel

designers or classification societies, who

felt unsure on the meaning of the IFR

stated definition for cargo tank length

and requested how the definition was to

be interpreted for actual proposed

double hull tank vessel designs. Two

additional comments were received

recommending that the cargo tank

length definition of the IFR be

harmonized with the definition

provided by the term ‘‘Lt’’, in § 157

Appendix C. The definition of the term

‘‘Lt’’ in § 157 Appendix C is the same as

the definition of cargo tank length

provided by Regulation 13E of Annex I,

MARPOL 73/78.

The Coast Guard’s intent, as specified

in the IFR preamble, was to be

consistent with the international double

hull design standards and to ensure that

compliance and enforcement was equal

for U.S. and foreign vessels meeting

these rules. The existing cargo tank

length definition in § 157.03 was

promulgated under the segregated

ballast requirements of the Port and

Tanker Safety Act of 1978.

The Coast Guard modified this

definition in the development of the IFR

to ensure it not only addressed

tankships, but also barges. The above

comments illustrate that the IFR

definition still may cause confusion

regarding the cargo tank length of the

vessel requiring double hull protection.

Also, the Coast Guard has noted that

non-standard tank vessels, such as dry

cargo, break bulk, or passenger vessels,

which carry oil as a secondary cargo,

may not fit the cargo tank length

definition in the IFR.

To ensure consistency with

international standards, allow use with

non-standard tank vessels, and assist in

the conversion of existing single hull

tankships to double hulls, the cargo tank

length definition has been amended in

§ 157.03(aa) to harmonize it with the

definition of ‘‘Lt’’ in § 157 Appendix C,

and thus MARPOL 73/78.

Various designs for rebuilding,

converting, and installing new double

hull bodies on existing single hull

tankships, have been provided to the

Coast Guard for review and

interpretation under the IFR. The IFR

definition has been found to limit the

ability to redesign existing hull

configurations where a cargo pump

room is located forward of the engine

room’s forward bulkhead. In these

designs, fuel tanks integral with the

engine room extend over or around the

cargo pump room. To double hull these

fuel tanks would limit the fuel capacity

of the vessel and its ability to trade, but

would not increase the protection of the

cargo tank block. Risk of damage in this

after area of the vessel is historically

low and in most designs the cargo pump

room extends below the fuel tanks

providing them with bottom void

protection, that equals or exceeds

double bottom height standards.

Changing the cargo tank length

definition will not affect barges. The

after perimeter for cargo tank length of

barges would be the same under the

U.S. and international definitions.

4. 33 CFR 157.10d(b). Ten comments

recommended an expansion of

§ 157.10d(b)(1) to permit alternatives to

double hulls. These comments support

a number of design alternatives which

were discussed in the IFR.

A report was provided to Congress by

the Coast Guard in December 1992,

titled, ‘‘Alternatives to Double Hull

Tank Vessel Design.’’ The report,

required by Section 4115(e) of OPA 90,

evaluated alternative tank vessel designs

to the double hull, to determine which,

if any, could provide protection to the

environment equal to or exceeding the

double hull.

The report’s conclusions were: (1) At

this time, the Coast Guard has not

identified equivalent designs to the

double hull tanker for the prevention of

oil outflow due to groundings; (2)

shortcomings exist in the current tanker

evaluation methodology; (3)

environmental performance standards

and a specific methodology for the

evaluation of alternative designs in

terms other than oil outflow are not

fully developed; and, (4) probabilistic

computer modeling shows promise as a

useful tool for initial evaluation of

future designs.

The report’s recommendations were:

(1) That no change in the present OPA

90 legislation be made at the time of the

report; (2) that the Coast Guard continue

to evaluate novel designs and

technology submitted, reporting any

suitable alternatives to double hulls to

Congress as they are identified; (3) that

the Coast Guard support continued

research in the development of an

evaluation and prediction capability

that will enable a more accurate

assessment of oil outflow due to

grounding based on the

recommendations outlined in the

Carderock Division, Naval Surface

Warfare Center (formerly the David

Taylor Model Basin) test results; (4) that

the Coast Guard, on behalf of the United

States, continue to support efforts of the

IMO to develop international

environmental performance standards

for tankers, by participation in finalizing

the guidelines for the evaluation of

alternative designs already circulated to

IMO member governments; and, (5) that

the Coast Guard, on behalf of the United

States, continue to support the efforts of

IMO to develop an internationally

approved probabilistic methodology

which can be applied to oil outflow

analysis, risk assessment and vessel

survivability.

OPA 90, section 4115, accepts only

the double hull design. An amendment

to OPA 90 would be needed to allow for

acceptance of any alternative tank vessel

designs. Twelve comments support that

the double hull be the only acceptable

design for use in U.S. waters. These

comments provide a number of reasons

why the double hull is a superior design

to protect the environment which are in

accord with the Coast Guard’s report on

alternative tank vessel designs.

One additional comment favored

further research on the probability of oil

outflow for the determination of

equivalency designs to the double hull.

Work on the probability of oil outflow

is being completed by an IMO Working

Group to establish guidelines for

equivalency to Regulation 13F of Annex

I of MARPOL 73/78. The United States

submitted the above Coast Guard report

to Congress with its enclosures to IMO

as an information paper at MEPC 34

(MEPC 34/INF.18) in July 1993. The

United States is actively involved and

supporting the studies of the MEPC

Working Group to ensure that the

international and U.S. standards may

parallel the guidelines of acceptance for

alternative tank vessel designs.

Two comments were received on the

allowable strength of double hull design

and one on alternative materials

acceptable for double hull tank vessel

construction.

Under 46 CFR 31.10–1 the U.S.

accepts the American Bureau of

Shipping (ABS) standards, ‘‘Rules for

Building and Classing Steel Vessels,’’

for the minimum requirements of

strength and reliability of hulls, boilers,

and machinery for tank vessels. Specific

standards for the strength and scantling
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13321

of tankship and tank barge construction

are in 46 CFR 32.60 and 32.63.

The U.S. also accepts approved plans

and the certificates of ABS, or other

recognized classification societies, for

classed vessels as evidence of structural

sufficiency for a vessel’s hull. This is

not to say that alternative materials to

steel will not be acceptable. The Coast

Guard, pursuant to recommendations in

its report to Congress, has responded to

questions by designers, owners, and

operators of tank vessels regarding the

use of alternative materials to meet the

double hull standards of the IFR.

This rule does not prescribe standards

for vessel strength or scantlings.

Strength and scantling requirements are

reviewed in the initial approval or

acceptance of a vessel design prior to

the vessel’s inspection for certification

by the Coast Guard. Actions are being

taken through the newly established

Flag State Implementation (FSI) SubCommittee at IMO, in conjunction with

the International Association of

Classification Societies (IACS), to

examine classification society and

international vessel construction

strength rules. Areas of concern involve

the use of high tensile steels, reduced

corrosion levels in scantlings, and

designs in which scantlings or other

structural members are susceptible to

fatigue fracturing.

5. 33 CFR 157.10d(c). Three

comments addressed the dimensions for

double bottom height prescribed in

§ 157.10d(c)(2). Two comments

supported larger protective double

bottom spacing (B/15 or 2 meters,

whichever is greater), while one

comment suggested that the height for a

vessel’s double bottom spacing be

determined using a mean sized vessel’s

beam which would enhance inspection

and maintenance capabilities for smaller

beamed vessels and not penalize

beamier vessels (specifically barges) that

usually operate at a shallower draft.

The major concern stated was that

larger vessels, specifically those over

100,000 deadweight tons (DWT), would

be allowed to default to a height of 2

meters under the IFR requirement of B/

15 or 2 meters, whichever is less. It was

also stated in the comment that the

National Research Council (NRC)

recommended the dimension

requirement for double bottom height

be, ‘‘B/15 or 2 meters, which ever is

greater,’’ in their study, ‘‘Tanker Spills:

Prevention by Design.’’ The Coast Guard

notes that in that study’s Executive

Summary, the NRC recommended that

more research was needed to determine

the spacing between hulls that best

satisfies all concerns.

What is not taken into account by the

comment is that the double bottom

height of the larger vessels will also be

affected by the requirement of

§ 157.10d(c)(4). For larger tank vessels

to meet the trim and stability aggregate

volume ballast requirements of this

section, a 2 meter spacing of the double

bottom and double side voids, is

generally not large enough to provide

the volume of ballast required. Thus,

either the double bottom or side

spacing, or both, must be expanded to

meet this trim and stability requirement,

and results in the height or width of

these spaces being larger than required

by the minimum standards.

The Coast Guard considers the double

hull dimensions of the IFR to

appropriately balance economic and

environmental concerns. There have

been two recent groundings of vessels

which met the B/15 or 2 meters criteria.

In both instances the outer hulls were

breached but the inner hulls were not

damaged enough to allow any loss of

cargo. Both vessels were able to offload

their cargoes safely, and proceed in

ballast to shipyards for major bottom

hull repairs.

This design standard has received

strong public consensus and been

incorporated in IMO’s accepted

Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL

73/78 for international vessel double

hull design standards. The Coast Guard

considers international consistency to

be extremely important due to the global

nature of the marine transportation of

oil. Therefore, this final rule makes no

change to the parameter of the double

bottom spacing standards for double

hull design.

6. 33 CFR 157.10d(c), continued. Two

comments were received regarding the

double hull protection required by

§ 157.10d(c) (1) and (2) to include fuel

tanks. One comment supported the IFR

standard for protection of fuel oil tanks

only within the cargo tank length as

discussed in paragraph 3, while the

second comment stated that the IFR

violated OPA 90 by failure to require

double hull protection for bunker fuel

tanks throughout the vessel’s length.

As discussed in detail in the IFR, the

Coast Guard does not concur that OPA

90 requires the protection of fuel oil

tanks outside of vessel’s cargo tank

length. Thus, no change has been made

and fuel oil tanks aft of the cargo tank

length (defined in 33 CFR 157.03(aa))

are not required to be double hull

protected.

7. 33 CFR 157.10d(c), continued, and

157.10d(d). Eight comments

recommended that existing double hull

tank vessels be permitted to continue

operating, even if the dimensions of

such vessel, specifically the double

bottom height, do not meet the existing

vessel double hull standards of

§ 157.10d(c)(2)(iii). Two comments

supported that the existing double hull

dimension standards remain as

published in the IFR.

The Coast Guard previously

responded to comments such as these in

the IFR preamble for vessels contracted

before June 30, 1990, and reduced the

dimensional requirements for existing

double hulls in § 157.10d(c)(1)(iii) for

double side width, and

§ 157.10d(c)(2)(iii) for double bottom

height. These dimensional standards are

consistent with the international

standards of Regulations 13G of Annex

I of MARPOL, as adopted by MEPC 32.

The comments received did not

provide significant information to

support a need to reduce the double

bottom minimum dimension standards.

To reduce these standards further would

restrict existing double hull vessels from

trading internationally. As noted below,

domestic vessels on limited routes do

have reduced double hull spacing

standards.

The Coast Guard has not changed the

minimum dimensions acceptable for

existing double hull tank vessels in this

final rule. The owners of those existing

double hull tank vessels that do not

meet the minimum dimensions in this

rule may request an equivalency

determination under the provisions of

§ 157.07. If the Coast Guard determines

that this has a substantial impact on

existing vessels because they are unable

to meet the equivalency provisions, the

Coast Guard may consider a future

change to this rulemaking.

One comment stated that the

dimension requirements of

§ 157.10d(d)(3) which allows vessels

less that 10,000 DWT that operate

exclusively on inland and certain

coastwise routes to reduce double hull

design standards due to route are not

warranted. This comment did not

provide any documentation which

supported the need for larger

dimensional spacing for double hull

standards on these vessels of limited

size and route. The Coast Guard does

not concur with this comment.

All vessels which are constructed or

adapted to carry, or carry, oil in bulk as

cargo or cargo residue must be double

hulled under OPA 90 mandate. Vessels

under 10,000 DWT (roughly 5,000 gross

tons) are not exempt from this

requirement. Under section 4115 of

OPA 90, ‘‘a vessel of less than 5,000

gross tons equipped with a double

containment system determined by the

Secretary to be as effective as a double

hull for the prevention of the discharge
13322 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

of oil * * *,’’ may be exempted from

the requirement for a double hull. To

date, the Coast Guard has not accepted

any double containment system

proposals.

8. 33 CFR 157.10d(d). One comment

stated that the use of minimum

dimensions for double hull spaces could

limit access for the proper inspection

and maintenance of tank vessels.

Nothing in this rule requires the use of

minimum dimensions for double hull

vessel design and construction. The

Coast Guard encourages designers and

builders to consider equally the

inspection and safety requirements for

access of personnel to double hull areas.

Recent presentations to the Coast Guard

by companies and individuals designing

vessels with double hull configurations,

met or exceeded expectations for access,

inspection, and human engineering

allowance for double hull spaces.

As the Coast Guard reviews and

approves plans for U.S. flag vessels

before construction or major

modification, these areas will be closely

examined. No change to this rule was

made.

9. 33 CFR 157.11(g)(1). One comment

recommended that a new subparagraph

be added to this section which

prohibited the placement of cargo

piping in voids or duct keels within the

double bottom space. The discussion of

this recommendation stated that cargo

piping located within the cargo tank

offers some degree of protection from

damage due to groundings and it is

likely that such an arrangement would

allow the piping system to be available

for transfer of cargo in salvage

operations in all but the most severe of

incidents.

The Coast Guard agrees with the

discussion of this recommendation in

part, but does not agree that a

subparagraph needs to be added to this

section. § 157.19 already ensures the

height of cargo piping from vessel’s

bottom plating which similarly protects

it from damage in a grounding situation.

Duct keels, which can be used for the

pathway of cargo piping through a

vessel’s cargo block area within a box

keel, must be isolated from double

bottom ballast tanks, as cargo piping is

not allowed in these spaces under

§ 157.11(g)(1)(ii). Duct keels have been

used extensively in the design of liquid

bulk oil carriers to allow for a separation

of cargo lines from the ballast tanks

while making the pipes available to

examination and repair even when the

vessel is in operation.

The duct keel, which has the heaviest

scantlings of the vessel bottom,

including bottom plating, assists in the

protection of the cargo piping system in

this design. The rule was not changed

due to this recommendation.

10. 33 CFR 157.19. One comment

stated that the cargo tank size limitation

requirement of this section, for vessels

under 5000 DWT, was arbitrary and its

restriction would cause operational oil

pollution increases. Further, it stated

that many existing double hull inland

river box barges carry approximately

10,000 barrels of cargo in two cargo

compartments of 5,000 barrels each.

This section will necessitate addition of

a third compartment to vessels of this

DWT size, with tank capacities limited

to less than 4,400 barrels.

As discussed in the IFR, size

limitation is a provision of Regulation

13F, paralleled in U.S. regulations. This

requirement limits the size of individual

cargo tanks on new vessels under 5,000

DWT, to no more than 700 cubic meters

(4,400 bbls), unless double sides are

fitted. The IFR and this final rule

require a vessel of that size to have

double sides and double bottoms.

The Coast Guard has not made any

changes to § 157.19, as the double hull

protection required for tank vessels by

this rule surpasses the requirements of

double side protection required by

Regulation 13F. As any new tank barges

will require double hull protection, the

4,400 bbls cargo tank size limit will not

apply.

11. 46 CFR 32.53. One comment

recommended that inert gas

requirements for double hull spaces be

closely evaluated, as proposed in the

IFR, prior to future rulemaking. Actions

are continuing in this area of concern at

IMO.

At the 61st session of IMO’s Maritime

Safety Committee (MSC 61), Resolution

MSC.27(61) was adopted as an

amendment to SOLAS 74, regarding

new equipment and operation standards

for new and existing vessels. This

resolution was accepted on April 1,

1994, as a specified majority of the

Parties signatory to SOLAS 74 did not

declare objection to the resolution.

The Resolution was published in total

as part of NVIC No. 3–93 on April 12,

1993. In Resolution MSC.27(61),

Regulation 59—‘‘Venting, purging, gasfreeing and ventilation,’’ was amended

by adding a new paragraph 4 to the

existing regulation. The amended

Regulation 59 is republished below for

the readers information:

‘‘4 Inerting, ventilation and gas

measurement

4.1 This paragraph shall apply to oil

tankers constructed on or after 1

October 1994.

4.2 Double hull and double bottom

spaces shall be fitted with suitable

connections for the supply of air.

4.30 On tankers required to be fitted

with inert gas systems:

.1 double hull spaces shall be fitted

with suitable connections for the supply

of inert gas;

.2 where such spaces are connected

to a permanently fitted inert gas system,

means shall be provided to prevent

hydrocarbon gases from the cargo tanks

entering the double hull spaces through

the system;

.3 where such spaces are not

permanently connected to an inert gas

system, appropriate means shall be

provided to allow connection to the

inert gas main.

4.4.1 Suitable portable instruments

for measuring oxygen and flammable

vapor concentrations shall be provided.

In selecting these instruments, due

attention shall be given for their use in

combination with the fixed gas

sampling line systems referred to in

paragraph 4.4.2.

4.4.2 Where atmosphere in double

hull spaces cannot be reliably measured

using flexible gas sampling hoses, such

spaces shall be fitted with permanent

gas sampling lines. The configuration of

such line systems shall be adapted to

the design of such spaces.

4.4.3 The materials of construction

and the dimensions of gas sampling

lines shall be such as to prevent

restriction. Where plastic materials are

used, they should be electrically

conductive.

This SOLAS amendment does not

require permanently inerted double hull

voids, since inert gas poses a danger to

personnel and may also tend to

accelerate corrosion in ballast tanks.

This amendment requires that

connections be available to supply both

air and inert gas to ballast tanks within

the double hull, and requires the

capability to ensure that safe

atmospheres are available within them

for operational and personnel safety.

The Coast Guard is reviewing

enforcement and regulatory

requirements due to the acceptance of

IMO Resolution MSC.27(61)

amendments. If regulatory action is

deemed necessary for vessels other than

those on international routes which

must meet SOLAS 74 regulations, the

Coast Guard will propose regulations in

a future rulemaking.

General Comments (Non-CFR Specific)

12. Ten comments recommended that

the IFR be adopted as a final rule with

no changes, and that the double hull

rules be the only accepted design

standards. Various reasons were

provided, most with the implication

that the double hull would be the best

for providing protection to the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13323

environment. Except for changes

discussed above, the Coast Guard agrees

with these recommendations.

13. Two comments recommended that

double hull designs require continuous

centerline bulkhead standards or

stability limitations, as this design

would have a tendency to react

erratically due to free surface effect

during loading and offloading situations

where the vessel’s tanks are in a

partially loaded condition.

The Coast Guard notes that some new

double hull tanker designs without

longitudinal bulkheads, though meeting

MARPOL and IFR double hull design

standards, have inferior intact stability

characteristics than tankers with

longitudinal bulkheads. The Coast

Guard, working with IMO’s Stability,

Loadlines and Fishing Vessels Safety

(SLF) Sub-Committee, is conducting an

ongoing review of the need for

additional longitudinal bulkhead

requirements on double hull designs.

Most designs, even without centerline

bulkheads, can be safely operated by

vessel officers following loading and

discharge instructions in the vessel’s

loading manual.

Review and study of these intact

stability requirements are being

completed and the Coast Guard is

proposing the implementation of new

stability requirements under a separate

rulemaking (CGD 91–206). Interim

guidance on stability for double hull

tankers has been provided in NVIC 4–

92.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rulemaking 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 requires

an assessment of potential costs and

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It is significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11040; February 26, 1979). An analysis

of the double hull rules is in the public

docket. Implementation is projected to

gradually increase the transportation

cost of oil by four-tenths of a cent per

gallon over the next 25 years.

This double hull rulemaking is one of

several rules which are being issued in

accordance with Titles IV and V of OPA

90. Some of these rules interact with

each other. The overall impact of these

rules may not equal the cumulative total

impact of each rule considered

individually. For example, the

beneficial impact of the double hull rule

is the reduced amount of oil spilled

after certain grounding or collision

casualties. However, the impact of this

rule will be reduced by other OPA 90

rulemakings and other actions that will

improve operational and navigational

safety of vessels which carry oil in bulk.

These other actions will reduce the

numbers of collisions and groundings

which, in turn, reduce the overall

benefits of (or, total spill reduction

attributable to) double hull

construction.

The Coast Guard intends to conduct a

comprehensive, programmatic RIA for

all Title IV and V OPA 90 rules, once

they are all completed and issued. This

comprehensive RIA will evaluate the

interaction of the rules relative to each

other, and assess their impacts in total.

However, since the rules are being

developed and issued individually over

several years, each rule is being

evaluated by itself through an interim

regulatory impact analysis (Interim

RIA).

Accordingly, an Interim RIA of this

rule was prepared and placed in the

public docket. The Interim RIA

addresses the need for this rulemaking,

the standards adopted in this rule, the

alternatives to this rule, and the

anticipated economic impacts of this

action. A Notice of Availability of the

Interim RIA was published in the

Federal Register on January 15, 1992

(57 FR 1854), and public comments on

the Interim RIA were invited. Six

comments were received; none of the

comments resulted in revision of the

Interim RIA. However, an addendum to

the Interim RIA has been placed in the

public docket to reflect an increase in

the projected economic benefits of spill

prevention. A discussion of this

increase is included in the summary of

public comments on the cost of this rule

published in the IFR of August 12, 1992

(57 FR 36222). In that there is so little

change in this rule from the IFR, the

Interim RIA, as amended, is adopted as

a final assessment under Executive

Order 12866.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rulemaking

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ may include

(1) Small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and not dominant

in their fields and (2) governmental

jurisdictions with populations of less

than 50,000.

The Coast Guard has evaluated the

impact of harmonizing the U.S. cargo

tank length definition with the

international definition of Regulation

13E of Annex I, MARPOL 73/78 on

vessels owned and operated by small

business entities. Most vessels owned or

operated by small business entities are

barges and do not have after cargo pump

rooms or main machinery spaces

underdeck. The change in the cargo tank

length definition in 33 CFR 157.03(aa)

will not change the length of a barge

required to be double hull protected by

the U.S. double hull standards of 33

CFR 157.10d. The only affect of the

change in definition will be on

tankships. The Coast Guard reviews and

approves U.S. vessel construction

designs before they are built and has

verified that no small entity tankships

will be adversely affected by the change

in the definition of cargo tank length.

The modification of the definition

should reduce the construction and

operating costs for new tankships

designed to meet the double hull

standards. Converting existing single

hull tankships to meet the double hull

standards, when these vessels can no

longer operate as single hull vessels,

should also be less costly.

Because it expects the impact of this

rulemaking to be minimal, the Coast

Guard certifies under section 605(b) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) that this rule will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rulemaking contains no

additional collection-of-information

requirements. Section 33 CFR 157 was

revised by the IFR to require the

submission of plans verifying

compliance with this rule. No

additional information collection

burden is imposed due to this

modification of the cargo tank length

definition. Compliance with this rule

can be verified from other information

that is currently submitted under 33

CFR 157.24 and 46 CFR 31.10.

Under the IFR, the Coast Guard has

submitted the information collection

requirements in this rule 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 number is 46 CFR

157.24 and the corresponding OMB

approval numbers are OMB Control

Numbers 2115–0503 and 2115–0106.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rulemaking under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

rulemaking does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism assessment.
13324 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

This final rule amends standards for

the construction of double hull tank

vessels. The authority to regulate tank

vessel construction standards is

delegated to the Coast Guard by the

Secretary of Transportation, whose

authority is committed by statute.

Since tank vessels move between U.S.

ports in the national marketplace, and

between U.S. and foreign ports in the

international marketplace, tank vessel

construction is a matter for which

regulations should be of national scope

to avoid unreasonably burdensome

variances. The Coast Guard received no

comments addressing the federalism

implications during the comment

periods of the IFR. Therefore, the Coast

Guard continues the long-established

practice of preempting State action

addressing the same subject matter.

Environment

The Coast Guard environmental

assessment (EA) for Double Hull Design

Requirements for Tank Vessels was

prepared in accordance with

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91–190), and

the Council of Environmental Quality

Regulations of July 1, 1986 (40 CFR

parts 1500–1508).

This rule adopts the IFR as final with

minor changes to definitions

implementing the double hull

provisions in Section 4115(a) of OPA 90

(46 U.S.C. 3703a), and is not expected

to result in significant impact on the

quality of the human environment, as

defined in NEPA. The Coast Guard has

placed a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) in the public docket.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

33 CFR Part 157

Cargo vessels, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

46 CFR Part 30

Cargo vessels, Foreign relations,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Penalties, 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.

46 CFR Part 70

Marine safety, Passenger vessels,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

46 CFR Part 90

Cargo vessels, Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 172

Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials

transportation, Marine safety.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 33 CFR parts 155 and 157,

and 46 CFR parts 30, 32, 70, 90, and

172, which was published at 57 FR

36222 on August 12, 1992, is adopted as

a final rule with the following changes:

TITLE 33 CFR PART 157—RULES FOR

THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE

ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO

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;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Section 157.03 is amended by

revising paragraphs (v) and (aa) to read

as follows:

§ 157.03 Definitions.

* * * * *

(v) Tank vessel means a vessel that is

constructed or adapted primarily to

carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous

material in bulk as cargo or cargo

residue, and that—

(1) Is a vessel of the United States;

(2) Operates on the navigable waters

of the United States; or

(3) Transfers oil or hazardous material

in a port or place subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States. This

does not include an offshore supply

vessel, or a fishing vessel or fish tender

vessel of not more than 750 gross tons

when engaged only in the fishing

industry.

* * * * *

(aa) Cargo tank length means the

length from the forward bulkhead of the

forwardmost cargo tanks, to the after

bulkhead of the aftermost cargo tanks.

* * * * *

Dated: March 1, 1995.

A.E. Henn,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commandant.

[FR Doc. 95–5573 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P