[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34573-34609]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-34]

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

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 97 and 148

Bulk Solid Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the International
Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 97 and 148

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0091]
RIN 1625-AB47

Bulk Solid Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the
International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to harmonize its regulations with
International Maritime Organization (IMO) amendments to Chapter VI and
Chapter VII to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, as amended, (SOLAS) that make the International Maritime
Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code mandatory. The amendments require that
all vessels subject to SOLAS and carrying bulk solid cargoes other than
grain must comply with the IMSBC Code. The Coast Guard proposes to
amend its regulations governing the carriage of solid hazardous
materials in bulk to allow use of the IMSBC Code as an equivalent form
of compliance for all domestic and foreign vessels operating in U.S.
navigable waters. Proposed changes to the Coast Guard regulations will
also expand the list of solid hazardous materials authorized for bulk
transportation by vessel and include special handling procedures based
on the IMSBC Code and existing special permits. These proposed changes
would reduce the need for the current special permits for the carriage
of certain solid hazardous materials in bulk.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before July 19, 2010
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. Comments sent to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information
must reach OMB on or before July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0091 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    Collection of information comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section VII.D. of this NPRM, you
must also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that your
comments to OIRA are received on time, the preferred methods are by e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though slower, method
is by U.S. mail 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.
    Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the
material proposed for incorporation by reference at room 1214, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the material
are available as indicated in the ``Incorporation by Reference''
section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Richard Bornhorst, Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards, Hazardous Materials Standards Division (CG-
5223), Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
    A. Summary of Existing Regulations
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Changes to International Regulations That Led to This
Rulemaking
IV. Discussion of Comments on the 1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. General Comments
    B. Comments Relating to Specific Provisions
    C. Changes Between the 1994 NPRM and This NPRM, Not Prompted by
Specific Comments
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Changes to Part 97
    B. Proposed Changes to Part 148
    C. Distribution Table for Part 148
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0091), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop-down menu, select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0091'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search,'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by

11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``USCG-2009-0091'' and click
``Search.'' Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Document
Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    You may search the electronic form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for a public meeting to the docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold a public meeting at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BC Code Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes
BCSN Bulk Cargo Shipping Name
CDC Certain Dangerous Cargoes
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee
DCM Dangerous Cargo Manifest
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DRI Direct Reduced Iron
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR Parts 171-180
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IMDG Code International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMSBC Code International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code
LFL lower flammability limit
LSA Low Specific Activity
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MHB Materials Hazardous only in Bulk
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
NCB National Cargo Bureau
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
N.O.S. Not Otherwise Specified
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORM Other Regulated Material
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDM potentially dangerous material
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (U.S.
Department of Transportation)
RQ Reportable Quantity
SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus
SCO-I Surface Contaminated Object (group I)
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974,
as amended
TLV threshold limit value
TML Transportable Moisture Limit
UN United Nations
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

A. Summary of Existing Regulations

    The Coast Guard regulations governing the carriage of solid
hazardous materials in bulk are found in 46 CFR parts 97 and 148. Part
148 prescribes regulations for the transport of solid hazardous
materials in bulk by vessel on U.S. navigable waters. Subpart 148.01
includes information on applicability, special permits, and
certification. This subpart also includes a list of permitted solid
cargoes that may be transported without special permit from the Coast
Guard; the list was last revised in 1984 (49 FR 16794). The list does
not cover 30 additional solid cargoes that are now shipped in bulk by
vessel and that require special handling procedures to ensure safety in
transportation. The Coast Guard issues special permits specifying
conditions under which it allows transport of these bulk solid cargoes
by vessel.
    Subpart 148.02 includes vessel requirements for shipping papers,
dangerous cargo manifests (DCMs), and reporting of incidents. Subparts
148.03 and 148.04 include minimum transportation requirements for all
bulk solid cargoes subject to Part 148, and special additional
requirements for certain material. The special additional requirements
are applied to solid cargoes permitted to be carried in bulk by vessel
in accordance with Subpart 148.01.

B. Regulatory History

    This rulemaking is based on a previous rulemaking (CGD 87-069),
which the Coast Guard closed in 1995. On April 28, 1989, the Coast
Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled
``Marine Transport of Bulk Solid Hazardous Materials'' in the Federal
Register (54 FR 18308). During the 60-day comment period, the Coast
Guard received 16 comment letters on the ANPRM, which we considered in
developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The comments did not
request a public meeting, and we did not hold one.
    On April 12, 1994, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled
``Carriage of Bulk Solid Materials Requiring Special Handling'' in the
Federal Register (59 FR 17418) with a 90-day comment period. On August
5, 1994, we extended the comment period for 30 days (59 FR 40004). The
1994 NPRM addressed comments received on the ANPRM. The NPRM also
included a provision regarding the carriage of coal (proposed in the
1994 NPRM as Sec.  148.240), which was based on a report by the
Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Subcommittee on Coal
Transportation. That CTAC report is discussed in the 1994 NPRM at 59 FR
17420. In response to the 1994 NPRM, the Coast Guard received 65
letters and communications containing more than 200 comments. No public
meeting was requested, and we did not hold one.
    On April 13, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of
termination in the Federal Register (60 FR 18793). At that time, we
closed the rulemaking to focus resources on other matters. We resolved
those matters and we are now proceeding with the rulemaking. A copy of
the 1994 NPRM and the 1995 Termination Notice have been placed in the
public docket for reference.

    In 2008 and 2009, the CTAC Subcommittee on Solid Bulk Cargoes held
several meetings regarding the IMSBC Code and specific requirements for
the carriage of all bulk solid cargoes by vessel. Industry provided
extensive recommendations during these public meetings, which the Coast
Guard considered and incorporated when developing this proposed rule.
The meetings occurred on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 17369), September 9 and
10, 2008 (73 FR 47202), April 21 and 22, 2009, and August 12, 2009 (74
FR 39090). The rulemaking docket (USCG-2009-0091) contains minutes of
these public meetings as well as the subcommittee's final report. The
Coast Guard used CTAC's report in preparing this NPRM.
    At the time the Coast Guard published the 1994 NPRM, the
international standard for the marine transport of solid materials in
bulk was the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC Code).
Since the 1994 NPRM, the IMO has updated the BC Code periodically and
renamed it the IMSBC Code. Therefore, this proposed rule is similar,
but not identical, to that proposed in the 1994 NPRM. The Coast Guard
encourages members of the public to comment on this NPRM, even if they
may have submitted a similar comment in the 1994 rulemaking.
    The period for comment on this NPRM is 30 days. We believe that a
30-day comment period is adequate in light of the long history of this
rulemaking and the multiple opportunities for comment. As described in
detail above, the public has commented on an ANPRM as well as an NPRM
very similar to the rule proposed in this document, and at four public
meetings in the last 2 years. In addition, the Coast Guard participated
in the development of the IMSBC Code, and held public meetings prior to
each meeting with the IMO to give shipping and cargo interests the
opportunity to comment on IMO activities (see, e.g., 74 FR 40632, 73 FR
51876, and 72 FR 44213). For these reasons, we believe that a comment
period of 30 days is appropriate.

C. Changes to International Regulations That Led to This Rulemaking

    The carriage of hazardous materials in international maritime
commerce is now governed by Chapter VII of the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS). In 1990 and
1991, the IMO amended Chapter VI of SOLAS, which formerly applied only
to grain cargoes, to include all bulk solid cargoes. The amended
Chapter VI of SOLAS requires that the master receive written cargo
information, that the vessel carry oxygen analysis and gas detection
equipment on board when the cargoes to be carried are likely to emit
toxic or flammable gases, and that the master possess information
regarding the ship's stability and the distribution of cargo after
loading.
    On January 1, 1994, these amendments became binding for all nations
signatory to SOLAS, including the United States. In December, 2008, IMO
further amended SOLAS Chapter VI and Chapter VII, to require compliance
with the relevant provisions of the IMSBC Code for the carriage of bulk
solid cargoes other than grain. This amendment will become binding for
all nations signatory to the SOLAS Convention on January 1, 2011.
    The IMSBC Code, formerly known as the BC Code, is the international
standard for the marine transport of solid materials in bulk. The IMO
first issued it in 1965 and has amended it several times since, most
recently in 2008. The IMSBC Code provides standards for shippers,
vessel operators, and masters to ensure the safe handling and carriage
of bulk solid cargoes. Implementation of the IMSBC Code will not become
mandatory until January 1, 2011, but several countries have already
adopted the Code, in whole or in part, as national regulation.
Countries that are party to SOLAS will require compliance with the
IMSBC Code for all bulk solid shipments occurring in their
jurisdiction. Several bulk solid cargoes covered by the IMSBC Code are
also regulated by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 148, under either
the list of permitted cargoes or the terms of a special permit.
    The Secretary of Homeland Security delegated to the Coast Guard the
authority necessary to conduct this rulemaking, including the authority
to carry out the functions and exercise the authorities in 46 U.S.C.
3306 and 5111, and to carry out the functions of 46 U.S.C. 3306(a)(5)
and 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. relating to the regulation of bulk
transportation of hazardous materials loaded or carried on board a
vessel without benefit of containers or labels. Under these and other
authorities, the Coast Guard proposes in this NPRM regulations that
would allow the use of the IMSBC Code as an equivalent form of
compliance with 46 CFR part 148 for international shipments originating
or concluding in the United States, subject to conditions and
limitations.

IV. Discussion of Comments on the 1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the April 1994 NPRM, the Coast Guard received 65
letters and communications containing more than 200 comments. Those
commenting included shippers, carriers, terminal operators, marine
surveyors, trade associations, private individuals, and the Canadian
Coast Guard. No public meeting was requested, and we did not hold one.
    In this section, we discuss the comments received on the 1994 NPRM,
including, where appropriate, instances in which comments led to
changes between the 1994 NPRM and this NPRM. In many cases, we no
longer have the original comment letters submitted in 1994; instead, we
based our discussion of those comments on summaries created in 1994,
which we have made available in the docket. Following the discussion of
the public comments, we summarize additional changes made to this
proposed rule as the result of actions by the Coast Guard, the IMO, and
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
since publication of the 1994 NPRM.

A. General Comments

    Two comments objected to the rulemaking in general, stating that
the regulations are burdensome and unnecessary.
    We have regulated shipment of bulk solid hazardous materials for
more than 30 years. All of the materials previously regulated and those
to be regulated under this rulemaking have been determined through
experience and/or scientific investigation to have characteristics that
could endanger human life or harm the marine environment. Before
participating in any action by IMO to develop the IMSBC Code, the Coast
Guard sought advice from the affected segments of American industry.
The coal industry is a particularly good example. A special working
group from American coal and marine transportation interests
participated in the development of the international requirements. The
adoption of amendments to Chapter VI and Chapter VII of SOLAS require
that all vessels subject to SOLAS and carrying bulk solid cargoes other
than grain must comply with the IMSBC Code. It is necessary for the
United States to update its regulations to harmonize with SOLAS
requirements. Allowing for the use of the IMSBC Code as an equivalent
form of compliance with 46 CFR part 148, and reducing the number of
special permits requested and issued, will reduce some burden on both
the Coast Guard and the shipper. The United States has been, and
expects to continue being, a leader in international maritime safety.

    One comment noted that the Coast Guard was regulating in an area
where each circumstance is different and calls for different measures.
This comment recommended that the Coast Guard require companies
conducting potentially risky operations to conduct a systems analysis
similar to the process hazards analysis now required by both the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    We determined that the comment's recommendation transcends the
scope of the present rulemaking. None of the materials regulated under
the former rules or proposed for regulating by this NPRM have a history
of catastrophic events that would put an entire community at risk. Only
a few are environmentally hazardous substances of significance. The
issue of systems analysis as proposed by the comment would be better
addressed under a comprehensive review of the Coast Guard's port safety
regulations.
    Ten comments proposed that the rules in Part 148 should not apply
to unmanned barges in domestic rivers or coastwise service. We agree in
part. We revised proposed Sec.  148.1 to exclude unmanned barges
transporting potentially dangerous materials (PDM), such as coal and
wood chips, from this part except when such a barge is on an
international voyage. PDM materials have characteristics of self-
heating, flammable/toxic gas emission, or oxygen depletion. These
materials pose little danger when transported in open hopper barges.
This part would continue to apply to all unmanned barges transporting
bulk materials meeting the hazardous class definitions in 49 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter C; for example, ammonium nitrate fertilizer and
ferrosilicon. The term PDM is functionally equivalent to term
``material hazardous only in bulk'' (MHB), which is used in the IMSBC
Code.

B. Comments Relating to Specific Provisions

    1. Section 97.12-1. Four comments found the applicability statement
confusing and the applicability of Subpart 97.12 to foreign flag
vessels and barges unclear.
    This section has been deleted from the proposed rule. The vessel
applicability rules from Part 90 apply.
    2. Section 97.12-3. One comment remarked that not all vessels
subject to the rules would have masters.
    We determined that no change is necessary. Unmanned barges are
exempt from Subpart 97.12 and all other vessels have masters.
    3. Section 148.3.
    a. Adjacent space. Two comments questioned the definition of
``adjacent space.'' One asked whether an adjacent space included
penetrations, such as cable runs and pipes, in a bulkhead separating a
space from a cargo hold, if those penetrations were gas-tight. The
other stated that spaces having a high rate of air exchange that
negates the potential for the accumulation of toxic or flammable gases
should not be considered adjacent spaces.
    To the first comment, the Coast Guard explains that if a cable or
pipe passes through the common bulkhead or deck in a stuffing tube or
packing gland, the space is considered an adjacent space. If a pipe is
welded where it passes through the common bulkhead or deck, it is not a
penetration for the purposes of this definition.
    To the second comment, we point out that the definition of adjacent
space relates only to the location of a space in relation to a cargo
hold containing bulk solid materials requiring special handling. The
atmospheric conditions in the space are not addressed in the
definition. Ventilation of adjacent spaces is addressed for specified
cargoes.
    b. Hot-molded briquettes. One comment pointed out that the
definition of ``hot-molded briquettes'' is not consistent with the BC
Code (now replaced by the IMSBC Code).
    The IMSBC Code defines hot molded direct reduced iron (DRI) as
briquettes molded at a temperature of 650 [deg]C or higher that have a
density of 5.0 g/cm[sup3] or greater. The 1994 NPRM had stated that DRI
briquettes were either molded at a temperature of 650 [deg]C or higher
or had a density of 5.0 g/cm[sup3] or greater. In this proposed rule,
we have revised the proposed definition to match the IMSBC Code.
    c. Surface ventilation. One comment asked if the definition of
``surface ventilation'' included both active (fan-induced) and passive
(hatch cover vents) ventilation.
    The answer is yes. In this proposed rule, we have expanded the
definition accordingly.
    4. Section 148.5. One comment supported acceptance of alternative
procedures set out in Sec.  148.5.
    5. Section 148.8. One comment proposed that Section 4 of the BC
Code (now IMSBC Code) be incorporated by reference. The section deals
with assessing the acceptability of consignments for safe shipment.
    Section 4 of the IMSBC Code contains provisions for information to
be given to the master prior to loading, and retained on board during
carriage. This section of the IMSBC Code is incorporated by reference
for international shipments under Sec.  148.55 of the proposed rule.
For domestic shipments, equivalent measures are contained in Sec. Sec.
148.60 and 148.70.
    6. Section 148.10.
    a. One comment found the proposed rules ``grossly inadequate'' in
how they protect merchant mariners from exposure to hazardous
substances. Commenting on footnotes 7, 8, 10, 12, and 15 of proposed
Table 148.10, this comment recommended that the Coast Guard either
adopt OSHA standards for personal protective equipment or develop its
own equivalent standards.
    We recognize that this regulation does not contain all the
requirements necessary for a comprehensive health and safety program.
In our Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 3-92 of
February 24, 1992, however, we provide the marine industry with
guidance for such a program.
    In this proposed rule, we have retained requirements for the most
important health and safety issues related to the transportation of
materials regulated in Part 148. These include general requirements to
treat all cargo holds as confined spaces, and specific requirements
that are deemed necessary due to unique hazards of certain bulk solid
materials. In this proposed rule, a new section, Sec.  148.86,
containing requirements for confined space entry has replaced the
``special requirements'' proposed in Sec. Sec.  148.425 and 148.430 in
the 1994 NPRM Sec.  1. Also, we have added a definition of ``confined
space'' to Sec.  148.3.
    b. One comment suggested that an entry for ``ammonium nitrate, UN
1942'' be added to Table 148.10.
    We agree and we have adjusted this proposed rule accordingly. The
footnotes and special requirements in the new entry would be the same
as for ammonium nitrate fertilizer, UN 2067.
    c. Four comments opposed the classification of coal as PDM and/or
requested that the transport of coal be removed from the rulemaking.
    We did not adopt this request. The IMSBC Code provisions for
transport of coal are the result of a U.S. initiative developed with
the knowledge, assistance, and concurrence of the U.S. coal industry.
Where the 1994 rulemaking was not in harmony with the IMSBC Code, we
have revised this proposed rule accordingly. The burden on the coal
industry would be lessened by exempting domestic barge shipments of
PDM, as is provided by this rulemaking.

    d. Concerning the list of sections containing special requirements
for coal, one comment observed that Sec. Sec.  148.15, 148.80, 148.90,
148.100, 148.110, 148.115, and 148.120 also apply to coal.
    Although this is generally true, Sec.  148.15 does not apply to
coal; therefore, no change to Table 148.10 is necessary to make
reference to this section. The other sections cited by the comment
contain general requirements that apply to all commodities listed in
the table, and are not specific to coal.
    e. One comment questioned the applicability to coal of footnote 24
of proposed Table 148.10, cargoes subject to liquefaction, stating that
liquefaction cannot occur with coal.
    Based on the IMSBC Code and other information available to the
Coast Guard, we believe liquefaction can indeed occur with coal if the
coal is in a finely divided form. In order to clarify this, proposed
Sec.  148.450, ``Cargoes subject to liquefaction,'' states that it does
not apply to cargoes of coal that have an average particle size of 10
mm (.394 in.) or greater. The average particle size is based on the
definition of ``fine-grained materials'' in Appendix 2 of the IMSBC
Code.
    f. One comment requested that footnote 11, which indicates that
petroleum coke is susceptible to spontaneous heating and ignition, be
removed from the entry for petroleum coke in Table 148.10. The comment
states that this footnote is not appropriate.
    We found that the IMSBC Code identifies spontaneous heating and
ignition as a characteristic of petroleum coke, and we have left this
as a hazardous or potentially dangerous description for petroleum coke.
    g. One comment opposed classification of sawdust and wood chips as
PDM.
    We disagree. The Coast Guard's Bulk Solid Cargoes regulations have
listed sawdust as a regulated material since before 1976. Under this
proposed rule, we would regulate sawdust as PDM when carried by cargo
vessel; it is currently regulated as an Other Regulated Material--Class
C (ORM-C). However, the proposed rule does not apply to domestic barge
shipments. The principal hazard associated with these materials,
sawdust and wood chips, is oxygen depletion in confined spaces. Since
these materials are usually transported domestically in open hopper
barges, oxygen depletion is not a significant hazard.
    h. One comment recommended that an entry for Sulfur, NA 1350,
Hazard Class 9, be added to 49 CFR Table 172.101 to be used for
domestic transportation of sulfur.
    We agree that this addition would be consistent with the entries
for sulfur in 49 CFR Table 172.101. The entry for sulfur that is
assigned to NA 1350 may be used only for domestic transportation. The
proposed entry for Sulfur UN 1350, Hazard Class 4.1, has been retained
for international transportation. The footnotes and special
requirements of both entries are the same.
    7. Section 148.12.
    a. This was one of the most controversial provisions of the 1994
NPRM. Seventeen comments objected to this provision on the grounds that
it would create a monopoly by naming the National Cargo Bureau, Inc.
(NCB), as the exclusive agency for assisting the Coast Guard in
administering Part 148. The comments requested that we authorize other
competent entities to assist in the administration of these
regulations.
    Since 1952, the Coast Guard's hazardous materials regulations
(HMRs) have contained a provision recognizing NCB. As proposed in 1994,
Sec.  148.12 (to replace existing Sec.  148.01-13) granted no monopoly
to the NCB, did not require that its services be used, and did not
prohibit carriers from employing other surveyors. In this proposed
rule, we have retained this section with only minor revisions.
    b. One comment noted that Sec.  148.12 implies mandatory Coast
Guard inspection of each barge, creating a delay that would have an
adverse economic impact.
    This is not the case. Proposed Sec.  148.12 in no way mandates
inspection of every barge. We have the authority to inspect barges or
other vessels to ensure compliance with the regulations, but in
practice we do not carry out inspections of 100 percent of the affected
vessels. The employment of NCB or any recognized marine surveying
organization is voluntary on the part of a vessel operator.
    8. Section 148.55. One comment noted that proposed paragraph (b) of
this section, by authorizing compliance with international requirements
in lieu of compliance with Part 148, may preclude some other
regulations in Part 148.
    As the rule was proposed in the 1994 NPRM, this would have been
true. However, it was not the Coast Guard's intent that this provision
should obviate the requirements concerning environmentally hazardous
substances or zinc ashes. In this proposed rule, we have revised
paragraph (b) of this section to require that these commodities must
comply with Part 148 in addition to the IMSBC Code. We are not aware of
any other provisions in this rulemaking that are significantly more
stringent than the IMSBC Code.
    9. Section 148.60.
    a. One comment recommended that shipping papers include the
shipper's and transporter's Hazardous Materials Registration Number.
    Under PHMSA regulations at 49 CFR part 107, subpart G, registration
is required only for shippers and transporters of certain packaged
hazardous materials. Registration is not required for shippers or
transporters of bulk materials, including solid materials, liquid
chemicals, and compressed gases. Therefore, not all shippers and
transporters of bulk solid materials will have Hazardous Materials
Registration Numbers.
    b. One comment stated that the proposed regulation provided
inadequate protection regarding shipment by barge. Because barges do
not have masters, there is no one to hold responsible for accepting the
commodity.
    We point to Sec.  148.2, proposed in this rulemaking, which places
the duty to comply with these regulations on ``each master of a vessel,
person in charge of a barge, owner, operator, charterer, or agent.'' We
propose to revise the definition of ``master'' in Sec.  148.3 to
indicate that the person in charge of a barge may perform the functions
of a master for the purposes of this proposed rule. We also propose to
add the definition of ``person in charge of a barge'' to Sec.  148.3.
    c. One comment requested that the Coast Guard define the format or
document to be used for notification of the master.
    We do not intend to impose a format for communications between
shipper and carrier. A single format cannot take into account all forms
of communication between all types of shippers and carriers.
Documentation should be in a form acceptable to both parties.
    d. One comment suggested that it may be good practice to have a
material safety data sheet (MSDS) address some portions of proposed
Sec.  148.60.
    We agree with the comment, but point out that proposed Sec.  148.61
already allows hazardous materials information to be provided in the
form of an MSDS.
    e. One comment observed that, as proposed in the 1994 NPRM, Sec.
148.60(d) negated the requirement for shipping papers for shipments of
PDM, including coal.
    In this proposed rule, we have resolved this issue by removing

paragraph (d) of Sec.  148.60. Because of the proposed applicability
provisions at Sec.  148.1, shipping papers would be required for all
shipments of hazardous materials and PDM by cargo vessel, and by
unmanned barge if the barge is on an international voyage. Shipping
papers are not required for PDM when transported by barge in domestic
transportation.
    f. One comment stated that the shipping paper requirements for PDM
in the 1994 proposal were not clear; this comment proposed that the
requirement for shipper advice be dropped.
    Shippers' advice to the master is essential for many materials. The
shipper has the most knowledge of the characteristics and hazards of
the material and therefore can provide the best advice for shipping.
This information most commonly is conveyed through shipping papers and
DCMs. Under SOLAS, shipping papers and a DCM are required for all
hazardous cargoes. Therefore, in this proposed rule, we removed the
exception for PDM in international commerce. Because of the proposed
revision to the applicability provisions at Sec.  148.1, neither
shipping papers nor a DCM are needed for shipments of PDM by unmanned
barge in domestic transportation.
    10. Section 148.62. Two comments did not believe safety would be
meaningfully enhanced by a requirement to transfer and maintain aboard
an unmanned barge written information on the hazards of these cargoes.
    The proposed regulations require that the shipping paper and
emergency response information be kept on the tug or towing vessel, or,
in the case of a moored barge, in a readily retrievable location. The
purpose of this requirement includes the safety of first responders. If
an incident should occur on board the barge, it is essential that
personnel responding can obtain emergency response information. If the
shipper or the master of a vessel or person in charge is not available,
this may be the only source of information on the cargo.
    11. Section 148.70.
    a. One comment requested that barges be exempt from the requirement
for a DCM.
    Under the revised applicability provisions of this proposed rule,
barges are exempt from DCM requirements unless they are on an
international voyage. On international voyages, barges carrying Class 4
through 9 hazardous materials in bulk must comply with SOLAS and
therefore must have a DCM.
    b. Another comment questioned whether a DCM is required for
materials classed as PDM.
    The answer is no. A DCM is required only when a cargo vessel (or a
barge on an international voyage) transports bulk materials of Hazard
Classes 4 through 9.
    c. One comment recommended that a DCM be required for unmanned
barges.
    We partially agree. Under SOLAS, an unmanned barge carrying bulk
hazardous materials other than PDM on an international voyage must have
a DCM on board. For barges in domestic transportation, however, the
information required to be on the DCM is either not applicable or is
redundant to information presented on the shipping paper. The shipping
paper required on board the towing vessel or on the barge under
proposed Sec.  148.60 provides sufficient information.
    12. Section 148.80.
    a. One comment asked whether the definition of ``responsible
person'' included members of a ship's crew designated by the master or
his deputy and noted that, if so, no changes in current practices are
implied.
    This definition as referenced by the comment is the intended
definition of ``responsible person.'' The responsible person must be a
person empowered by the master of a vessel or the owner or operator of
a barge to make all decisions relating to his or her specific task and
must have the necessary knowledge and experience for that purpose. We
have added this definition of ``responsible person'' to proposed Sec.
148.3.
    b. Another comment asked whether these regulations would require
either the vessel or the shipper to provide a ``responsible person'' to
supervise the loading.
    The answer is yes. The proposed rule requires that a responsible
person be assigned by either the master of the vessel or the owner or
operator of a barge.
    13. Section 148.90.
    a. Eighteen comments questioned the need for holds to be thoroughly
cleaned of the previous cargo when the same cargo is to be loaded
again.
    We believe that the 1994 NPRM was ambiguously worded with regard to
the cleaning of cargo holds. The current proposed rule clarifies that
thorough cleaning is required only when the previous cargo is
incompatible with the cargo being loaded. Compatibility is determined
by reference to the stowage and segregation requirements in Subpart D
of Part 148.
    b. Four comments stated that the requirement that each cargo hold
be as dry as practicable was in itself not practical.
    The proposed rule clarifies that this requirement applies only to
bulk solids that are dangerous when wet or that are subject to
liquefaction.
    c. Two comments expressed the need for shippers to advise masters
of Great Lakes vessels regarding stowage factors and trimming, because
of the unique design and operating mode of these vessels. According to
the comments, the best course of action is to test every coal cargo for
methane regardless of information provided by the shipper.
    We agree. The IMSBC Code requires that the atmosphere above the
cargo in each hold containing coal be regularly monitored for the
concentration of methane, oxygen, and carbon monoxide with procedures
outlined in Appendix 1.
    d. Another comment recommended that the requirement to provide
information on the chemical properties and related hazards of coal and
petroleum coke should be omitted.
    We disagree. In the interest of safety, the master of the vessel
must be fully informed of the nature of the material to be loaded. The
regulations, it should be noted, do not stipulate that the chemical
properties and related hazards information must be provided for each
shipment. For repetitious shipments by a single shipper of a material
whose characteristics remain unchanged, this information need only be
provided once and retained on file.
    14. Section 148.100. One comment recommended that recording the
details of cargo monitoring and gas testing in a separate dedicated
book should be allowed to continue. The ship's log need only make
reference to such testing or monitoring.
    We agree with the comment and revised proposed Sec.  148.100
requiring that the date and time be recorded in the ship's log. The
proposed rule requires only that the detailed information be recorded,
and does not specifically require that it be recorded in the ship's
log.
    15. Section 148.110. One comment stated that a cautionary statement
referring to 33 CFR part 151 might be appropriate for inclusion in
Sec.  148.110.
    We agree. Under 33 CFR part 151, operational and maintenance wastes
such as cargo residues and deck sweepings are considered ``garbage.''
When on U.S. territorial seas or inland waters, cargo residues and deck
sweepings must be retained on the vessel and disposed of as specified
in that part; therefore, we included this information in the proposed
Sec.  148.110.
    16. Section 148.150. One comment requested that a provision be
added under Sec.  148.150 to read ``sulfur must be

segregated as required in Sec.  148.120 for Class 4.1 materials.''
    We agree with the comment and made this revision.
    17. Section 148.155. One comment interpreted this section as
requiring separation by one complete cargo compartment between two PDM
commodities. They doubted that a vessel would be capable of sailing
with an empty intermediate cargo compartment without stressing the
vessel.
    This comment likely refers to proposed Sec.  148.155(d)(2). The
separation provision applies only when the temperature of petroleum
coke is 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) or higher when loaded. The purpose of
this requirement is to prevent contact between a bulkhead of a cargo
hold containing hot hazardous material and a cargo in an adjacent cargo
hold that is sensitive to heat. If it is necessary to transport
petroleum coke in a hold adjacent to other hazardous materials, the
solution is to not load hot petroleum coke until its temperature
decreases to below 55[deg]C. Alternatively, if possible, nonhazardous
cargo could be stowed in the intervening hold.
    18. Section 148.205.
    a. One comment stated that the temperature limitations for ammonium
nitrate fertilizer should be ensured by monitoring and controlling
temperature at the output from the manufacturing process rather than by
temperature probes once the material is loaded.
    We agree that the temperature of ammonium nitrate fertilizer or any
other bulk commodity is best controlled through the manufacturing
process. However, only monitoring immediately before loading would
ensure that the temperature of the cargo on the vessel is within safe
limits.
    b. One comment asked if the detonation test prescribed by The
Fertilizer Institute was acceptable as an equivalent test under Sec.
148.205(b).
    In this proposed rule this test has not been added to the list of
allowable tests because it is no longer being maintained by The
Fertilizer Institute. Therefore, the detonation test prescribed by The
Fertilizer Institute is not acceptable as an equivalent.
    c. One comment stated that Sec.  148.205(c)(1) is a reasonable
requirement provided it does not mean that each load offered for
shipment has to be tested. According to the comment, test data on file
supporting the classification by the manufacturer should be sufficient.
    This proposed provision does not imply that testing is required for
each shipment as long as the chemical composition of the material being
shipped has not changed.
    d. One comment noted that this section is deficient because it
refers only to the ``master'' when the vessel may be a barge.
    To clarify the applicability of this and similar provisions, we
proposed to revise the definition of ``master'' in Sec.  148.3 to
include the ``person in charge of a barge,'' and add a definition of
``person in charge of a barge'' to that section.
    e. One comment questioned the prohibition on fuel oil transfer
during loading of ammonium nitrate fertilizers. This comment saw no
reason why internal fuel transfers should not be permitted.
    The purpose of prohibiting bunkering and fuel transfers during the
handling of ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate fertilizers is to
preclude any possibility of forming an explosive mixture through the
contamination of the ammonium nitrate. This prohibition does not extend
to transfers of fuel on board the vessel through the vessel's fixed
piping system. We have reworded the section to clarify this.
    19. Section 148.225. One comment recommended that Sec. Sec.
148.225 and 148.315 address the proper disposal of residue that has
been ``hosed down'' or ``washed down with fresh water.'' Another
similar comment recommended that Sec.  148.315 should address proper
disposal of sulfur residue that has been ``hosed down'' or ``washed
down with fresh water.''
    Although the provision for washing down with fresh water is a
direct quotation from the IMSBC Code, we recognize that it conflicts
with Annex V of The International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) and 33 CFR part 151. Instead, in
these sections, we propose to refer to 33 CFR parts 151.55 through
151.77.
    20. Section 148.240.
    a. One comment believed there should be some discrimination between
supply and exhaust fans in determining which must be ``safe for use in
an explosive gas atmosphere.'' The comment recommended that all
existing fans should be ``grandfathered.''
    We disagree. Both intake and exhaust fans must be explosion-proof
for two reasons. First, ventilation fans on board a vessel are often
dual purpose, serving as both intake and exhaust. Second, pockets of
gas may accumulate within the housings of both intake and exhaust fans
during periods of non-use, creating the possibility of explosion.
    b. Two comments expressed an objection to any broad-brush statement
classifying all coals as hazardous material.
    We support the determination by the IMO that, while some coals are
more hazardous than others, all have the potential to be hazardous. We
note that the U.S. coal industry was represented on the working group
that recommended provisions eventually included in the IMSBC Code.
    c. One comment remarked that the requirements for coal were
different and less demanding than the current recommendations contained
in the BC Code (now the IMSBC Code).
    Although phrased differently from the IMSBC Code, the proposed
provisions of this chapter concerning coal (not limited to Sec.
148.240) are neither different nor less demanding than those of the
IMSBC Code.
    d. Another comment proposed that some recognition be shown for the
unique construction of the Great Lakes self-unloading vessel.
    We accept the fact that Great Lakes vessels may have certain unique
features. However, they are exceptions to the general case addressed in
these regulations. If owners/operators of Great Lakes vessels cannot
comply with this proposed rule, but can provide equivalent safety
through alternative means, they may take advantage of the alternative
procedures provisions of Sec.  148.5.
    e. One comment found Sec.  148.240(a) not specific enough to
establish the types of electrical fittings that are required.
    We determined that 46 CFR part 111, subpart 111.105, is sufficient
in clarity. An item of electrical equipment must be tested or approved
in order to comply with IEC 79 series publications. The specific
requirements are stated in 111.105-7(a) and (b) and a reference is made
to this section in 148.240.
    f. Another comment noted that Sec.  148.240(a) did not apply to
adjacent spaces because Sec.  148.18(b) recognized that such spaces may
have electrical equipment that is not certified safe for use in an
explosive gas atmosphere.
    This comment is correct. Paragraph Sec.  148.240(a) has been
revised so that it refers only to electrical equipment in cargo holds.
    g. Fifteen comments expressed very serious objections to the
provision that the temperature of coal at the time of loading not
exceed 41 [deg]C (105 [deg]F), or 15 [deg]C (27 [deg]F) above the
ambient temperature.
    We agree with the comments. The temperature requirements in the
1994 NPRM were not consistent with the IMSBC Code and have been removed
from this proposed rule.

    h. Three comments stated that the wording of the requirement for
trimming, i.e., ``reasonably level,'' was subject to various
interpretations. They recommended that the subjective nature of this
section be eliminated by incorporating some quantitative factor, such
as a maximum height of the peak of the pile expressed as a percentage
of the vessel's beam.
    We recognize the subjective nature of this provision but find it to
be impractical to impose an arbitrary quantitative standard for
``level.'' We have therefore removed this language from the proposed
rule. The shipper will be responsible for providing trimming
information in accordance with the new proposed shipping paper
requirements.
    i. Two comments observed that Sec.  148.240(c)(1) provided no
definition of ``sealed'', but advised that self-unloading vessels
cannot meet this sort of ``sealing'' requirement in all cases. The
comments noted that a number of obvious exemptions would be necessary.
    We find that the concept of ``sealed'' requires no regulatory
definition. The purpose of sealing the accesses and hatches is to
prevent the escape of methane from the hold into other spaces on the
vessel. This paragraph has been revised to clarify that, because of
their design, the unloading gates on self-unloading vessels are not
required to be sealed.
    j. One comment found the 1994 NPRM unclear as to the meaning of the
word ``casing,'' and assumed that this refers to access trunks.
    We agree. ``Casing'' is the term employed by the IMSBC Code. By
common definition, a ``casing'' is the metal enclosure around a space
such as an ``access trunk.'' To eliminate confusion, the word
``casing'' has been removed in this proposed rule.
    k. One comment noted that there was no reference to the tunnel
spaces on self-unloading vessels in the section on coal, and suggested
they be included in Sec.  148.240(c)(2).
    We have adopted this suggestion in the proposed rule.
    l. Three comments inquired as to what specifically are ``hot
areas'' and what is considered adequate ventilation.
    We agree that the use of the term ``hot areas'' in the 1994 NPRM
was vague, and we have deleted it from this rulemaking.
    In the context of Sec.  148.240(c)(2), adequate ventilation means
an air exchange that prevents an accumulation of gas that may be
harmful to personnel in working spaces. The ventilation may be natural
or mechanical and should be commensurate with the risk of exposure of
the space to harmful gases.
    In the context of Sec.  148.240(c)(3), adequate ventilation means
surface ventilation as defined in Sec.  148.240(f). Ventilation has
been defined in the definition section, Sec.  148.3.
    m. One comment stated that paragraph (d) of this section was
redundant by virtue of paragraphs (e), (f), and (i).
    We do not agree. Paragraph (d) states a general prohibition on
ventilation applicable to all shipments of coal. Paragraph (e) requires
the temperature of coal, known to be, or suspected of being,
susceptible to self-heating, to be monitored. Paragraph (f) provides an
exception to paragraph (d) for coals that generate methane. Paragraph
(i) prescribes that the atmosphere in a hold containing a coal
described in paragraph (e) must be monitored for carbon monoxide. There
is no redundancy between paragraph (d) and any other paragraph or
combination of paragraphs.
    n. One comment asserted that the requirement to provide
characteristics of the cargo is the responsibility of the shipper or
his appointed agent, and objected to the reference in the 1994 NPRM to
information about the cargo possessed by the terminal operator and/or
vessel operator. Another comment noted that the requirement to monitor
coal temperatures before loading should be the responsibility of the
shipper. Three other comments stated the view that shippers at times
may find it difficult or impossible to obtain the required information.
These comments stated that shippers should not be liable for
information they do not have.
    In response to all of these comments, the Coast Guard replies that
someone in the transportation chain must accept responsibility for the
condition of a material to be loaded aboard a vessel. Logically, the
primary responsibility resides with the person who offers the material
for shipment. This person is responsible for knowing the specific types
of cargoes being shipped and their hazardous characteristics. This
responsibility does not absolve the terminal operator, who may have
information about cargoes obtained through experience or observation,
from an obligation to pass such information on to the master, nor does
it absolve the master, who has the final responsibility for the safety
of his vessel. This proposed rule clarifies that the master is
responsible for monitoring the temperature of the coal.
    o. Several comments requested clarification as to what triggers the
requirement for ventilation of the cargo space. Three comments stated
that the term ``freshly mined'' was a subjective judgment and needed to
be clarified. One comment requested clarification of what ``history''
would trigger the ventilation requirements for coal.
    This section has been revised in the proposed rule to emphasize the
coal's potential for emitting methane as the trigger for requiring
ventilation of the cargo space.
    p. One comment requested that temperature monitoring be waived with
respect to coal stored in rail cars before loading.
    As amended, the proposed rule does not specifically require
monitoring the temperature of coal that is stored in rail cars before
it is loaded.
    q. One commenter asked if there is a specific standard for
electrical equipment and cables in a hold containing coal, to ensure
that they are suitable for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere.
    Proposed Sec.  148.240(g) specifies that the electrical equipment,
and by implication its associated fittings, must comply with 46 CFR
111.105, which applies to installation of electrical equipment in
hazardous locations.
    r. One comment noted that the meaning of the expression ``may not
be de-energized'' was not clear, and asked whether this statement was
prohibitive or permissive.
    According to Federal Register drafting conventions, the term ``may
not'' or ``No person may'' always implies a prohibition. However, we
have rephrased this paragraph for clarity.
    s. Two comments recommended that electrical equipment in adjacent
spaces be allowed to meet then-current Coast Guard requirements as long
as these spaces are periodically monitored for the presence of
explosive gas.
    Under 46 CFR 111.105-35, existing electrical equipment in cargo
holds containing coal must now be suitable for use in an explosive gas
atmosphere. In adjacent spaces, electrical equipment may be suitable
for use in nonhazardous atmospheres provided such equipment is de-
energized if the concentration of flammable gas in the space reaches a
dangerous level. Because this proposed rule introduces no new
requirements, there is no need to ``grandfather'' existing
installations.
    t. One comment questioned the exception from gas emission
monitoring for voyages of 72 hours or less, noting that all research
data indicates that methane has the potential to leak from coal
immediately and that occurrences of this sort have resulted in several
accidents.
    This exception was included in the 1994 NPRM to account for vessels

operating on the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard recognized the merit of
the comment and removed the exception from this proposed rule.
    u. One comment assumed that opening a ``booby hatch'' or vent pipe
would not be construed as ``opening the cargo hatches or entering the
cargo hold.''
    The comment's assumption is correct.
    v. Three comments noted that it had been the Chemical
Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Subcommittee's intent to
exempt unmanned barges from all requirements to test the atmosphere
above the coal.
    The Coast Guard has proposed to exempt unmanned barges that are
carrying any PDM, including coal, from the applicability of this part
unless the barges are on an international voyage.
    w. Two comments noted that, for coal, the procedure in this section
for taking pre-loading temperature readings would not always be
effective in determining the true status of the stockpile or cargo.
Additionally, they questioned the absence of a provision for continuous
electronic (infrared) temperature monitoring, a procedure that is
available at some export terminals and that has been proven effective
and reliable.
    We removed the pre-loading temperature limitations for coal. As a
means of monitoring the temperature increase for self-heating coal in
the cargo hold of a vessel, we believe the procedure outlined in Sec.
148.240(e) is satisfactory. The Coast Guard does not discount
continuous electronic (infrared) temperature monitoring but has not had
an opportunity to assess its equivalence to the method specified.
Anyone wishing to use continuous electronic monitoring may request
authorization under Sec.  148.5.
    21. Section 148.245.
    a. Two comments noted that the procedures for loading DRI and metal
sulfide concentrates in rain or snow were not addressed. They proposed
that the rule include detailed procedures for monitoring rainfall and
calculating the resulting moisture content, and provisions for
communicating this information with the vessel master and terminal.
    The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) cannot serve as a detailed
instruction manual for safe handling and loading of cargoes. It is the
shipper's responsibility to provide DRI to the master of the vessel in
an acceptable condition. Section 148.245.3(c) prohibits acceptance for
transport of DRI or cold-molded briquettes that are wet or are known to
have been wetted. How this condition is achieved and maintained is left
to the shipper's good judgment.
    b. One commenter felt that Sec.  148.250(d), which prohibits the
loading of DRI hot-molded briquettes during periods of rain or snow,
was overstated.
    We do not agree with this comment. This prohibition is a
precautionary measure for keeping cargoes as dry as practicable. When
DRI hot-molded briquettes are exposed to water, they react, releasing
hydrogen that initiates self-heating of the cargo. As seen in several
incidents over the past years, this self-heating can ultimately lead to
auto ignition of the cargo, causing a fire or an explosion within the
hold and endangering the life of the crew.
    c. One comment requested a definition of ``short international
voyage.''
    After further review, we have removed this terminology from the
proposed rule.
    d. Another comment stated that while this section offers protection
to radar and RDF scanners on board the vessel transporting DRI, it
fails to offer any protection to the crew, adjacent property owners,
etc., from the same dust which would damage the radar.
    The Coast Guard's statutory mandate is to protect life and property
at sea and to assure preservation of the marine environment. A ship's
navigation systems are vital to such protection. Under this rulemaking
and OSHA regulations, crewmembers and other persons engaged in cargo
handling operations must wear protective clothing and respiratory
devices when handling dusty cargoes. The protection of adjacent
property and persons not employed by the terminal or the carrier is
under the purview of EPA air pollution regulations or local statutes
and is beyond the scope of this project. If cargo is appropriately
loaded and shipped, the amount of dust released into the environment
should be minimal.
    22. Section 148.265(g). One comment felt that the requirement to
take and record the temperature of fish meal or fish scrap three times
a day during a voyage was particularly onerous for unmanned barges.
    We agree that taking the temperature three times a day is
impractical on an unmanned barge, especially when that barge is part of
a multi-barge tow. The proposed rule excludes unmanned barges from the
temperature-measurement requirement.
    23. Section 148.270. One comment found Sec.  148.270(d) misleading
and thought that it might exceed Coast Guard authority.
    What specifically was ``misleading'' was not stated. However, this
provision does not exceed Coast Guard authority. It merely directs
those persons responsible for loading or unloading a vessel to take all
reasonable precautions to prevent dispersal of a hazardous substance
into the environment, and to report any spill to the National Response
Center in accordance with EPA regulations. In the proposed rule, the
final sentence has been revised to refer to the ``garbage'' disposal
requirements of 33 CFR part 151.
    24. Section 148.285.
    a. One comment asked the Coast Guard to advise on the format or
type of document to be used for notifications to the master of the
vessel.
    We do not intend to impose a format for communications between
shipper and carrier. Documentation should be in a form acceptable to
both parties. The language of notification to the master has been
removed from this section because that information is already contained
in the proposed Sec.  148.60.
    b. One comment stated that if the sampling of metal sulfide
concentrates is not conducted correctly, and, in fact, is not
representative of the entire consignment at the time of shipment, then
the test procedures may show the cargo safe to transport when this is
not the case.
    The statement is correct. We expect the information a shipper
provides to the master to be both accurate and detailed.
    25. Section 148.295. One comment noted that the 1994 NPRM Sec.
148.295 made no mention of the self-heating or spontaneous ignition
characteristic of petroleum coke, despite a reference to it in the
hazardous or potentially dangerous characteristic column of Table
148.10, footnote 10, found in Sec.  148.11.
    This comment is correct. Text has been added to 148.295(g)
regarding spontaneous heating of this cargo and the necessity of
temperature monitoring during transport.
    26. Section 148.310.
    a. One comment suggested removing seed cake identification numbers
UN 1386 and UN 2217 from the rule.
    We have not accepted this suggestion. The United Nations Committee
of Experts and the IMO recognize seed cake as a material that may self-
heat and, if containing an excessive amount of oil, may be
spontaneously combustible. Further, when transported in packages, this
commodity is regulated as a hazardous material of Class 4.2 in all
modes under PHMSA regulations at 49 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C.

    b. One comment recommended that the Coast Guard amend the rule to
be consistent with long-established industry standards for seed cake.
Two comments proposed that the exemption from Special Permit
requirements not be limited to solvent-extracted rapeseed meal,
pellets, and soya bean meal, but should be extended to other types of
seed cake if they meet the prescribed oil and moisture content levels.
A fourth comment requested that the total oil and moisture requirement
for cottonseed meal be raised to a maximum of 6 percent.
    The criteria for seed cake, UN 1386, are based on the established
criteria for classification of hazardous materials as contained in
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
Exemptions that were granted to rapeseed meal, pellets, and soya bean
meal were based on testing conducted on a world-wide basis that showed
these specific products, with varying moisture content, did not qualify
as hazardous materials. The oil and moisture requirement for cottonseed
meal could possibly be amended if tests are conducted using approved
methods and the results show that it is not dangerous. If the seed cake
industry wishes to have certain materials deregulated when transported
in bulk, they may petition the Coast Guard following the process in 33
CFR 1.05-20.
    27. Section 148.325.
    a. Two comments requested that sawdust and wood chips not be
included in these regulations.
    Sawdust and wood chips, which are classed as PDM, would not be
regulated when transported domestically in unmanned barges. However,
the regulations would continue to apply to sawdust and wood chips
transported by cargo vessel in international commerce.
    b. One comment requested that the Coast Guard clarify that having
hatch covers completely open when loading wood chips would negate the
need for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
    No change to the rule is necessary. Under this rule, SCBA is
required for entry into confined spaces containing sawdust or wood
chips unless the atmosphere in the space has been tested and determined
to contain sufficient oxygen to support life. In an emergency when
testing is not possible, entry into an unventilated space is permitted
only when wearing SCBA. Loading operations are not an emergency. If the
cargo hold to be loaded with wood chips has been opened and ventilated,
and has been determined to be safe for human occupancy, there is no
reason for a worker engaged in loading operations to have to wear SCBA.
    28. Section 148.15. Another comment proposed that the Coast Guard
establish a fee schedule to issue special permits.
    The Coast Guard does not charge a fee for special permits and does
not plan to do so.
    29. Section 148.405. One comment recommended that the Coast Guard
recognize hot work practices for individual companies; specifically,
approval of hot work by the Chief Engineer.
    No change to the rule is needed. Hot work may be authorized by the
vessel's master, which by definition includes ``an authorized
representative of the master.'' A ship's officer, such as the Chief
Engineer, would fall under this definition of master as proposed in
Sec.  148.3.
    30. Section 148.407. Three comments stated that it would be
impractical and unnecessary to prohibit smoking anywhere on a vessel at
any time.
    We agree with the comments. In this proposed rule, smoking is
prohibited on the weather deck of the vessel during loading and
unloading. At all times while cargo is on board, smoking is prohibited
in adjacent spaces and in the vicinity of hatch covers, ventilator
outlets, and other accesses to the hold containing the cargo.
    31. Section 148.410. Two comments questioned the need for a shore-
supplied fire main and also the need for fresh water. The ship's
supply, they stated, is more reliable, particularly in cold weather.
    We agree that the requirement proposed in 1994 exceeds both the
IMSBC Code and recommended industry practice. We have removed from this
proposed rule the requirement for fresh water from a shore source.
    32. Section 148.415.
    a. One comment noted that there are no requirements for the gas and
oxygen analyzers to be calibrated at specified intervals.
    In this proposed rule, we have added a provision to Sec. Sec.
148.415 and 148.85 specifying that the gas analyzing equipment must be
calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    b. One comment stated that there was no sustainable justification
for exempting unmanned barges from these requirements.
    We disagree and believe there is ample reason to exclude unmanned
barges from the requirement to have flammable gas analyzers on board.
First, the proposed rule does not apply to barges carrying PDM, except
when the barges are on an international voyage. In domestic
transportation, these materials are normally carried in open hopper
barges, in which gases emitted by the material would be unlikely to
reach flammable concentrations. Second, for barges carrying cargoes
other than PDM, it would be impractical and expensive to require a gas
analyzer and tubes on each barge. An unmanned barge is not likely to
have a safe and secure place to stow such delicate and sensitive
devices. Finally, there is no reason for the crew of a towing vessel to
enter the cargo space of a barge while underway. Apart from the
potential danger to personnel working on the deck of a barge in a
typical multi-barge tow, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
remove the hatch covers to gain access for entry.
    33. Section 148.430. One comment agreed with Sec.  148.430 as
proposed in the 1994 NPRM, but noted that, in some cases, it may mean
providing some additional SCBA units.
    In this proposed rule, we have removed Sec.  148.430 and
incorporated its provisions into Sec.  148.85. The substance of the
observation is correct: At least two SCBA units are required under
proposed Sec.  148.85 and vessels may carry more if they deem it is
necessary.
    34. Section 148.450. One comment objected to the inclusion of coal
as a cargo subject to liquefaction, because liquefaction as a practical
occurrence cannot occur with coal.
    This issue was addressed earlier under a comment on the entry for
coal in Table 148.10. Liquefaction can occur in a cargo of coal
consisting of fine-grained particles. In this proposed rule, this
section has been revised to specify the maximum particle size of coal
to which the section applies.

C. Changes Between the 1994 NPRM and This NPRM, Not Prompted by
Specific Comments

    1. Section 148.3. We added the definition of ``threshold limit
value'' (TLV), and based the definition on that used by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
    2. Section 148.10. To conform to recent amendments to the IMSBC
Code, we changed the material description ``aluminum processing
byproducts'' to ``aluminum smelting byproducts or aluminum remelting
byproducts.'' For the same reason, we added to Table 148.10 the
following language under ``Characteristics'' at the entry for
silicomanganese: ``With known hazard profile or known to evolve gases.
With silicon content of 25 percent or more.''

Additionally, we added entries for peat moss and ferrous sulfate to
Table 148.10 to conform to recent addition to the IMSBC Code.
    3. Section 148.15. We propose to set the maximum term of validity
for Coast Guard special permits to 4 years. This would reduce the
paperwork burden for applicants for Coast Guard special permits, and
would reduce the Coast Guard's administrative burden.
    4. Section 148.145. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, as they
appeared in the 1994 NPRM, were not stowage or segregation
requirements, which this section addresses. We have transferred these
provisions to Sec.  148.300.
    5. Section 148.240. To reflect a recent decision by the IMO, we
revised paragraphs (e), (h), (i), and (j) to permit the monitoring of
carbon monoxide emissions as an alternative means of determining rising
temperature in a cargo of self-heating coal. Also, we lowered the gas
emission threshold at which corrective action must be initiated from 30
percent to 20 percent.
    6. Section 148.242. This new section contains special carriage and
handling requirements for copra, based on the provisions of the IMSBC
Code.
    7. Section 148.265. Coast Guard Special Permit 14-95 authorizes
treating fishmeal with a tocopherol (vitamin E) based liquid
antioxidant in lieu of the antioxidants specified in the former
regulations. Paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section have been revised
to include this practice.
    8. Section 148.290. This new section contains special carriage and
handling provisions for peat moss, based on the provisions of the IMSBC
Code.
    9. Section 148.300. On September 28, 1995, the U.S. Department of
Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration (now PHMSA)
published a rulemaking in Docket HM-169A that made their regulations at
Title 49 of the CFR governing the transport of radioactive materials
compatible with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). Because 49 CFR 173.403 now contains a definition of
``Surface Contaminated Object'' (SCO-I), this definition need not
appear in Coast Guard regulations. Consequently, the term ``Surface
Contaminated Object'' is defined in Sec.  148.300 by reference to 49
CFR 173.403.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would expand the list of materials that may be
transported in bulk without applying for a special permit and would
detail the special handling requirements. The new list aligns the CFR
with mandatory international code, including requirements in Chapter VI
and Chapter VII of SOLAS. The proposed rule includes materials already
listed in the IMSBC Code and adds materials that have a safe transport
history under existing Coast Guard special permits. The proposed rule
also eliminates applications and renewals for most special permits now
required when carrying materials regulated under this part.
    This rulemaking would add 21 new materials to 46 CFR part 148. Some
of these materials are covered by the IMSBC Code, some are covered by
the HMR (49 CFR chapter I, subchapter C), and some are currently
subject to Coast Guard special permits.

A. Proposed Changes to Part 97

    This proposed rule would add a definition of ``bulk solid cargo''
and revise Subpart 97.12 to clarify that the subpart applies to bulk
solid cargoes in general, rather than only to ores and ore
concentrates. The new proposed rule also clarifies that this section
does not apply to grain, as was the original intent of this part,
although this was not specified. Further, existing Sec.  97.12-5, which
has not been revised since 1965, references a manual that was the
predecessor of the IMSBC Code and is no longer in print. The proposed
rule eliminates that reference and refers the reader to Part 148 as a
source of information for complying with the requirement to provide
guidance on safe loading and stowage to the master.
    We have also added new proposed Sec.  97.12-5 on liquefaction in
order to bring forward the requirements contained in Sec.  148.450 and
apply them to all cargoes that are prone to liquefaction. We also
propose to modify Sec.  97.55-1 to apply to any bulk solid cargo to
which Sec.  148.435 applies.
    In the proposed rule we have updated the authority citation for
Part 97 to include 46 U.S.C. 5111 regarding the provision of loading
information to the master or individual in charge of the vessel.

B. Proposed Changes to Part 148

    We propose to revise the title of 46 CFR part 148 to read
``Carriage of Bulk Solid Materials that Require Special Handling.'' We
propose to update the authority citation for Part 148 to include 33
U.S.C. 1602 and Executive Order 12234 regarding international
regulations, as well as 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 5111 regarding regulation of
inspected vessels and provision of loading information to the master or
individual in charge of the vessel.
    We propose to divide Part 148 into six subparts. Within those
subparts, the proposed rule reorganizes and renumbers existing sections
and adds new sections. We discuss these changes in detail below.
1. Proposed Subpart A--General
    The first 12 sections of the revised Part 148 would include general
information applicable to the entire Part. We propose to revise the
applicability section (formerly Sec.  148.01-1, now proposed Sec.
148.1) to align with the IMSBC Code. Specifically, this change would
apply Part 148 to all foreign-flag and U.S.-flag vessels operating in
U.S. waters. The proposed regulations would also apply to all classes
of vessels that transport bulk solid cargoes, including unmanned barges
and barge-carrying vessels. The regulations would not apply to unmanned
barges when carrying cargoes classed as PDM in domestic transportation.
    We propose to add a new ``responsibility and compliance'' section
at Sec.  148.2, making the vessel master, person in charge of a barge,
owner, operator, charterer, or agent responsible for compliance with
this part.
    We propose to add a new ``definitions'' section at Sec.  148.3.
This section would contain definitions that currently are located
throughout Part 148, as well as new definitions that were included for
clarity and consistency with the IMSBC Code, including ``away from,''
``Bulk Cargo Shipping Name,'' ``compartment,'' ``confined space,''
``domestic voyage,'' and ``hazard class.'' We also propose to revise
the definition of ``bulk'' for clarity and consistency with the IMSBC
Code.
    We propose to add a new ``alternative procedures'' section at Sec.
148.5 that outlines the procedures for requesting permission to use
alternative procedures, including exemptions to the IMSBC Code, in
place of any requirement of this part. We propose to revise the section
on permitted cargoes (formerly Sec.  148.01-7, now proposed Sec.
148.10 and Table 148.10) to improve usability and add additional bulk
solid cargoes that appear in the IMSBC Code or are authorized under a
Coast Guard special permit. In revising the table, the Coast Guard
proposes to add 4 additional columns describing: the identification
number; a reference to the preferred BCSN, if needed; cargo
characteristics; and the applicable CFR sections containing detailed
special requirements for transporting that material. These revisions
would make it easier to determine the exact

requirements for carriage of each approved material.
    In Table 148.10, the entry for ``aluminum dross, class PDM'' would
read ``aluminum processing byproducts or aluminum re-melting
byproducts, UN 3170, Class 4.3,'' and the entry for ``zinc ashes,
dross, residues and skimmings'' would read ``zinc ashes, UN 1435, Class
4.3.'' These changes reflect reclassification of the materials by the
United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods. In addition, the revised table would add the following to the
list of permitted cargoes, to maintain consistency with the IMSBC Code
and current Coast Guard special permits: aluminum ferrosilicon powder;
aluminum silicon powder, uncoated, brown coal briquettes; castor beans;
coal; DRI (A); DRI (B); environmentally hazardous substances, solid,
n.o.s.; ferrous sulfate, fluorospar; iron oxide, spent, or iron sponge,
spent; linted cotton seed; magnesia, unslaked; metal sulfide
concentrates; peat moss with moisture content of more than 65 percent
by weight; pitch prill; pyrites, calcined; seed cake; silicomanganese
with silicon content of 25 percent or more; vanadium ore; and wood
chips, wood pellets, and wood pulp pellets.
    We further propose to add a new section on hazardous or potentially
dangerous characteristics at Sec.  148.11. This section would
incorporate information currently contained in column 3 of the table of
permitted cargoes. The new section would set forth the meaning of the
``hazardous or potentially dangerous characteristics'' codes given in
the revised Table 148.10. This includes code 27, a reference to the
Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDC) regulations found in 33 CFR 160.204,
that apply to ammonium nitrate.
    Finally, we propose to renumber the existing Sec.  148.01-13,
``Assignment and certification,'' as Sec.  148.12.
2. Proposed Subpart B--Special Permits
    As proposed, Subpart B would set the guidelines for petitions and
use of special permits. The proposed revisions to Subpart A should
greatly reduce the need for special permits. However, in the event a
person wishes to ship a bulk solid material not listed in Table 148.10,
the proposed Subpart B allows that person to petition for authorization
from the Coast Guard. The revised process for requesting a special
permit remains substantively similar to the existing process, but
places more responsibility on the shipper to determine the appropriate
conditions of carriage. The proposed Subpart B also clarifies who must
apply for a special permit, what information is required to obtain a
special permit, what activities are covered by a special permit, how
long a special permit remains valid, and how to obtain copies of
special permits. These proposed sections are more detailed than the
current regulations, and are designed to resolve recurring
misunderstandings concerning the applicability of the special permit.
In addition, requiring applicants to submit more detailed information
about the material carried would greatly decrease the amount of
research time needed by the Coast Guard when processing requests for
special permits.
    Included within the proposed Subpart B is a revision of existing
Sec.  148.01-11 designed to simplify the standard conditions contained
in special permits, and to renumber it as Sec. Sec.  148.15 through
148.30. In addition, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the current
Sec.  148.01-11(b)(1) because it describes requirements imposed by
special permits.
3. Proposed Subpart C--Minimum Transportation Requirements
    As proposed, Subpart C would outline minimum transportation
requirements for cargoes subject to this chapter, including temperature
readings, shipping paper requirements, emergency response information,
DCMs, preparation and supervision of cargo transfers, confined space
entry and equipment, preparations for loading, procedures after
unloading, log book entries, and incident reports.
    The Coast Guard proposes to clarify the proper conduct of
temperature readings (formerly Sec.  148.03-7, now proposed Sec.
148.51), and to require log book entries (proposed Sec.  148.90) to
record each temperature measurement and each required test for toxic or
flammable gases.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to revise shipping paper requirements
(formerly Sec.  148.02-1, now Sec.  148.60) to align with the IMSBC
Code while requiring the shipping papers be provided in English. With
regard to emergency response information, the Coast Guard proposes new
Sec.  148.61 requiring that the shipper of a material listed in Table
148.10 provide the master or his representative with appropriate
emergency response information, including preliminary first aid
measures and emergency procedures to be carried out in the event of an
incident or fire involving the cargo. Provision of an MSDS would
satisfy this requirement.
    With regard to DCMs (formerly Sec.  148.02-3, now proposed
Sec. Sec.  148.70 through 148.72), the Coast Guard proposes to revise
the requirements for carriage and contents of the DCM. As proposed, the
DCM requirements would not apply to unmanned barges not on
international voyages.
    With regard to confined space entry and equipment, the Coast Guard
proposes new Sec.  148.85, which would require that vessels, with the
exception of unmanned barges, that carry a material listed in Table
148.10 also carry equipment capable of measuring atmospheric oxygen and
at least two approved SCBA that each have at least a 30-minute air
supply. Proposed Sec.  148.86 would prohibit entry into a confined
space unless the space has been tested to ensure there is sufficient
oxygen to support life; in case of emergency, a person may enter a
confined space without testing it if that person is wearing a SCBA,
suitable protective clothing as necessary, and a wire rope safety line
tended by a trained person outside the space, and if the entry is
supervised by a responsible person.
    With regard to procedures to be followed after unloading, the Coast
Guard proposes to renumber existing Sec.  148.03-13 as Sec.  148.110
and revise it to require retention and proper disposal of cargo-
associated wastes, cargo residue, and deck sweepings when in U.S.
territorial seas or inland waters.
    In addition, the Coast Guard proposes to add new Sec.  148.55
``International Shipments,'' which would enable the use of the IMSBC
Code as an alternate method of compliance with Part 148, as long as the
bulk solid material being transported is subject to the requirements of
the IMSBC Code. However, transport of zinc ashes must comply with Part
148 because zinc ashes pose environmental hazards that would not
otherwise be addressed. In addition, the proposed Sec.  148.55 would
include new paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to require Coast Guard
approval of any exemption granted by another government before reliance
on that exemption for compliance with Part 148. Finally, Sec.  148.55
would make the person importing a bulk solid responsible for ensuring
the foreign shipper is aware of U.S. requirements.
4. Proposed Subpart D--Stowage and Segregation
    Proposed Subpart D would set stowage and segregation requirements
for cargoes. These proposed requirements are in addition to the minimum
requirements for all materials and the general requirements for their
respective hazard classes contained in Subpart A. The Coast Guard
proposes to require segregation of cargoes from

incompatible materials as shown in new Tables 148.120A and B. These
tables present the requirements for, respectively, segregating
incompatible bulk solid cargoes, and segregating bulk solid cargoes
from incompatible packaged cargoes. The segregation requirements set
out in Tables 148.120A and B are based on a rational approach
established by the IMO, and are identical to the IMSBC Code. The Coast
Guard proposes additional stowage and segregation requirements,
detailed by class, in the remainder of Subpart D.
5. Proposed Subpart E--Special Requirements for Certain Materials
    Proposed Subpart E would set forth special requirements for certain
hazardous materials, including ammonium nitrate, DRI, seed cake, and
zinc ashes. For clarity, the requirements are presented in tabular form
at new proposed Table 148.155. Many of the requirements are drawn from
the IMSBC Code, or are required already under applicable special
permits. The addition of Table 148.155 will reduce the number of
special permits issued and harmonize these regulations with the IMSBC
Code.
    In addition to listing special requirements for certain hazardous
materials, this subpart proposes requirements for bulk shipment of
hazardous substances as defined by PHMSA regulations at 49 CFR 171.8,
which in turn are based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The EPA classifies materials
as hazardous substances based on the material's potential to endanger
public health or welfare, or the environment, if the material is
accidentally released. Materials classified as hazardous substances
under 49 CFR 172.101, Table 1 to Appendix A, previously were carried
only pursuant to special permits on a case-by-case basis. This section
would not relieve the shipper or the master from any of the reporting
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 302, but would set out minimum
requirements for the safe carriage of solid hazardous substances in
bulk.
    Within Subpart E, the Coast Guard proposes to revise current Sec.
148.04-13 so that a vessel may not leave port unless the Captain of the
Port (COTP) is satisfied that the temperature of ferrous metal is
within the limits set by the applicable provisions of this section. The
current regulation merely specifies that the COTP must be notified if
the temperature exceeds those limits.
    In the specific context of petroleum coke, the Coast Guard proposes
to combine two existing sections (Sec. Sec.  148.04-15 and 148.04-17)
into one section at Sec.  148.295. The proposed requirements at new
Sec.  148.295 align with the IMSBC Code and already are required under
applicable special permits.
    With regard to radioactive materials, the Coast Guard proposes to
revise the current Sec.  148.04-1 as Sec.  148.300 and align it with
the IMSBC Code, which has re-defined low specific activity (LSA)
radioactive materials and added a new entry for SCO-I. As a result, the
proposed regulations would apply to surface contaminated objects.
    In the specific context of seed cake, we have proposed to exempt
from this regulation citrus pulp pellets containing not more than 2.5
percent oil and a maximum of 14 percent oil and moisture combined. Our
decision was based on extensive testing at various moisture and oil
levels from several countries currently transporting the product. It
was found that within these limits, the product should not be
considered a hazardous material.
    Although the Coast Guard intends to harmonize U.S. regulations with
the IMSBC Code, the proposed Sec.  148.330, which applies to zinc
ashes, zinc dross, zinc residues, and zinc skimmings in bulk, would
differ significantly from the IMSBC Code. As proposed, Sec.  148.330
requires COTP notification in advance of any cargo transfer operations
involving these cargoes. The provisions of this section are based on
two Coast Guard special permits, SP 8-83 and SP 4-84, which we
developed as the result of incidents involving fires or explosions in
cargoes of zinc skimmings, including at least one with loss of life.
The intent of this section would be to reduce the possibility of
generating hydrogen gas through the reaction of seawater and zinc.
Therefore, the aging, storage, and temperature requirements in this
proposed section exceed those in the IMSBC Code. Both the IMSBC Code
and the proposed regulations require mechanical ventilation, explosion-
proof fans, and installed thermocouples for temperature gauging in the
cargo hold.
6. Proposed Subpart F--Additional Special Requirements
    Proposed column 7 of Table 148.10, ``Special Requirements,'' refers
readers to other sections containing additional requirements. Many of
those sections are contained in proposed Subpart F, which would set
forth requirements for safety equipment and procedures when handling
certain cargoes. The types of special requirements that may apply to
certain cargoes include: prohibition on sources of ignition including,
in some cases, smoking or electrical circuits; a requirement that fire
hoses be available at each hatch through which a covered material is
being loaded; requirements for toxic gas and flammable gas analyzers
and testing; stowage precautions; and special precautions for cargoes
subject to liquefaction.
    With regard to cargoes subject to liquefaction, the Coast Guard's
proposed rule results from specific experience. On April 11, 1991, off
the California coast, a foreign-flag vessel that had loaded a bulk
solid material in a U.S. port developed a severe list when the cargo
shifted. Fortunately, this vessel was able to return to port and off-
load. The Coast Guard investigation determined that the cargo shifted
because its moisture content exceeded the safe Transportable Moisture
Limit (TML). This condition caused the material to behave like a
liquid. Because of this marine casualty and others of a similar nature,
the Coast Guard proposes to add new Sec.  148.450 to prescribe
requirements for transporting bulk solids that are subject to
liquefaction. These proposed rules are adapted from the IMSBC Code and
only apply to calcined pyrites, fluorospar, fine particle coal, metal
sulfide concentrates, and peat moss, as indicated in Table 148.10, and
to other cargoes that exhibit the potential for liquefaction as
indicated by information provided to the master in accordance with
97.12-3. The proposed rules would not apply to shipments by unmanned
barges or cargoes of coal that have an average particle size of 10 mm
(0.394 in) or greater. The moisture content and TML may be determined
using test procedures in Appendix 2 of the IMSBC Code.

C. Distribution Table for Part 148

    The Coast Guard proposes to replace existing Part 148 with a
completely revised and renumbered Part 148. The following distribution
table shows which sections of the proposed rule address the substance
of each existing section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Former section                    Replaced by section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
148.01-1................................  1 148.1, .2, .3.
148.01-7................................  148.10.
148.01-9................................  148.15, .20, .21.
148.01-11...............................  148.25, .26.
148.01-13...............................  148.12.
148.01-15...............................  148.9.
148.02-1................................  148.60, .61, .62.
148.02-3................................  148.70, .71, .72.
148.02-5................................  148.115.
148.03-1................................  148.50.
148.03-5................................  148.80.

148.03-7................................  148.100.
148.03-11...............................  Subpart D.
148.03-13...............................  148.110.
148.04-1................................  148.300.
148.04-9................................  148.265.
148.04-13...............................  148.260.
148.04-15...............................  148.295.
148.04-17...............................  148.295.
148.04-19...............................  148.320.
148.04-20...............................  148.315.
148.04-21...............................  148.130(a)(4) and (c).
148.04-23...............................  148.230.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in Sec.
148.8 of the proposed rule. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the
material are available from the sources listed in Sec.  148.8.
    Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order.
    A combined ``Preliminary Regulatory Assessment and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'' report discussing the impact of this
proposed rule is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. A summary of the report follows:
    The Coast Guard proposes to harmonize its regulations with recent
IMO amendments to Chapter VI and Chapter VII of SOLAS that make the
IMSBC Code mandatory for operations involving handling and carriage of
solid bulk cargoes by vessel. The amendments require that all vessels
subject to SOLAS that carry bulk solid cargoes other than grain to
comply with the IMSBC Code. This proposed rule also would amend the
Coast Guard regulations governing the carriage of solid hazardous
materials in bulk to allow use of the IMSBC as an equivalent form of
compliance. Proposed changes to the Coast Guard regulations would also
expand the list of solid hazardous materials authorized for bulk
transportation by vessel and include special handling procedures based
on the IMSBC Code and existing special permits. These proposed changes
would reduce the need for the current special permits required for the
carriage of certain solid hazardous materials in bulk and result in a
cost savings to industry.
    The IMSBC Code facilitates safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk
cargoes. It provides information on the dangers associated with
shipping certain types of solid bulk cargoes and instructions on
procedures for handling said cargoes. The IMSBC Code will be mandatory
under the amendments to the SOLAS Convention as of January 1, 2011.
Affected Population
    Based on information from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for
Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) data system, we estimate the
proposed rule would affect approximately 115 vessels, consisting of 75
U.S. vessels in coastwise service and 40 U.S. vessels operating under
SOLAS that ship hazardous solid cargoes in bulk.
Costs
    We estimate the proposed rule would result in additional equipment,
training, and operating costs to industry. Under the provisions of this
proposed rule, each vessel would be required to have onboard non-
sparking fans, an oxygen meter, a carbon monoxide meter, a temperature
probe, two SCBA, goggles and a dust mask, and a multi-gas detector. We
estimate that industry would incur equipment costs during the
implementation period (Year 1) of $2.7 million undiscounted. We also
estimate there will be annual recurring costs due to equipment
maintenance and replacement (see the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
report available in the docket for additional details).
    The use of the equipment described above would require additional
training. We estimate industry would incur initial training costs in
the first year of $33,900 and annual recurring training costs due to
labor turnover of about $6,800 each year thereafter (estimates
undiscounted). Operating costs would consist of testing, recording
keeping, and vessel preparation. The equipment described above would be
used to periodically test the temperature and atmospheric conditions of
certain cargoes. All tests and readings must be recorded, and the date
and time of testing recorded in the vessel's log book. We estimate
industry would incur an annual recurring operating cost of $7.4 million
undiscounted.
Cost Savings
    This proposed rule would also result in cost savings to certain
vessels, as preparation of permit renewals will no longer be needed. We
estimate this regulation would reduce the need for ten permit requests
per year. Based on information provided in the OMB-approved Information
Collection Request (Carriage of Bulk Solid Materials Requiring Special
Handling: 1625-0025), annual cost savings for both industry and
government are estimated at $15,390 undiscounted.
    Table 1 below provides the net costs (adjusted for savings) of this
proposed rule. We estimate the undiscounted first-year cost of the
rulemaking to be about $10.1 million. Over a 10-year period, the total
present value costs of the proposed rule would be $57.2 million at a 7
percent discount rate and $69.3 million at a 3 percent discount rate.

                                          Table 1--Total 10-Year Costs
                                           [2009 dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Present value  discounted costs
                          Year                              Undiscounted   -------------------------------------
                                                               costs                7%                 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................               10.1                9.5                9.8
2......................................................                7.5                6.5                7.0
3......................................................                7.6                6.2                7.0
4......................................................                7.5                5.7                6.7
5......................................................                9.1                6.5                7.9

6......................................................                7.5                5.0                6.3
7......................................................                7.6                4.7                6.2
8......................................................                7.5                4.4                5.9
9......................................................                7.6                4.1                5.8
10.....................................................                9.0                4.6                6.7
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................               81.0               57.2               69.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals include cost savings.

Benefits
    In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard anticipates that benefits would
include a reduction in the risks associated with off-gassing and self-
heating cargoes. These proposed standards are comprehensive safety
requirements that would align with international regulations (the IMSBC
Code), and are intended to increase information dissemination regarding
the safe handling of hazardous cargoes.
    These safety standards would extend to all U.S.-flagged vessels
carrying hazardous bulk solid cargoes. A lack of safe handling of
hazardous cargoes, such as coal or wood, can cause combustion of
cargoes and the release of gases that could result in the loss of life,
injuries, and property damage, among others. The proposed rule would
also improve the efficiency of government by reducing the
administrative costs associated with special permit applications.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    A combined ``Preliminary Regulatory Assessment and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'' report discussing the impact of this
proposed rule on small entities is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. A summary of this report follows:
    For this proposed rule, we reviewed size and ownership data of
affected entities by using the Coast Guard's MISLE database and public
and proprietary data sources for company revenue and employee size
data. We determined that 86 entities own the 115 vessels that would be
impacted by this regulation. We found revenue and employment
information on 33 of the 86 entities. We found that all affected
entities would be businesses. Among these, eight would be considered
small entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) standard.
We take a conservative approach by assuming vessels listed as
``unspecified'' and those with no available information are small (of
which there are 52). Therefore, we estimate that 70 percent of the
entities meet the SBA standards of a small entity.
    Using the highest single year cost (Year 1) in the Total 10-Year
Costs table above, we estimate that 75 percent of the small entities
would have an annual cost impact of greater than or equal to 3 percent
of annual revenue.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that the proposed
regulation will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit
a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this proposed rule will economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rule. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Richard Bornhorst
at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would revise an existing collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other similar actions. The title and description of the information
collection, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the change in annual burden follow. The estimated
change covers the time for preparing or renewing permit requests for
hazardous solid bulk cargoes.
    Under the conditions of the proposed rule, vessels and barge
companies would no longer submit special permit renewal requests to the
U.S. Coast Guard. Handling requirements related to previously permitted
cargoes would be part of 46 CFR part 148. Eliminating these permits
would reduce the burden associated with 1625-0025 by reducing the
number of respondents, responses, and burden hours associated with
permits requests.
    Title: Carriage of Bulk Solid Materials Requiring Special Handling.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0025.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The U.S. Coast Guard
administers and enforces the law, regulations, and international
conventions for the safe transportation and stowage of hazardous
materials, including bulk solids. Consequently, the Coast Guard is
authorized to issue special permits for the handling of hazardous solid
bulk cargo as part of its missions to ensure maritime safety and
facilitate U.S. commerce. In addition to special permits, this
collection of information also authorizes the preparation and display
of shipping papers and cargo manifests. However, the proposed rule will
change only the burden estimates associated with special permits.
    Need for Information: The Special Permits allow the Coast Guard to
control the conditions under which shipments of hazardous materials can
be made, while giving the shipping industry a greater amount of
flexibility than would be afforded without the Special Permit
provision. If the required information were not submitted, the Coast
Guard would be unable to issue Special Permits with adequate
precautions for shipping the cargo, and thus could not permit shipment.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses this information
to make a well-informed determination as to the severity of the hazard
posed by the material in question. This information allows the Coast
Guard to set specific guidelines for safe carriage or, if determined
that a material presents too great a hazard, to deny permission for
shipping the material.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are owners and
operators of bulk carrier vessels and barges carrying hazardous solid
cargo.
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents for this collection, including permit requests, shipping
papers, and cargo manifest, is 583. We estimate the number of
respondents will decrease by seven as the proposed rule eliminates the
need for all but one special permit. The total number of respondents
would be 576.
    Number of Responses: The existing OMB-approved number of responses
is 771. The proposed rule would decrease that number by 10. The total
number of responses would be 761 per year as a result of a decrease in
special permit requests.
    Frequency of Response: The proposed regulation will not alter the
frequency of response for permits that remain active. Since this
regulation does not impact shipping papers or cargo manifests,
frequency of responses for those items remain unchanged.
    Burden of Response: The estimated burden for preparation of a
permit request remains at 15 hours per permit.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: This regulation will eliminate the
need for all but one of the special permits associated with this
collection of information. Therefore, the annual burden associated with
special permits will decline from 165 hours to 15 hours. The total
burden for the collection of information, including cargo manifests and
shipping papers, decreases from 895 hours to 745 hours per year.
    Reason for Change: The decrease in burden is the result of a
program change that eliminates the need for most of the special permits
in this collection of information.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the OMB for
its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish a notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt state law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89
(Mar. 6, 2000)).
    This proposed rule includes requirements under which certain solid
materials requiring special handling may be transported in bulk by
vessel. The revised regulations apply to all domestic and foreign
vessels in the navigable waters of the United States that transport
bulk solid materials requiring special handling. The authority to
establish such regulations for vessels operating in the navigable
waters of the United States has been committed to the Coast Guard by
Federal statutes. Furthermore, since vessels tend to move from port to
port in the national and international marketplace, the safety
standards included in this rule are of national scope to avoid
burdensome variances. Therefore, the Coast Guard intends this rule to
preempt state action addressing the same subject matter.
    Because the states may not regulate within this category,
preemption considerations set forth in Executive Order 13132 are not
applicable.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule incorporates by reference the IMSBC Code, which
was developed by the IMO as a voluntary consensus standard. The
proposed sections that reference this voluntary consensus standard and
the locations where this standard is available are listed in the
proposed 46 CFR 148.8.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded under section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraphs 34(c), (d), and
(e), of the Instruction, and neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required. This rule affects crew
training, inspection and equipping of vessels, equipment approval and
carriage requirements. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 97

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 148

    Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials transportation, and Marine
safety.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 97 and 148 as follows:

PART 97--OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 97 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 5111, 6101;
49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Subpart 97.12, consisting of Sec. Sec.  97.12-1 through
97.12-5, to read as follows:

Subpart 97.12--Bulk Solid Cargoes

Sec.
97.12-1 Definition of a bulk solid cargo.
97.12-3 Guidance for the master.
97.12-5 Bulk solid cargoes that may liquefy.

Sec.  97.12-1  Definition of a bulk solid cargo.

    (a) A bulk solid cargo--
    (1) Consists of particles, granules, or larger pieces of material
generally uniform in composition;
    (2) Is not grain; and
    (3) Is loaded directly into a vessel's cargo space with no
intermediate form of containment.
    (b) Additional requirements for bulk solid materials needing
special handling are contained in Part 148 of this chapter.

Sec.  97.12-3  Guidance for the master.

    (a) The owner or operator of a vessel must provide the master with
safe loading and stowage information for each bulk solid cargo that
vessel will carry.
    (b) The shipper of a bulk solid cargo, as defined in Sec.  148.3 of
this chapter, must provide the master of a vessel with information
regarding the nature of the cargo in advance of loading operations.
Additional requirements in Sec.  148.60 of this chapter may also apply.

Sec.  97.12-5  Bulk solid cargoes that may liquefy.

    If the information provided in Sec.  97.12-3(a) or (b) indicates
that the bulk solid cargo to be carried is prone to liquefy during
carriage, due to small particle sizes and moisture content, then the
requirements contained in Sec.  148.450 of this chapter apply.
    3. Revise Sec.  97.55-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  97.55-1  Master's responsibility.

    Before loading bulk grain or any bulk solid cargo to which Sec.
148.435 of this chapter applies, the master shall have the lighting
circuits to cargo compartments in which the grain or bulk solid cargo
is to be loaded de-energized at the distribution panel or panel board.
He shall thereafter have periodic inspections made of the panel or
panel board as frequently as necessary to ascertain that the affected
circuits remain de-energized while this bulk cargo remains within the
vessel.
    4. Revise Part 148 to read as follows:

PART 148--CARRIAGE OF BULK SOLID MATERIALS THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL
HANDLING

Sec.
Subpart A--General
148.1 Purpose and applicability.
148.2 Responsibility and compliance.
148.3 Definitions.
148.5 Alternative procedures.
148.7 OMB control numbers assigned under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.

148.8 Incorporation by reference.
148.9 Right of appeal.
148.10 Permitted materials.
148.11 Hazardous or potentially dangerous characteristics
148.12 Assignment and certification.
Subpart B--Special Permits
148.15 Petition for a special permit.
148.20 Deadlines for submission of petition and related requests.
148.21 Necessary information.
148.25 Activities covered by a special permit.
148.26 Standard conditions for special permits.
148.30 Records of special permits issued.
Subpart C--Minimum Transportation Requirements
148.50 Cargoes subject to this subpart.
148.51 Temperature readings.
148.55 International shipments.
148.60 Shipping papers.
148.61 Emergency response information.
148.62 Location of shipping papers and emergency response
information.
148.70 Dangerous cargo manifest; general.
148.71 Information included in the dangerous cargo manifest.
148.72 Dangerous cargo manifest; exceptions.
148.80 Supervision of cargo transfer.
148.85 Required equipment for confined spaces.
148.86 Confined space entry.
148.90 Preparations before loading.
148.100 Log book entries.
148.110 Procedures followed after unloading.
148.115 Report of incidents.
Subpart D--Stowage and Segregation
148.120 Stowage and segregation requirements.
148.125 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 4.1.
148.130 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 4.2.
148.135 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 4.3.
148.140 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 5.1.
148.145 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 7.
148.150 Stowage and segregation for materials of Class 9.
148.155 Stowage and segregation for potentially dangerous materials.
Subpart E--Special Requirements for Certain Materials
148.200 Purpose.
148.205 Ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate fertilizers.
148.220 Ammonium nitrate-phosphate fertilizers.
148.225 Calcined pyrites (pyritic ash, fly ash).
148.227 Calcium nitrate fertilizers.
148.230 Calcium oxide (lime, unslaked).
148.235 Castor beans.
148.240 Coal.
148.242 Copra.
148.245 Direct reduced iron (DRI); lumps, pellets, and cold-molded
briquettes.
148.250 Direct reduced iron (DRI); hot-molded briquettes.
148.255 Ferrosilicon, aluminum ferrosilicon, and aluminum silicon
containing more than 30% but less than 90% silicon.
148.260 Ferrous metal.
148.265 Fish meal or fish scrap.
148.270 Hazardous substances.
148.275 Iron oxide, spent; iron sponge, spent.
148.280 Magnesia, unslaked (lightburned magnesia, calcined
magnesite, caustic calcined magnesite).
148.285 Metal sulfide concentrates.
148.290 Peat moss.
148.295 Petroleum coke, calcined or uncalcined, at 55 [deg]C (131
[deg]F) or above.
148.300 Radioactive materials.
148.310 Seed cake.
148.315 Sulfur.
148.320 Tankage; garbage tankage; rough ammonia tankage; or tankage
fertilizer.
148.325 Wood chips; wood pellets; wood pulp pellets.
148.330 Zinc ashes; zinc dross; zinc residues; zinc skimmings.
Subpart F--Additional Special Requirements
148.400 Applicability.
148.405 Sources of ignition.
148.407 Smoking.
148.410 Fire hoses.
148.415 Toxic gas analyzers.
148.420 Flammable gas analyzers.
148.435 Electrical circuits in cargo holds.
148.445 Adjacent spaces.
148.450 Cargoes subject to liquefaction.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1602; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 5111; 49 U.S.C. 5103; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  148.1  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes special handling procedures for certain
solid materials that present hazards when transported in bulk by
vessel.
    (b) Except as noted in paragraph (c) of this section, this part
applies to all domestic and foreign vessels in the navigable waters of
the U.S that transport bulk solid materials requiring special handling.
    (c) This part does not apply to an unmanned barge on a domestic
voyage carrying a Potentially Dangerous Material (PDM) found in Table
148.10 of this part. All barges on international voyages must follow
the requirements for PDM.