[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42595-42651]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15808]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 136

July 16, 2013

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Parts 154, 155, and 156

46 CFR Parts 35 and 39

Marine Vapor Control Systems; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 154, 155, and 156

46 CFR Parts 35 and 39

[USCG-1999-5150]
RIN 1625-AB37

Marine Vapor Control Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising existing safety regulations for
facility and vessel vapor control systems (VCSs) to promote maritime
safety and marine environmental protection. The revisions promote safe
VCS operation in an expanded range of activities now subject to current
Federal and State environmental requirements, reflect industry advances
in VCS technology, and codify the standards for the design and
operation of a VCS at tank barge cleaning facilities. They increase
operational safety by regulating the design, installation, and use of
VCSs, but they do not require anyone to install or use VCSs.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 15, 2013, except as
additional collection of information requirements that appear in
several regulations added or revised by this rule and which have not
yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may not
be enforced by the Coast Guard pending OMB approval which, if granted,
will be noted by the Coast Guard in a subsequent Federal Register
document. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
August 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-1999-5150 and are available for inspection or
copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-1999-5150 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Jodi Min, Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History, Basis, and Purpose
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. 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. Abbreviations

API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM ASTM International
CAA 90 U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CE Certifying entity
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IED Inerting, enriching, or diluting
MOCC Minimum oxygen concentration for combustion
MSC Coast Guard Marine Safety Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Person-in-charge
SBA Small Business Administration
TBCF Tank barge cleaning facility
UL Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
USCG United States Coast Guard
VCS Vapor control system
VOC Volatile organic compound

II. Regulatory History, Basis, and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
this subject in the Federal Register, 75 FR 65152 (Oct. 21, 2010). The
legal basis for this final rule is 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2), 33 U.S.C.
1231, and 46 U.S.C. 3703. Under 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2), enacted as part
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA 90), the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating must regulate the
safety of equipment and operations used to control vapor emissions.
Under 33 U.S.C. 1231, the Secretary may issue regulations to implement
port and waterways safety requirements, among which are the
requirements in 33 U.S.C. 1225 to act as necessary to prevent damage to
land and structures on or along U.S. navigable waters and to protect
these navigable waters and their resources. Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, the
Secretary must regulate vessels and their liquid bulk dangerous cargo
operations to protect life, property, and the marine environment
against the risk of casualty or accident involving those operations.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated this authority under
these statutes to the Coast Guard. Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(70), (86), and (92.b).
    The purpose of this rule is to revise our marine vapor control
system (VCS) regulations to promote safe VCS operation in an expanded
range of activities now subject to current Federal and State
environmental requirements, to reflect industry advancements in VCS
technology, and to codify the standards for the design and operation of
a VCS at tank barge cleaning facilities (TBCFs). These revisions are
intended to increase operational safety and marine environmental
protection by regulating the design, installation, and use of VCSs, but
they do not require anyone to install or use VCSs.

III. Background

    This final rule amends 1990 Coast Guard regulations for the safety
of facilities and vessels that voluntarily engage in vapor control
activities, or that do so in compliance with regulatory requirements
imposed by the Federal Government or by the States. The Coast Guard
regulations themselves do not require any facility or vessel to control
vapor or be equipped with a VCS, nor do they require a vessel to take
away vapor from facilities.
    During marine tank vessel loading and other operations, the liquid
loaded into a cargo tank displaces vapors within the tank. Vapors are
also generated because of vapor growth from liquid evaporation. The
emitted vapors of certain cargoes contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and other air pollutants. CAA 90 requires that these vapors be
controlled in air quality non-attainment areas. Under CAA 90, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues national standards for
control of VOCs and other air pollutants emitted during marine tank
vessel operations. 40 CFR 63.560-

63.568. CAA 90 also authorizes Federal and State regulations to set
vapor emission standards and to require that marine terminals and tank
vessels be equipped with VCSs. These systems are used to collect and
process VOCs and other air pollutants emitted during loading and other
operations of marine tank vessels.
    Today, VCS design and technology are more advanced than they were
in 1990, and VCSs control more types of vapor than the crude oil,
gasoline blend, or benzene vapors to which they were limited in 1990,
and the EPA and States now permit or require the control of vapor
emissions from many other cargoes. See current EPA regulations in 40
CFR subpart Y, 40 CFR 63.560-63.568. In addition, EPA regulations now
require marine tank vessels operating at major terminals that control
VOC vapors to be vapor-tight and equipped with vapor collection
systems. 40 CFR 63.562.
    Current Coast Guard practice is to accommodate these design and
technology improvements by using the exemption and equivalency
determination provisions of 33 CFR 154.108 and 46 CFR 30.15-1 to
approve individual applications by VCS owners or designers who can show
that their improvements provide a level of safety at least equivalent
to that provided by our regulations. Reliance on individual exemptions
or equivalency determinations involves extra risk for VCS owners and
designers, and extra review time for the Coast Guard. This rulemaking
will reduce the need for individual exemptions and equivalency
determinations, and therefore reduce Coast Guard administrative work,
by updating our regulations to reflect more recent VCS design and
technology. This is consistent with the principles of retrospective
review outlined in section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 18, 2011).
    For cargo types and tank barge cleaning facility VCS applications
that have emerged since 1990, we have provided safety guidance in the
form of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 1-96 (included in our
docket), developed in close consultation with the Chemical
Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), a Coast Guard advisory
committee that operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. Appendix 2. However, safety guidance is not legally binding on
industry, and reliance on exemption and equivalency reviews involves
extra risk for VCS owners and designers and extra review time for the
Coast Guard. Therefore, our goal has been to update our regulations to
apply in a wider range of circumstances, and at the same time to
eliminate a risk for industry and an administrative burden for
ourselves. Our new regulations:
     Reflect the expanded number and scope of Federal and State
regulations for VCSs since 1990;
     Reflect advances in VCS technology and operational
practices since 1990, particularly in vapor-balancing operations, cargo
line clearing operations, and multi-breasted tandem barge-loading
operations;
     Incorporate safety guidance and reflect VCS regulatory
exemptions and equivalency approvals;
     Provide new regulations for cargoes and operations, such
as TBCFs, that have become subject to Federal or State regulatory
expansion since 1990;
     Provide for periodic operational reviews to ensure that
VCSs are properly maintained and operated after they are certified;
     Provide an alternate test program for analyzers and
pressure sensors, in addition to existing 24-hour pre-transfer/cleaning
instrument testing requirements, to provide greater regulatory
flexibility;
     Require certifying entities (CEs) to be operated by
currently licensed professional engineers to ensure that certification
is conducted by properly qualified professionals, and clarify the role
of the CE in VCS design, installation, and hazard reviews;
     Remove 33 CFR Part 154, Appendix B, which provides
specifications for flame arresters and requires flame arresters to meet
third-party standards, because of apparent lack of public demand for
these devices;
     Attempt to achieve greater clarity through the use of
tabular presentation;
     Update industry standards that are incorporated by
reference into our regulatory requirements;
     Phase in requirements for existing VCSs to moderate the
economic impact of new requirements for those VCSs;
     Make conforming changes in regulations other than 33 CFR
Part 154, Subpart E and 46 CFR Part 39; and
     Make nonsubstantive changes in the wording or style of
existing regulations, either to improve their clarity or to align them
with current Federal regulatory style guidance.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Except as noted in the following discussion, we are adopting as
final all the changes we proposed in our 2010 NPRM.
    We received comments on our NPRM from 15 individuals or entities.
One commenter submitted two separate comments. We heard from one person
whose affiliation was not disclosed, five engineering firms, seven
companies that operate equipment or facilities that would be regulated
under the proposed rule, and two industry associations. Overall, the
comments were of very high quality and specificity, and on engineering
questions especially, they were very detailed and difficult to
summarize for purposes of this discussion. However, in most cases the
comments provided valuable information that resulted in our revising
regulatory text to take that information into account. In many cases,
commenters offered to provide more information about their concerns and
we followed up with them in telephone conversations. Where those
follow-ups led to modifications of the regulatory text, we mention this
in Table 1 of this preamble.
    Table 1 sets out all the substantive changes we have made in this
final rule to the NPRM's proposed regulatory text and indicates whether
a change was made in response to a public comment. It excludes minor
non-substantive changes we made, on our own, to clarify some of the
NPRM's wording. Where we received a comment on the NPRM regulatory
text, Table 1 indicates what each commenter had to say about that
section or topic. Commenter numbers (``Commenter 4,'' ``Commenter 5,''
etc.) refer to the docket number assigned to a set of comments by the
regulations.gov staff; comments from ``Commenter 4,'' for example, can
be found in regulations.gov as docket number USCG-1999-5150-0004.\1\
When we made a substantive change on our own and without the prompting
of a public comment, an ``n/a'' (not applicable) appears in the
``Comment'' column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The first commenter is ``Commenter 3,'' docket numbers USCG-
1999-5150-001 and -002 having been assigned to the NPRM and
supporting analysis. Commenter 3 and Commenter 9 are the same
person.

                                                       Table 1--Discussion of Comments and Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Topic                                         Comment                                          Coast Guard response or action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General........................  Commenters 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12 expressed general             We acknowledge this comment.
                                  satisfaction with our proposals.
More information...............  Commenters 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 asked to obtain or   In many cases, we followed up with these commenters, and
                                  provide additional detailed information about technical      this table indicates where the follow-up contact had a
                                  aspects of the NPRM.                                         bearing on this final rule. The docket contains memoranda
                                                                                of two such follow-ups.
Phasing-in and grandfathering..  Commenters 7, 10, and 12 approved of our phasing in new      We confirm that existing VCS exemptions, equivalencies,
                                  requirements and asked us to clarify whether existing        clarifications, and exceptions will continue to be
                                  exemption and equivalency approvals will continue in force.  honored.
Tank barge cleaning facilities   Commenters 11, 12, and 13 asked us to recognize factors      We agree and reviewed the NPRM with this in mind. We have
 (TBCFs).                         that are unique to TBCFs.                                    made some adjustments in our TBCF requirements as a
                                                                                result.
Costs..........................  Commenter 5 asked us to recognize that engineering costs     We have adjusted the cost estimates for certifications and
                                  during dry runs and witnessed wet loads should take into     recertifications to reflect labor necessary for dry runs
                                  account the time spent waiting for items to be corrected     and the witnessing of wet loads.
                                  and for the vessel to dock and prepare for loading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR part 154 (references in the ``Topic'' column are to sections as they appeared in the NPRM, and brackets are used to identify where the provision
 appears in this final rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106(d)(6)......................  n/a........................................................  We substituted the latest available (2007) reapproval of
                                                                                ASTM International (ASTM) 1273-91 for the 1996
                                                                                reapproval.
106(g)(2), (g)(3)..............  Commenter 4 asked why we incorporate two older versions of   We substituted the latest available (2011) edition for the
                                  the same standard in 33 CFR.                                 2002 edition in 154.106(g)(3). The incorporation of an
                                                                                older edition of the standard in 154.106(g)(2) is beyond
                                                                                the scope of this rulemaking.
310(b)(1)(ii)..................  Commenter 5 said we should clarify our use of ``balances''   We changed ``balances vapor'' to ``balances or transfers
                                  in this paragraph.                                           vapor'' to cover 154.2000(d) and (e).
500............................  Commenters 12, 13, and 18 asked us to revise the substance   As noted in the NPRM, the changes in this section were
                                  of this section.                                             intended only to conform its style to current
                                                                                requirements for incorporation by reference. Substantive
                                                                                changes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the
                                                                                commenters' suggestions are noted for possible regulatory
                                                                                action in the future.
740(i).........................  n/a........................................................  We substituted the text ``33 CFR 154 2020 through 2025''
                                                                                for ``33 CFR 154.2023,'' because all those new sections
                                                                                are derived from existing 154.804, not just 154.2023.
2000(b)........................  Commenters 4, 5, 7, and 8 asked for clarification of this    We agree that this language requires clarification and
                                  paragraph. One of Commenter 5's questions required follow-   have revised it accordingly. After following up with
                                  up.                                                          Commenter 5, who said that recertification is necessary
                                                                                only every 5 years, not 3, we clarified that he referred
                                                                                to operational reviews, and because we agree with the
                                                                                comment in that context, we have amended 154.2021(a)
                                                                                accordingly. We also added a sentence to confirm the
                                                                                ongoing validity of existing certifications, approvals of
                                                                                alternatives, and grants of exemption, in accordance with
                                                                                whatever terms they impose.
2000(e)........................  Commenter 5 pointed out that transfer of vapors from a       We acknowledge this and, although no change in the wording
                                  facility to a marine vessel that is not offloading is        of this paragraph is needed, this is a factor we would
                                  difficult unless the vessel is under a hard vacuum or is a   take into account in reviewing requests for approval.
                                  pressure vessel.
2001--Diluting.................  Commenter 5 said the diluting gas must also be non-reactive  We agree and revised this definition accordingly.

2001--Existing VCS.............  Commenter 7 said the definition should apply not only to a   We infer that this commenter's concern is with a marine
                                  complete VCS, but to a portion of a VCS.                     vapor collection system connecting to a facility's main
                                                                                VCS. However, when a system is certified, it is certified
                                                                                as a VCS, not a portion of VCS. A vapor collection system
                                                                                with a facility main vapor processing unit is still a
                                                                                VCS, except that the portion after the connection point
                                                                                is not required to be certified. To address this concern,
                                                                                we added ``a marine vapor collection system'' in addition
                                                                                to ``a marine VCS'' in 154.2111(a). We also revised this
                                                                                definition to clarify that it applies to existing TBCF
                                                                                VCSs.
2001--Facility main VCS........  Commenter 8 said we should replace ``refinery'' with         We agree and revised this definition accordingly.
                                  ``facility'' to show the definition is not limited to
                                  refineries.
2001--Flame arrester...........  Commenter 4 said this definition should include Factory      The Factory Mutual Research test procedure has been
                                  Mutual Research-approved arresters, which we have            approved under specific circumstances and on an exemption
                                  previously accepted on an exemption basis.                   basis, but as a regulatory standard it would not be
                                                                                adequate by itself because it lacks significant details
                                                                                that are covered by the ASTM and Underwriters
                                                                                Laboratories (UL) standards.
2001--Inerted [now ``Inert       Commenter 14 said we should change this to ``inert           We agree and revised this definition accordingly.
 condition or inerted''].         condition'' which more clearly separates the term from the
                                  operation of inerting.
2001--Inerting or padding or     Commenters 4 and 14 said this definition needs revision.     We agree and replaced this definition with separate and
 purging [now ``Inerting,''       Purging usually means reducing hydrocarbon or other vapor    revised definitions for inerting, padding, and purging.
 ``Padding,'' and ``Purging''].   concentrations by introducing air or inert gas, not
                                  lowering oxygen content by introducing an inert gas.
2001--Line clearing or pigging   Commenter 14 said we should break this into separate         We agree and replaced this with separate definitions.
 [now ``Line clearing'' and       definitions because some lines are cleared without the use
 ``Pigging''].                    of pigs.
2001--Padded or partially        Commenter 14 said we should break this into separate         We agree and replaced this with separate definitions.
 inerted [now ``Padding'' and     definitions; they are not interchangeable.
 ``Partially inerted''].
2010(g)........................  Commenter 15 said that because it typically takes about a    We agree and revised this provision accordingly.
                                  year to be certified as a professional engineer,
                                  compliance with this paragraph should have a 1-year phase-
                                  in; and asked us to clarify that a CE can meet this
                                  requirement if the person-in-charge (PIC) is a licensed
                                  professional engineer in any one U.S. state or territory,
                                  and need not be licensed in all states where the CE does
                                  business.
2011...........................  Commenter 10 asked whether a class society can be a CE if    Yes. A class society can be a CE provided that it meets
                                  it otherwise complies with this section.                     the CE qualifications of 154.2010 and is accepted by the
                                                                                Commandant per 154.2011.
2011(e)........................  Commenter 9 said this should be modified to prevent a CE     We agree with Commenter 9 and added new paragraph
                                  from recertifying or performing operational reviews on       154.2011(f) and redesignated subsequent paragraphs
                                  systems where the CE had operational or design input.        accordingly. The clarification that Commenter 17 sought
                                  Without referring to this section, Commenter 17 asked us     is provided by this paragraph (e), which makes it clear
                                  to clarify whether a CE that was responsible for the VCS     that a CE that was responsible for designing a VCS may
                                  design may recertify a unit or perform an operational        not recertify or perform operational reviews on that VCS.
                                  review after its initial certification.
2011(e)(1).....................  Commenter 4 said that prohibiting a CE from ``performing     We followed up with this commenter and confirmed that by
                                  calculations'' is overly broad and restrictive.              revising this paragraph to specify ``system design
                                                                                calculations,'' we would meet his concern.
2011(f)........................  n/a........................................................  We added text per comment on 154.2011(e).

2020(b)........................  Commenter 10 asked us to confirm that we will continue to    We confirm.
                                  recognize existing approvals and that recertification will
                                  be required only for VCSs that entered operation after
                                  July 23, 1990, and then only if the VCS meets one of the
                                  five subparagraphs.
2020(b)(1).....................  Commenter 16 said TBCFs should undergo a single review, not  The TBCF should be reviewed for each new chemical it
                                  a separate review for each vapor the TBCF controls.          handles and can, at its option, either recertify all its
                                                                                chemicals at one time or recertify only for the new
                                                                                chemical.
2020(b)(4).....................  Commenters 13 and 18 said that ``multi-breasted loading''    We acknowledge that several terms are used within the
                                  is not a barge industry term.                                industry, but our 154.2001 definition of ``multi-breasted
                                                                                loading'' is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all of
                                                                                the suggested terms.
2020(b)(5), (d)(5).............  n/a........................................................  Changed references to cargo line clearance systems so that
                                                                                they clarify their applicability only to those systems
                                                                                that use pigging.
2020(c)........................  Commenter 11 said this should not apply to TBCFs because     Commenter 11 correctly infers that the paragraph does not
                                  the TBCF only extracts liquid and vapors from the vessel     apply to TBCFs, and we revised the paragraph in line with
                                  and transfers nothing to the vessel; Commenters 13 and 18    the suggestions made by Commenters 13 and 18.
                                  proposed revisions for the paragraph to clarify this.
2020(d)........................  Commenter 4 asked us to revise this paragraph's reference    We revised this paragraph by restating information that
                                  to suggested guidance.                                       appears as a ``Note'' to existing 154.804(d).
2020(e)(4).....................  n/a........................................................  We added this paragraph to emphasize that this section
                                                                                supplements and does not negate the recordkeeping
                                                                                requirements of 154.740.
2021...........................  Commenter 4 agrees we should require regular operational     We acknowledge this comment.
                                  reviews.
2021(a)........................  Commenters 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18 asked us to    We do not agree that operational reviews are needed only
                                  lengthen the interval between required operational reviews   after major changes. Major changes should be the subject
                                  from 3 years to 5 years due to cost. Some of these           of a VCS recertification. Periodic operational review is
                                  commenters said operational reviews should only be needed    routine. We are lengthening the interval between
                                  when major changes are made.                                 operational reviews to 5 years, as requested, and also in
                                                                                response to the comment on 154.2000(b).
2022 [now 2022 through 2024]...  Commenter 4 pointed out several areas where the proposed     We followed up with Commenter 4 and have extensively
                                  section failed to clarify adequately between requirements    revised these provisions in line with his comments. We
                                  for certification, recertification, and operational review.  have simplified language and divided NPRM 154.2022 into
                                                                                separate final rule sections 154.2022 through 154.2024,
                                                                                each of which covers certification, recertification, or
                                                                                operational review.
                                                                                The following chart shows where provisions of 154.2022, as
                                                                                it appeared in the NPRM, have been placed in this final
                                                                                rule.
                                                                                -----------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                NPRM section 154.2022              Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                (a)(1)......................  2022(a)
                                                                                (a)(2)......................  2022(d)
                                                                                (a)(3)......................  2022(b)
                                                                                (a)(4)......................  2022(c)
                                                                                (a)(5)......................  2023
                                                                                (a)(6)......................  2022(d), 2023
                                                                                (a)(7)......................  2022(e)
                                                                                (a)(8)......................  2022(f)
                                                                                (a)(9)......................  2022(g)
                                                                                (b) introduction............  2024
                                                                                (b)(1)......................  2024(a)
                                                                                (b)(2)......................  2024(e)
                                                                                (b)(3)......................  2024(g)
                                                                                (c) introduction............  2022(d)
                                                                                (c)(1)......................  2022(d)(2)
                                                                                (c)(2)......................  2022(d)(6)

                                                                                (c)(3)......................  2022(d)(7)
                                                                                (c)(4)......................  2022(d)(8)
                                                                                (c)(5)......................  2022(d)(10)
                                                                                (c)(6)......................  2022(d)(10)
                                                                                (c)(7)......................  2022(d)(1)
                                                                                (c)(8)......................  2022(d)(4)
                                                                                (c)(9)......................  2022(h)
                                                                                (c)(10).....................  2022(d)(13)
                                                                                (d)(1)......................  2022(c)(1)
                                                                                (d)(2)......................  2022(c)(2)
                                                                                (d)(3)......................  2022(c)(3)
                                                                                (d)(4)......................  2022(c)(4)
                                                                                (d)(5)......................  2022(c)(5)
                                                                                (e) introduction............  2022(d), 2023
                                                                                (e)(1)......................  2022(d)(5)
                                                                                (e)(2)......................  2022(d)(9)
                                                                                (e)(3)......................  2022(d)(12)
                                                                                (e)(4)......................  2022(d)(11)
                                                                                (e)(5)......................  2022(d)(3)
                                                                                (e)(6)......................  2022(d)(14)
                                                                                (e)(7)......................  2022(g), 2023
                                                                                (f)(1)......................  2022(e)(1)
                                                                                (f)(2)......................  2022(e)(2)
                                                                                (f)(3)......................  2022(e)(3)
                                                                                (f)(4)......................  2022(e)(4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Topic                                         Comment                                          Coast Guard response or action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022(a)(5) [now 2023(b)].......  n/a........................................................  We added the last two sentences to provide better guidance
                                                                                for the recertification of older VCSs.
2022(b) [now 2024].............  Commenters 3, 4, and 14 asked us to add additional factors   We agree and added new 154.2024(b) through (d) and
                                  for operational review.                                      154.2024(f). In NPRM section 154.2024(b)(2), now
                                                                                154.2024(e), we added marking and labeling as items to be
                                                                                verified.
2022(d)(2) [now (c)(2)]........  Commenter 4 asked why we would require the maximum vacuum    We revised the paragraph to clarify that the goal of the
                                  to be maintained during testing of the vacuum breaker.       vacuum breaker testing is to ensure that the maximum
                                                                                vacuum cannot be exceeded instead of maintaining the
                                                                                maximum vacuum at one level.
2022(e) [now(d) and, for added   Commenter 16 said TBCFs should undergo a single review, not  The TBCF should be reviewed for each new chemical it
 cargoes, 2023].                  a separate review for each vapor the TBCF controls.          handles and can, at its option, either recertify all its
                                                                                chemicals at one time or recertify only for the new
                                                                                chemical.
2022(e)(3) [now (d)(12]........  Commenter 4 asked us to clarify this provision.............  After a follow-up with this commenter, we clarified this
                                                                                provision.
[NEW 2022(i)]..................  n/a........................................................  We added this paragraph to ensure the VCS training program
                                                                                is reviewed for compliance with 154.2030 and 154.2031.
                                                                                This change responds to Commenter 4's comment on 154.2030
                                                                                and 154.2031.
2023 [now 2025]................  n/a........................................................  We redesignated this section in light of the subdivision
                                                                                of NPRM section 154.2022 into three sections.
2030, 2031.....................  Commenter 4 asked if the CE is supposed to check the         In response to these comments, we added 154.2022(i) to
                                  facility's compliance with section 2030. Commenter 10        require a CE to review the facility's VCS training
                                  asked if a facility can self-certify compliance or must it   program for compliance with sections 154.2030 and
                                  show other documentation that training requirements have     154.2031. We also added 154.2030(c) to specify that
                                  been met. Commenter 11 said section 2030 should not apply    facility personnel must meet the designation and
                                  to TBCFs. Commenter 12 said that facilities should           qualification requirements of 154.710, and that training
                                  document the training of their PICs and that, because of     documentation must be maintained at the facility in
                                  fragmentation in the TBCF industry, it may make sense to     accordance to 154.740(b). We added language to these
                                  develop a standardized training program.                     sections to clarify that 154.2030 is for transfer
                                                                                facilities and 154.2031 is for TBCFs. At this time, we
                                                                                have no plan to develop a standardized training program.
                                                                                Instead, we will rely on industry to develop its own
                                                                                training programs that comply with our regulatory
                                                                                requirements.
2100(f)........................  Commenter 4 said this requirement is essential.............  We acknowledge this comment.

2100(h)(2).....................  Commenter 14 said we should add ``must be fitted'' to        We agree and revised this provision accordingly.
                                  improve clarity.
2100(k)........................  n/a........................................................  We added ``equipment'' to this paragraph and specified
                                                                                valves, flanges, and fittings to ensure that the
                                                                                ``suitability'' requirement extends to equipment that is
                                                                                needed for proper functioning of the VCS but that may not
                                                                                be considered a VCS ``component.''
2101(a)(6).....................  Commenter 4 said we should allow a valve to be fire safe in  46 CFR 56.20-15 was amended in 2008 to incorporate API 607
                                  accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) 607,      by reference.
                                  which is more rigorous than 46 CFR 56.20-15 and more
                                  familiar to industry.
2101(e)........................  Commenters 4 and 14 said that additional safeguards are      We agree and revised this paragraph to make it clear that
                                  needed.                                                      it prohibits contact with metal either on the facility or
                                                                                on the vessel, and that the purpose of the prohibition is
                                                                                to prevent unintentional electrical bypassing.
2101(g)........................  Commenters 5, 13, and 18 expressed concerns about the        We added language to this paragraph to address the
                                  installation, inspection, and testing of insulating          commenters' concerns.
                                  flanges and hoses.
2101(h)........................  Commenter 4 said we should change ``mechanism'' to           We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  ``means'' so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based on
                                  negative differential pressure across the detonation
                                  arrester (currently used by most facilities).
[NEW 2101(i)]..................  n/a........................................................  We added this paragraph to make it clear that electrical
                                                                                bonding must comply with 46 CFR 35.35-5.
2102 introductory paragraph....  Commenter 4 said we should clarify by inserting ``and not    We agree and revised this provision accordingly. We also
                                  loading cargo on the vessel'' after ``while inerting the     added ``padding or purging'' after ``inerting'' to
                                  cargo tanks''.                                               reflect the separation of these three definitions in
                                                                                section 2001.
2102(a)........................  Commenter 4 asked if this requirement is necessary, because  We think it is necessary because 46 CFR 39.2009(a)(1)(iii)
                                  he has not seen a barge with a 120-volt system.              allows a tank barge to have a liquid overfill protection
                                                                                system that receives power from a facility and is fitted
                                                                                with a shore tie cable and a 120-volt, 20-ampere
                                                                                explosion-proof plug.
2102(a)(2).....................  n/a........................................................  We corrected erroneous references in the NPRM to the
                                                                                relevant sections of the incorporated industry standard.
2102(b)........................  Commenter 5 asked us to review this provision with respect   We reviewed this provision in light of the comment but
                                  to grounding of the shielded wire in the overfill system.    concluded no changes are needed. However, we revised 46
                                                                                CFR 35.35-5 to address vessel/shore electrical bonding
                                                                                cable or wire.
2103(a)........................  Commenter 3 said we should rewrite this provision to take    We revised this provision in accordance with the
                                  variability of vapor pressure into account, and Commenter    suggestions of Commenter 3. Commenter 5's formula is
                                  5 said we should substitute his recommended formula for      valid but, we think, more complicated than ours, which is
                                  our formula, which is too complicated and inaccurate for     more generally adaptable for VCS design.
                                  estimating vapor growth.
2103(f)........................  Commenter 4 said that if this paragraph requires cargo       Commenter 4 correctly interpreted this paragraph. The
                                  loading to be shutdown on high-high pressure, while          equipment and procedures we require should not result in
                                  allowing the VCS to continue to receive vapors, it is a      the type of shutdown that concerns Commenter 5. Paragraph
                                  good change. Commenter 5 raised concerns about accidents     (d) of this section requires activating an alarm meeting
                                  that could result from activation of a shutdown system.      154.2100(e), which requires audible and visible alarm.
                                                                                Paragraph (f) of 154.2100 requires only activating the
                                                                                emergency liquid cargo shutdown system required by
                                                                                154.550, which is for liquid loading.
2103(j)(1).....................  Commenter 3 said we should revise this provision to account  We agree and revised this provision accordingly.
                                  for pressure changes at different altitudes.
2103(k)........................  Commenter 14 said we should define ``extensive length''      We cannot provide a clearer and more specific definition
                                  more clearly.                                                that would be workable, but we added a reference to
                                                                                undersea piping as an example of extensive length.

2103(n), introductory paragraph  n/a........................................................  We expanded the reference to ``inerting,'' in accordance
                                                                                with the commenter-suggested change in section 2001
                                                                                definitions.
2103(n)(3).....................  Commenter 5 said we should revise this provision so that     We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  the placement of the pressure sensors always allows for
                                  sensing the pressure.
2104...........................  n/a........................................................  We changed references in this section from cargo line
                                                                                clearance to pigging, in accordance with the commenter-
                                                                                suggested change in section 2001 definitions. We also
                                                                                specified that the compressed gas we refer to is inert,
                                                                                and redesignated paragraphs.
2104(c) [now (a)(3)]...........  Commenter 5 said we should require the automatic shutoff     We revised this provision to specify that it refers to a
                                  valve to close within 2 seconds because the marine vessel    fast-action automatic shutoff valve like a solenoid
                                  can be over-pressurized in 4 seconds while pigging.          valve. We think specifying 2 seconds would be too
                                                                                restrictive.
2104(d) [now (a)(4)]...........  Commenter 5 said a valve position sensor on the manual       We agree, but an interlock is still needed for the valve
                                  cargo bloc valve or the automatic cargo block valve would    position sensor.
                                  serve the same purpose as the interlock we proposed.
2104(e) [now (a)(5)]...........  Commenter 5 said the means to detect the pig arrival must    We agree and revised this provision accordingly. Personnel
                                  be an automatic detection device as well as specifically     training is covered in sections 154.2030(a)(6) and
                                  trained personnel to operate a manual quick closing valve.   154.2150(j)(2).
[NEW 2104(b)]..................  n/a........................................................  We added this provision to take account of those cargo
                                                                                lines that are cleared without pigging, in response to
                                                                                commenter-suggested change in section 2001 definitions.
2105(a)(1), (b)(1), (f)(1).....  Commenter 5 said a 6-meter requirement would require nearly  We disagree with this comment for 154.2105(a)(1). The 6-
                                  all gas injecting facilities to rework vapor piping and      meter requirement is not new--see current 154.820(a)(2).
                                  perhaps the detonation arrester size.                        New 154.2105(a)(1) combines current 154.820(a)(1),
                                                                                154.820(a)(2), and 154.820(a)(3), and new 154.2105(a)(1)
                                                                                and 154.2105(a)(2) allow for installation of a detonation
                                                                                arrester as an alternative, as recommended by CTAC.
                                                                                We agree with this comment for 154.2105(b)(1), which
                                                                                requires meeting 154.2105(a)(1) and having a detonation
                                                                                arrester installed. We revised 154.2105(b)(1) and
                                                                                154.2105(f)(1) to allow the oxygen analyzer to be located
                                                                                4 meters downstream of the detonation arrester.
2105(a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1),      Commenter 4 said we should base distance on a number of      Most dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests
 (d)(1), (e), (f)(1), (g)(1),     diameters of the vapor line instead of a fixed 18 meters.    approved have been for 18 meters or less. The 18 meters
 (h)(1).                          Commenters 11, 13, and 18 also suggested alternatives to     distance is less restrictive than Commenter 4's proposed
                                  the 18 meter distance, for example requiring items to be     alternative. An alternative ``place items as close as
                                  placed as close as practicable, as is common industry        practicable'' standard would be too subjective to provide
                                  practice.                                                    good guidance and would be hard to enforce. We have
                                                                                clarified these provisions by specifying that the vapor
                                                                                piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock
                                                                                detonation arrester must be protected from any possible
                                                                                internal and external ignition source.
2105(d)(2).....................  Commenter 18 said this provision is too restrictive and not  We disagree. New 154.2105(d)(2) is the same requirement
                                  always effective.                                            imposed by current 154.820(d)(2), and CTAC recommended
                                                                                against any relaxation of that requirement.
2105(f), (g), (h)..............  Commenter 5 said that for inerted, partially inerted, or     Section 154.2105(f) allows an inerting, enriching, or
                                  combination cargoes, we should require the facility to use   diluting system meeting 154.2107 as an option. Sections
                                  the lowest minimum oxygen concentration for combustion       154.2107(k)(3), 154.2107(n), and 154.2107(o)(1) already
                                  (MOCC) of all cargoes being transferred.                     specify the use of either the cargo's MOCC or the
                                                                                enriching gas's MOCC, whichever is lower. Alternatively,
                                                                                the mixture's MOCC may be used.
2105(h)........................  Commenter 3 asked if (h)(3) is an alternative only to        The former. We inserted ``either'' and combined
                                  (h)(2) or to (h)(1) and (h)(2) combined.                     154.2105(h)(2) and 154.2105(h)(3) to make this clearer.

2105(j)(2) [now (j)(2) and       Commenter 5 said we should insert ``end-of-line'' before     We agree and revised 154.2105(j)(2) and new 154.2105(j)(3)
 (j)(3)].                         ``flame arrester,'' because an in-line flame arrester may    accordingly.
                                  not be effective.
2105(j)(2)(i) [now (j)(3)(i)]..  Commenter 4 said that a flame arrester meeting ASTM F-1273   We agree and split 154.2105(j)(2) into 154.2105(j)(2) and
                                  does not need a proving device, and Commenter 5 proposed     154.2105(j)(3) and revised this paragraph accordingly.
                                  revisions to this provision.
2105(j)(2)(ii) [now (j)(3)(ii)]  Commenter 5 proposed a revision to this paragraph..........  We agree and revised this paragraph accordingly.
former 2106(a).................  Commenters 3, 4, and 14 raised questions about the meaning   We removed this paragraph as it appeared in the NPRM
                                  of this provision.                                           because it was confusing. As we think was clear from the
                                                                                NPRM's 154.2106(b) [now 154.2106(a)], the questions
                                                                                raised by these comments should be answered by guidelines
                                                                                outlined in the arrester manufacturer's Coast Guard
                                                                                acceptance letter.
2106(c) [now (b)]..............  Commenters 3 and 14 asked if the reference is to components  This paragraph is intended to apply on either side of the
                                  upstream of the detonation arresters, downstream, or both.   detonation arrester, because there may be a potential
                                                                                ignition source on either side; we revised it to make
                                                                                that clearer.
2107...........................  Commenter 13 said we should apply gas inerting and           CTAC recommended no relaxation of this general
                                  enriching requirements only to loading facilities and not    requirement, which is taken from NVIC 1-96. We
                                  to TBCFs.                                                    acknowledge that under some conditions and with suitable
                                                                                alternative arrangements (see 154.107 and 154.108 with
                                                                                respect to alternatives and exemptions), it may not be
                                                                                necessary to apply it to all TBCFs.
2107(a)........................  Commenter 5 proposed a clarifying revision.................  We agree and changed ``vapor collection line'' to ``vapor
                                                                                collection system'' and specified ``two system volume
                                                                                exchanges'' accordingly.
2107(b)........................  Commenters 4, 5, 13, and 18 suggested various alternatives   With respect to Commenter 18, we think the regulations as
                                  for the 22 meter provision of this paragraph, with           drafted provide the necessary flexibility. The gas
                                  Commenter 4 suggesting a specific pipe-diameter standard,    injection point should be after the dock detonation
                                  and Commenter 18 saying we need to provide flexibility for   arrester, and this paragraph provides that while also
                                  existing methods of operation like systems equipped with     allowing the use of 154.2105(a), which requires an
                                  detonation arresters at the facility vapor connection and    analyzer at 6 meters from the facility vapor connection,
                                  vapor destruction unit.                                      as an exception. With respect to these comments in
                                                                                general, this provision is in line with currently
                                                                                approved exemptions and is less restrictive than the pipe-
                                                                                diameter standard suggested by Commenter 4. We have
                                                                                clarified these provisions by specifying that the vapor
                                                                                piping between the facility vapor connection and the dock
                                                                                detonation arrester must be protected from any possible
                                                                                internal and external ignition source.
2107(b)........................  n/a........................................................  In addition to the changes made in this paragraph to
                                                                                respond to Commenters 4, 5, 13, and 18, we have also
                                                                                clarified the location of the gas injection and mixing
                                                                                arrangement relative to the vapor processing unit or the
                                                                                vapor-moving device, as recommended by CTAC in 1997 to
                                                                                maintain a minimum size of non-flammable vapor slug in
                                                                                the vapor piping (to prevent a flashback from an ignition
                                                                                source). The minimum piping distance is also
                                                                                approximately the difference between the maximum piping
                                                                                length of the arrangement from the facility vapor
                                                                                connection as required by this paragraph and the minimum
                                                                                distance of a vapor destruction unit from any tank vessel
                                                                                berth as required by 154.2109(c).
2107(c)(2).....................  Commenter 4 proposed clarifying what must be                 We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  ``downstream.''.

2107(d)........................  Commenter 18 said we should add calorimeters as approved     In general, a calorimeter is a device used to measures
                                  devices.                                                     heat, while what we want analyzed is oxygen or
                                                                                hydrocarbon concentrations. A facility wishing to use a
                                                                                calorimeter can submit an alternative or exemption
                                                                                request with information for review.
2107(d)(2), (d)(4), (d)(6).....  Commenters 4 and 14 asked us to define what we mean by       The ``majority pair'' requirement is from NVIC 1-96,
                                  ``majority pair''.                                           Enclosure (1), Part A. Sec 9, and we have used ``voting
                                                                                system'' language from a draft of that NVIC to revise our
                                                                                text for clarity.
2107(h)(3), (i)(3), (j)(2),      Commenter 4 said the vapor moving device should not be shut  We agree with the changes offered by Commenters 5 and 14
 (k)(2)(ii), (l)(3), (m)(4).      down for high-high oxygen or low-low hydrocarbons, and       and deleted ``shut down any vapor moving device''
                                  Commenters 5 and 14 proposed revisions to these paragraphs.  accordingly. With respect to Commenter 4, a vapor mover
                                                                                is considered an ignition source, but it can continue to
                                                                                operate so that multi-dock operations will not be
                                                                                disrupted and so that the vapor mover can help draw more
                                                                                inerting, enriching, or diluting (IED) gas into the VCS.
2107(o)........................  Commenter 4 proposed allowing an alternative for             We followed up with Commenter 4 on this and learned of his
                                  simultaneously controlling inert and non-inert vapors,       interest in a specific vapor, for which an exemption
                                  where the inerted vapor stream is lowered by 1% from         could be the appropriate solution. In general, the more
                                  normal levels.                                               conservative approach of this provision is appropriate.
2109(b)(2)(i)..................  Commenter 4 said that if this requires quick closing valves  In light of this comment, we revised this provision to
                                  at the vapor destruction device or where the VCS connects    clarify that it applies only when a condition is detected
                                  to a facility's main VCS to close on any dock shutdown, it   that requires the closing of the quick-closing stop
                                  is not necessary.                                            valves, and not under other VCS shutdown conditions like
                                                                                overpressurization.
2109(b)(2)(iv).................  Commenter 4 said that quick closing valves should be fire    We agree and accordingly specified that the valve must
                                  resistant.                                                   also be a Category A valve as defined in 46 CFR 56.20-15.
2109(b)(3)(i)..................  Commenter 4 said we should substitute ``accepted'' for       We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  ``approved''.
2110(a)(1).....................  Commenter 4 asked if the tank high level alarm system and    We have revised the provision to clarify that these should
                                  overfill control system are required to have independent     be independent, like other alarm and shutdown systems.
                                  level sensing systems.
2110(a)(2).....................  Commenter 4 said we should base distance on a number of      The 18-meter or less distance has been approved for most
                                  diameters of the vapor line (e.g. 40 pipe diameters)         dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests, and
                                  instead of setting it at 18 meters, and Commenters 11, 13,   18 meters is less restrictive than Commenter 4's proposed
                                  and 18 proposed other alternatives to the 18-meter           alternative. An alternative ``place items as close as
                                  distance, for example, requiring items to be placed as       practicable'' standard would be too subjective to provide
                                  close as practicable, as is common industry practice.        good guidance and would be hard to enforce. We clarified
                                  Commenter 7 asked if this paragraph merely repeats           these provisions by specifying that the vapor piping
                                  2105(a)(2).                                                  between the facility vapor connection and the dock
                                                                                detonation arrester must be protected from any possible
                                                                                internal and external ignition source. The two provisions
                                                                                are not duplicative; see the different introductory
                                                                                language in 154.2105(a) and 154.2110(a)(2).
2110(a)(4).....................  Commenter 4 said that there is no need for an oxygen         We agree and revised this provision so that inert cargo
                                  analyzer for vapor balancing of inert cargo systems when     systems can comply with either 154.2105(a)(1) or
                                  loading a vessel.                                            154.2110(a)(2).
2110(b)(1).....................  Commenter 4 said we should change ``mechanism'' to           We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  ``means,'' so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based
                                  on negative differential pressure across the detonation
                                  arrester (currently used by most facilities).
2111(a), introductory paragraph  n/a........................................................  We added ``a marine vapor collection system'' in response
                                                                                to the comment on 154.2001's definition of ``existing
                                                                                VCS.''

2111(a)(2).....................  Commenter 4 said that if this requires quick closing valves  We agree with this comment and revised this provision by
                                  at the vapor destruction device or where the VCS connects    substitute ``a VCS shutdown condition occurs'' for
                                  to a facility's main VCS to close on any dock shutdown, it   ``vapor back flow to the marine vapor line is detected''
                                  is not necessary.                                            and split 154.(a)(2) into 154.(a)(2) and 154.(a)(2)(i)-
                                                                                (iii).
2111(a)(3).....................  Commenter 4 said we should change ``mechanism'' to           We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  ``means,'' so as not to preclude use of a shutdown based
                                  on negative differential pressure across the detonation
                                  arrester (currently used by most facilities).
2111(c) [now 2111(d)]..........  Commenter 5 asked if this provision would require a          We do not think an exemption would be necessary. After
                                  facility to get an exemption if it wanted to pass vapors     contacting the commenter and discussing this provision
                                  to the dock flare from a truck or railcar loading, and       with him, we clarified it by adding a new paragraph
                                  used the flare antiflashback burner part of the marine VCS.  154.2111(d) to allow for sharing a marine vapor
                                                                                destruction unit as an exception to 154.2111(c).
2111(d)........................  n/a........................................................  We added new paragraph 154.2111(d) in response to
                                                                                Commenter 5's comment on 154.2111(c).
2112(a)........................  Commenter 5 said that after loading is complete, the system  We agree with this comment. However, this is an
                                  that controlled polymerizing vapors must purge/clean the     operational requirement. Incompatible cargoes are
                                  VCS, including hoses or vapor arms, with at least two        addressed in 154.2150(p). For maintenance and other
                                  system-volumes of non-reactive gas or air. This should be    concerns, we added a new 154.2150(q) so that after each
                                  a standard procedure for all cargoes so that the VCS is      transfer operation, the VCS piping and equipment must be
                                  left in a safe condition for any potential maintenance or    purged with at least two system volume exchanges of non-
                                  incompatible cargoes.                                        reactive gas or air so the VCS is left in a safe
                                                                                condition.
2112(a)(3).....................  Commenter 4 said we should also require the differential     We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  pressure instrument to alarm on high differential pressure
                                  across the detonation arrester, to warn of polymerization.
2113...........................  Commenter 18 provided circumstances under which special      We agree that special requirements are not needed for
                                  requirements for alkylene oxides are not needed.             pressure cargoes and added language in the introductory
                                                                                paragraph to make that clear.
2113(b) [now 2113(a)(2)].......  Commenter 13 said that this requirement is unnecessary for   We revised this section to exclude pressure cargoes. In
                                  safety and will likely have the effect of shutting down      addition, instead of complying with what was (in the
                                  some facilities and forcing others to perform expensive      NPRM) 154.2113(b) and is now 154.2113(a)(2), a facility
                                  retrofits.                                                   can comply with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(c) and is
                                                                                now 154.2113(b).
2113(c) [now 2113(b)]..........  Commenter 5 said that in addition to the CE, a marine        We agree with Commenter 5 and have revised this provision
                                  chemist or properly trained third-party surveyor should be   accordingly. With respect to Commenter 18, we have
                                  allowed to determine if the VCS has been adequately          revised this section to exclude pressure cargoes. In
                                  cleaned. Commenter 13 said that this requirement is          addition, instead of complying with what was (in the
                                  unnecessary for safety and will likely have the effect of    NPRM) 154.2113(b) and is now 154.2113(a)(2), a facility
                                  shutting down some facilities and forcing others to          can comply with what was (in the NPRM) 154.2113(c) and is
                                  perform expensive retrofits.                                 now 154.2113(b).
2150(c)........................  Commenter 7 said we should clarify that the required system  The point made by Commenter 7 is in line with the guidance
                                  testing does not extend to shutdown of operating systems     we currently provide to CEs. We do not agree and the
                                  that may be serving other portions of the facility.          regulatory text does not need to be changed in this
                                                                                respect because we are not changing that guidance.
2150(c)(1).....................  Commenter 14 said we had misstated where exceptions to this  We agree with Commenter 14 and revised this provision
                                  paragraph are provided. Commenter 7 said electronic          accordingly. Commenter 7 already uses electronic testing
                                  testing should be permitted for complying with this          under existing exemptions that remain in place; it is
                                  paragraph.                                                   appropriate for the unique characteristics of Commenter
                                                                                7's VCS but would not be appropriate for VCSs in general.

2150(c)(4).....................  Commenter 4 said that if this requires testing of the        After following up with Commenter 4, we agree with his
                                  flammability analyzer required by 154.2105(j)(2)(i), the     point and with Commenter 5's point, and we revised
                                  combustible gas indicator used for this application does     154.2150(c)(4) and 154.2150(c)(5) accordingly.
                                  not usually have the means to check with a sample gas and
                                  does not need calibration as often as an oxygen or
                                  hydrocarbon analyzer. Commenter 5 said that to properly
                                  calibrate an analyzer, a ``zero gas'' must be used in
                                  addition to a span gas.
2150(c)(5).....................  n/a........................................................  We revised this paragraph per the comment on section
                                                                                154.2150(c)(4).
2150(c)(6).....................  Commenters 4 and 5 said that this provision is               We agree in part with Commenters 4 and 5 and revised this
                                  impracticable. Commenter 7 said we should modify it so       provision to clarify our intent, which is not to conduct
                                  that checking requires only visual checking, not an          technical capacity or lift pressure testing of the
                                  operational check of the relief devices, which should be     valves, but rather to make sure the valve travel is not
                                  allowed annually, consistent with present practice.          constrained and that the flame arrester is not damaged.
                                                                                Under an existing exemption suiting the unique
                                                                                characteristics of Commenter 7's VCS, visual-only testing
                                                                                is permitted, but it would be inappropriate for VCSs in
                                                                                general.
2150(f)........................  Commenter 14 asked us to clarify whether this applies        It applies downstream and we clarified this provision
                                  upstream or downstream of the facility vapor connection.     accordingly. Note that 154.2103(h) requires pressure
                                                                                sensors to be located in the vapor line between the
                                                                                facility vapor connection and any isolation valve.
2150(g)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 said many facilities lack the ability   We agree in part but do not think it is necessary to
                                  to make an accurate determination of liquid cargo transfer   require instrumentation in this provision. Existing
                                  rates and that therefore we should require instrumentation.  regulations (154.525, 156.120(aa)) require monitoring
                                                                                devices under certain conditions and verification that
                                                                                the initial loading rate and the maximum transfer rate
                                                                                are determined, and provide adequate control of the
                                                                                problem cited by these commenters.
2150(i)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 said we should clarify what is meant    We agree with these commenters and revised this provision
                                  by ``gas''.                                                  to clarify that a compressed inert gas such as nitrogen
                                                                                can be used to clear cargo lines if a pigging system that
                                                                                meets 154.2104 is provided.
2150(j)........................  n/a........................................................  We revised this paragraph to take account of those cargo
                                                                                lines that are cleared without pigging, in response to
                                                                                commenter-suggested change in 154.2001 definitions.
[New 2150(q)]..................  n/a........................................................  To address the comment on 154.2112(a), we added this new
                                                                                paragraph. After each transfer operation, the VCS piping
                                                                                and equipment must be purged with at least two-system
                                                                                volume exchanges of non-reactive gas or air so the VCS is
                                                                                left with a safe condition.
2150(q) [now 2150 (r)].........  n/a........................................................  We added ``or 156.170(i),'' to take account of this rule's
                                                                                addition of that alternative to 156.170(g).
2180(b)(4).....................  Commenter 3 said we should revise this to refer to           We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  placement at ``or near'' the sampling probe.
2180(c), (d)...................  Commenter 4 asked what ``safety system function tested''     The relevant tests are in 154.2181. We revised these
                                  means.                                                       paragraphs to make that clearer.
2180(e)(3), (e)(4).............  Commenter 4 asked us to clarify these standards............  We agree and revised these provisions accordingly.
2180(g)........................  n/a........................................................  We inserted ``zero gas'' in light of the comment on
                                                                                154.2150(c)(4).
2181(b), (c), (d), (e).........  Commenter 7 said that annual calibration should be           We disagree. This section and 154.2180 provide a
                                  sufficient.                                                  compliance alternative to the 24-hour pre-transfer or pre-
                                                                                tank cleaning testing of 154.2150 and 154.2250. Also,
                                                                                156.170(g)(4) requires analyzers to be calibrated either
                                                                                within the previous 2 weeks or within 24 hours prior to
                                                                                operation when the VCS is operated less frequently than
                                                                                once a week.

2181(d)(4)(i)..................  Commenter 4 said that most existing systems inject the span  We revised this provision to make it clear that we do not
                                  gas at the analyzer box and do not use sample tubing, and    intend for those systems to need modification.
                                  asked if those systems would need to be modified.
2200...........................  Commenter 4 said that because proposed 154.6001(f)(3)        After following up with Commenter 4, we agree and added
                                  references the requirement of proposed 46 CFR 39.2009 to     new 154.2200(b) accordingly.
                                  have a connection with the facility for the overfill
                                  control system, 154.2200 should require the facility to be
                                  able to accept the barge connection if they are using
                                  liquid displacement.
2200(b)........................  n/a........................................................  We added this paragraph in response to the comment we
                                                                                received on 154.2200 and on 46 CFR 39.6001(f)(3).
2200(c) [now (d)]..............  Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and       We disagree. These IED requirements are from NVIC 1-96 and
                                  enriching requirements for TBCFs.                            are based on recommended safety standards developed by
                                                                                CTAC in 1994 and 1995. In 1998, CTAC reviewed NVIC 1-96
                                                                                and did not recommend eliminating the IED requirement for
                                                                                TBCFs.
2203(c), (d)...................  Commenter 4 asked why we would require correcting for a      We agree and modified 154.2203(d) to clarify that the
                                  pressure drop from the cargo tank to the pressure sensor     remotely operated shutoff valve required by 154.2203(c)
                                  at the gas injection point, when it is more conservative     must be closed when the pressure at the fluid injection
                                  not to correct and correction could allow for a higher       connection reaches a corresponding 90% of the lowest
                                  alarm set point than 80% of the relief valve set point and   setting of any pressure relief valve on the barge.
                                  a higher shutdown set point than 90% of the relief valve
                                  set point.
2203(g)........................  Commenter 18 said that tank barges do not need individual    We agree and modified this provision to allow for the use
                                  cargo tank pressure sensors because one sensor can detect    of a common vapor sensor as an alternative.
                                  pressure throughout the barge via the common vapor system.
2204...........................  Commenter 18 said we should remove the distance requirement  Most dock detonation arrester distance exemption requests
                                  or allow existing facilities to maintain current locations   approved have been for 18 meters or less. An alternative
                                  as long as the detonation arrester is located as close as    ``place items as close as practicable'' standard would be
                                  practicable to the facility connection.                      too subjective to provide good guidance and would be hard
                                                                                to enforce. We have clarified this section by specifying
                                                                                that the vapor piping between the facility vapor
                                                                                connection and the dock detonation arrester must be
                                                                                protected from any possible internal and external
                                                                                ignition source.
2204(a)(2), (b)(2), (d)(2).....  Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and       We disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of the
                                  enriching requirements for TBCFs.                            commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c).
2250(c)(1).....................  Commenter 4 asked us to clarify our wording about            We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  exemptions.
2250(c)(4), (f)................  Commenter 13 said we should eliminate gas inerting and       We disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of the
                                  enriching requirements for TBCFs.                            commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c). However, we revised
                                                                                154.2250(c)(4) per the comment on 154.2250(c)(5).
2250(c)(5).....................  Commenter 4 said that if this requires testing of the        After following up with Commenter 4, we agree with his
                                  flammability analyzer required by 154.2105(j)(2)(i), the     point and revised 154.2250(c)(4) and 154.2250(c)(5)
                                  combustible gas indicator used for this application does     accordingly, as we did in 154.2150(c)(4) and
                                  not usually have the means to check with a sample gas and    154.2150(c)(5). With respect to Commenter 13's comment,
                                  does not need calibration as often as an oxygen or           we disagree for the reasons given in our discussion of
                                  hydrocarbon analyzer. Commenter 13 said we should            the commenter's remarks on 154.2200(c).
                                  eliminate gas inerting and enriching requirements for
                                  TBCFs.
2250(c)(6).....................  Commenter 5 said that this provision is impracticable......  We agree in part with Commenter 5 and revised this
                                                                                provision to clarify our intent, which is not to conduct
                                                                                technical capacity or lift pressure testing of the
                                                                                valves, but rather to make sure the valve travel is not
                                                                                constrained and that the flame arrester is not damaged.

2250(d)(5).....................  Commenter 4 asked us to clarify this provision so that the   We agree and revised the provision accordingly.
                                  gas-freeing rate may not exceed the maximum allowable rate
                                  during--but not before--operations.
2250(e)........................  Commenter 12 said that annual inspection of detonation       Exemptions may be available to facility operators for whom
                                  arresters may be difficult for some facilities, and asked    annual inspection is difficult. We revised 154.2250(e) so
                                  us to specify whether compliance documentation is required.  that it is worded like 154.2150(q) [now 154.2150(r)] and
                                                                                makes clear how documentation requirements are
                                                                                established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     33 CFR part 156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170(g)(3)......................  n/a........................................................  We added two more references that need updating to the
                                                                                amendatory instruction for this paragraph.
170(g)(4)......................  n/a........................................................  We updated the reference to 46 CFR 39.40-3(a) so that it
                                                                                now refers to 46 CFR 39.4003.
170(i).........................  Commenter 8 said that approval by the local Captain of the   You may propose alternative arrangements under 156.107,
                                  Port (COTP) is adequate and less burdensome than approval    but generally the Commandant and not the COTP will have
                                  by the Commandant.                                           the necessary expertise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     46 CFR part 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35.35-4........................  n/a........................................................  We added this section per the discussion of the comments
                                                                                on 35.35-5.
35.35-5........................  Commenter 5 said the shielded wire in the overfill system    We agree with these commenters and added new 35.35-4 and
                                  of 33 CFR 154.2102(b) is attached to a ground connection     rewrote this section. Together, the two sections take
                                  pin which is grounded by the facility but should not be      into account all of these commenters' remarks.
                                  grounded to the marine vessel; this would then comply with
                                  the proposed requirement in 46 CFR 35.35-5 for not
                                  grounding the marine vessel to the dock. Commenter 11 said
                                  the prohibition against using external bonding cables or
                                  straps to achieve electrical bonding is unnecessary, and
                                  the rule should allow barge-to-dock cable bonding as is
                                  the current and safe industry practice. Commenter 13 said
                                  we should continue allowing the use of bonding cables
                                  between a barge and a dock. Commenter 18 asked us to
                                  clarify that this section does not apply to ship-to-barge
                                  and barge-to-barge transfers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     46 CFR part 39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1005(h)(1).....................  n/a........................................................  In line with the comment on 33 CFR 154.106(g)(3), we
                                                                                revised this paragraph to incorporate the latest
                                                                                available (2011) edition of the National Fire Protection
                                                                                Association's National Electric Code (NFPA 70).
1013(b)........................  Commenter 4 said our proposed language could be interpreted  We agree and revised this provision so that it applies
                                  as requiring the vessel VCS to have been operational by      only to VCSs that began operating on or after that date.
                                  July 23, 1990.
1017...........................  Commenter 4 said the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center (MSC)  Vessels currently conducting multi-breasted loading
                                  may not be able to review all the vessels that conduct       operations are already approved by MSC and Commandant (CG-
                                  multi-breasted loading operations or gas-freeing or          ENG-5) and will not need reapproval. Section
                                  cleaning operations between the publication of the final     39.1001(a)(2) allows a tank barge conducting gas-freeing
                                  rule and its effective date.                                 or cleaning operations to comply at the time of its next
                                                                                inspection but no later than 5 years after the effective
                                                                                date.
1017(b)(1), (b)(2).............  n/a........................................................  We revised these paragraphs per the comment on section
                                                                                39.1017(c).
1017(c)........................  Commenter 18 said existing VCSs should not be required to    We agree and revised 39.1017(b)(1) and 39.1017(b)(2) to
                                  apply for new approval when the final rule takes effect.     exclude those already approved by the MSC.
2001(m)........................  Commenter 4 pointed out a miscited reference...............  We agree and changed the citation at the end of the
                                                                                provision.

2007(b)(4).....................  Commenter 4 said we should continue to require checking, or  We agree and changed ``be inspected'' to ``be verified.''
                                  testing, but not inspection.
2009(a)(1)(iii)(B).............  n/a........................................................  In line with the comment on 33 CFR 154.106(g)(3), we
                                                                                revised this paragraph to reference provisions in the
                                                                                latest available (2011) edition of NFPA 70.
2009(a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii)....  Commenters 13 and 18 said this is unattainable because       We disagree. This is not a new requirement but is the same
                                  accurate flow rate instrumentation is not available on       as appears in 46 CFR 39.20-9(b)(2). Barges and facilities
                                  unmanned barges and some facilities do not have calibrated   have successfully complied with this requirement since
                                  instrument flow rates available for use during their cargo   1990. However, we did correct an erroneous reference in
                                  transfer to vessels.                                         39.2009(a)(2)(iii): the alarm and shutdown system needs
                                                                                to be activated on the cargo discharging vessel, not the
                                                                                cargo receiving vessel.
2009(b)........................  Commenter 4 pointed out a miscited reference...............  We agree and corrected the citation at the end of this
                                                                                provision.
2011(d)........................  Commenter 4 asked what methods are approved by the Coast     We revised this provision to identify where guidance is
                                  Guard for calculating vapor growth.                          available for free and to specify that, alternatively,
                                                                                submitters may calculate the vapor growth rate using any
                                                                                recognized standard and following good engineering
                                                                                practice.
2013, introductory paragraph...  Commenter 4 asked why we would require the pressure sensor   We do not disagree that the pressure sensing devices could
                                  to be located as close as practicable to the vessel vapor    be located at the cargo tanks. However, to prevent over-
                                  connection, when it is more accurate to have the sensor      pressurization of cargo tanks, current prevention
                                  located closer to the tanks.                                 guidance includes submittal of pressure drop calculations
                                                                                from the cargo tank to the vapor connection. Pressure
                                                                                drop calculations coupled with the location of the
                                                                                pressure sensing device should be provided such that the
                                                                                operator is made aware of the actual tank pressure and
                                                                                can ensure the safety of the system. With sensors located
                                                                                at the vapor connection additional calculations would not
                                                                                be necessary.
2014(b)........................  Commenter 18 said that annual inspection is not needed for   We disagree. This requirement was recommended by CTAC.
                                  pressure valves; they are already checked frequently and     Pressure-vacuum valves used with polymerizing cargoes are
                                  the test lever is sufficient for determining proper          subject to polymer buildup on the internal structure of
                                  operation.                                                   the valve which would reduce the flow capacity of the
                                                                                valve. This could cause a potentially dangerous situation
                                                                                should the tank be overpressurized and the valve not be
                                                                                able to handle the required flow rate due to polymer
                                                                                buildup. Annual inspections are already conducted by many
                                                                                operators.
2015...........................  Commenters 13 and 18 asked us to clarify whether multiple    Multiple devices are not required. We have revised the
                                  pressure indicating devices will be required on tank         section to clarify that a pressure sensing device, not a
                                  barges to deal with the multiple cargo tank valves that      pressure indicator, is required. A sensor takes the
                                  control cargo transfer on unmanned tank barges.              measurement, whereas the indicator provides a visual
                                                                                indication of what that measurement is. Therefore, the
                                                                                indicator should be located at the location from which
                                                                                the cargo can be controlled. For a vessel that does not
                                                                                have a pump room, this would typically be where the cargo
                                                                                pump shutdown controls are located. We have refrained
                                                                                from mandating a specific location because barges come in
                                                                                a wide variety of designs and the current language
                                                                                provides discretion for the vessel owner or operator to
                                                                                place the pressure indicating device in the most
                                                                                practical location.
3001(g)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 asked us to include a requirement for   The industry standard incorporated by reference in this
                                  accurate flow rate instrumentation to be provided at         provision provides the requirement.
                                  facilities and on manned tank vessels.

Subpart 5000...................  Commenter 4 said it was not clear how to deal with the       We currently require calculations for multi-breasted
                                  extra pressure drop from multi-breasted vapor control. The   loading that take the additional pressure drop into
                                  transfer procedures should have the means to determine the   consideration, and the calculations must be approved by
                                  additional pressure drop from the inboard vessel's vapor     the MSC. We added a new 39.5001(e) to clarify these
                                  header.                                                      requirements.
5001(a)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 objected to the proposed language       The proposed language was recommended by CTAC. We
                                  requiring both barges engaged in two barge doubled-up        acknowledge that some barges can be owned by one company
                                  loading to be owned and operated by the same entity,         and operated by another company, and have changed ``and''
                                  saying this is not relevant to safe tank barge loading or    to ``or'' in this provision. Most of the barges currently
                                  safe use of marine VCSs.                                     approved for this operation are owned and operated by the
                                                                                same company. Several are owned by one company but
                                                                                operated by another company. There are specific
                                                                                calculation, equipment, and operational requirements for
                                                                                this operation.
5001(b)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 said that a hose length limitation in   The 25-foot length is standard and, for safety, these
                                  39.5001(b)(3) is not needed and that hoses longer than 25    hoses should be as short as possible. However, we revised
                                  feet present little additional risk.                         39.5001(b)(3) to permit use of longer hoses with MSC
                                                                                approval, and we made other (non-substantive) changes in
                                                                                39.5001(b).
[New 5001(e)]..................  ...........................................................  We added new 39.5001(e) in response to Commenter 4's
                                                                                comment on subpart 39.5000.
5001(e) [now (f)]..............  Commenters 13 and 18 said that requiring compliance with     Both of these requirements are standard conditions of our
                                  additional COTP conditions and requiring identification      current dual barge loading exemption approval letters,
                                  and certification of facilities at which doubled-up cargo    and align with CTAC recommendations. We agree that the
                                  transfer loading operations will be conducted is             identification of specific facilities is not necessary
                                  unnecessary, and also that if additional safety              and have revised this paragraph to delete that proposed
                                  precautions are needed, they should be specified in the      requirement.
                                  initial documents.
6001(c)........................  Commenters 13 and 18 said that complying with the proposed   We disagree. The labeling requirement for individual
                                  labeling requirement will be costly and difficult, and       stripping lines comes from NVIC 1-96, is based on CTAC
                                  that it is not needed because stripping lines already are    recommendations, and is important for safety reasons
                                  identified in easily accessible barge piping diagrams.       because it prevents confusion with cargo lines.
                                                                                Facilities can use stencils and spread-paint the lines.
6001(f)(1).....................  Commenter 4 asked for clarification of this provision......  We have revised this provision to explain that ``flanged
                                                                                flexible hoses'' are ``flexible hoses flanged to a
                                                                                connection.'' This is provided as an alternative to a
                                                                                fixed vapor header or fixed liquid cargo header.
6001(f)(3).....................  Commenter 4 made an observation with respect to the joint    We followed up with Commenter 4. Because this paragraph
                                  interpretation of this provision and 39.2009.                requires overfill protection according to 39.2009, we
                                                                                added new 33 CFR 154.2200(b) to address his comments.
6003(a)........................  Commenter 4 said this sounds like an operational             We followed up with Commenter 4. We have revised this
                                  requirement because it does not make sense for a cargo       paragraph to clarify that this is an operational
                                  tank venting system's design pressure to be less than that   requirement and that it does not require a cargo tank
                                  of cargo tank.                                               venting system's design pressure to be less than that of
                                                                                cargo tank.
6003(b)........................  Commenter 18 said that tank barges do not need individual    We agree and revised this provision as we did for 39.2015.
                                  cargo tank pressure sensors because one sensor can detect    We also specified the relevant paragraphs of the
                                  pressure throughout the barge via the common vapor system.   referenced section in 33 CFR, and changed the wording of
                                                                                the required label to avoid confusion between sensors and
                                                                                indicators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
33 CFR 154.106 and 46 CFR 39.1005 for incorporation by reference under
5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available
from the sources listed in those sections.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563

(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying
both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and
of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 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 E.O.
    A final Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
available in the docket as indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the
Regulatory Analysis follows:
    The final rule revises the existing regulations (33 CFR parts 154,
155, and 156, 46 CFR parts 35 and 39) regarding the safety of facility
and vessel VCSs. The final rule amends the regulations to make VCS
requirements more compatible with other Federal and State environmental
requirements and reflect industry advances in VCS technology, and
codifies the voluntary standards for VCSs at TBCFs. The final rule
increases the safety of operations by regulating the design,
installation, and use of VCSs, but will not require anyone to install
or use VCSs.
    The final rule provides additional requirements for VCS equipment,
compliance documentation, training, and operations. In general, the
final rule:
     Adds new requirements for certifications,
recertifications, periodic operational reviews, and approval processes
for certain operations concerning VCSs to promote maritime safety and
marine environmental protection. These various requirements mainly
affect facilities with VCSs, including TBCFs;
     Requires new training or amends training requirements to
improve safety. These training requirements affect facilities with VCSs
(including TBCFs) and tank barge owners and operators;
     Permits pigging; however, there will be some requirements
to receive Coast Guard permission to do so;
     Provides foreign-flagged tank barges some flexibility for
certification procedures;
     Adds new requirements for certain equipment on U.S.-
flagged tank barges and at TBCFs and other facilities with VCSs to
improve safety and environmental protection; and
     Removes certain requirements in order to offer cost
savings. This change mainly impacts facilities with VCSs.
    The final rule is necessary to reflect the expansion of Federal and
State regulations for VCSs since the current regulations were adopted
in 1990, and to reflect technological advances over that period.
Without revisions to these regulations by the Coast Guard, market
failures persist in creating situations of uncompensated risk. In the
case of this final rule, the uncompensated risks accrue to the public,
maritime commerce, and mariners in the form of safety and environmental
hazards and potential losses to equipment and cargo as well as the
opportunity cost resulting from equipment, parts of facilities, or
vessels being temporarily out of operation due to accidents.
    The Regulatory Analysis provides an evaluation of the economic
impacts associated with this final rule. Table 2 below provides a
summary of the final rule's costs and benefits.

              Table 2--Summary of the Final Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................  Owners of U.S.-flagged tank barges and
                                foreign-flagged tank barges as defined
                                by 46 CFR Subchapter D; CEs for VCSs;
                                TBCFs.
Affected Population..........  280 facilities with VCSs, 24 CEs, 15
                                TBCFs, 216 U.S.-flagged tank barge
                                owners, and owners of 338 foreign-
                                flagged tank barges.
10-Year Costs (7% discount     $6.86 million.
 rate).
10-Year Quantified Benefits    Benefits: $2.79 million.
 and Cost Savings (7%          Additional Cost Savings: $5.956 million
 discount rate).                (regulated public).
                               Additional Cost Savings: $0.164 million
                                (Government).
                               Total Benefits and Other Savings: $8.914
                                million.
10-year Net Benefits of Final  $8.914--$6.86 = $2.054 million.
 Rule (7% discount rate).
Unquantified Benefits........  * Update industry practices.
                               * Aid to quality control.
                               * Preclusion of diminution of safety.
                               * Provide for an opportunity for more
                                competition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs, quantified benefits, and cost savings are the totals for the
  10-year period of analysis. These costs include industry costs plus
  the Government's costs.