Pollution Prevention Equipment, 67066-67083 [05-21573]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67066
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 155 and 157
46 CFR Part 162
[USCG–2004–18939]
RIN 1625–AA90
Pollution Prevention Equipment
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
revise its pollution prevention
equipment regulations to make them
consistent with new International
Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines
and specifications issued under the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) Annex I. These revisions
should effectively implement MARPOL
Annex I regulations, reduce the amount
of oil discharged from vessels, and
eliminate the use of ozone-depleting
solvents in equipment tests. The
proposed rule would require newly
constructed vessels carrying oil in bulk
to install cargo monitors that meet
revised standards and require all vessels
replacing or installing oil separators and
bilge alarms to install equipment that
meets revised standards. Tests for
approval of this equipment would also
be revised both to deal with common
bilge contaminants and to eliminate the
use of ozone-depleting solvents.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before February 1, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2004–18939 to the
Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001.
(3) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the
Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is 202–366–
9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
You may inspect the material
proposed for incorporation by reference
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
at room 1300, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593–0001 between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202–267–6640.
Copies of the material are available as
indicated in the ‘‘Incorporation by
Reference’’ section of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander George
Grills, Systems Engineering Division
(G–MSE–3), Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone 202–267–6640. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–493–0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Organization
This preamble is organized as follows:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
Submitting comments
Viewing comments and documents
Privacy Act
Public Meeting
Background and Purpose
Which vessels would this proposed rule
affect?
Regulatory History
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Incorporation by Reference
Regulatory Evaluation
Background
Proposed Action
Applicability
Costs
Benefits
Smal Entities
Assistance for Small Entities
Collection of Information
Federalism
Undated Mandates Reform Act
Taking of Private Property
Civil Justice Reform
Protection of Children
Indian Tribal Governments
Energy Effects
Technical Standards
Environment
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://dms.dot.gov
and will include any personal
information you have provided. We
have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the
Docket Management Facility. Please see
DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (USCG–2004–18939),
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. You may submit your
comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit your comments and material by
only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by
mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time and
conduct a simple search using the
docket number. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in room
PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the Department of
Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for one to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one
would aid this rulemaking, we will hold
one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Under the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships, Pub. L. 96–478, sections 2
and 4, 94 Stat. 2297, 2298 (Oct. 21,
1980), 33 U.S.C. 1901 and 1903, the
Secretary of the Department in which
the Coast Guard is operating is
authorized to prescribe any necessary or
desired regulations to carry out the
provisions of the Act and of Annexes I
and II of the International Convention
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol
of 1978 relating to that Convention
(MARPOL 73/78). Under the Act of
August 26, 1983, Pub. L. 98–89, 97 Stat.
500, 504, 522, subtitle II of title 46 of the
U.S. Code, specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703,
the Secretary in which the Coast Guard
is operating is authorized to issue
equipment regulations for vessels
carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargo,
including oil. Authority under both of
these acts has been delegated to the
Coast Guard under Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1 (2)(77) and (92)(b).
For some time, it has been well
understood by the international
maritime community that existing
pollution prevention equipment (PPE) is
not adequately designed to process bilge
wastes. Pollution prevention equipment
on vessels encounter bilge wastes that
are not replicated in test fluids used for
certifying and approving PPE. This has
led to release of more oil into the marine
environment than desired. Of specific
concern has been emulsified oil in
water, surfactants (for example,
detergents), and other contaminants
typically found in bilge water.
A second problem concerned the
method by which oil content is
measured in effluent samples during the
approval process. Existing methods
require the use of ozone-depleting
solvents, specifically carbon
tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113).
Both an international treaty and laws of
the United States call for phasing out
the use of these solvents. Therefore, an
alternative test method was desired.
Having identified these concerns, the
International Maritime Organization’s
(IMO) Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) instructed the Ship
Design and Equipment subcommittee to
develop new performance standards to
replace those referenced in MARPOL
Annex I. The Ship Design and
Equipment subcommittee drafted new
resolutions, in which the U.S.
participated, that were ultimately
approved by the MEPC at its 49th
session in July 2003 and designated as
MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49).
Which Vessels Would This Proposed
Rule Affect?
Our proposed rule would not change
the type or class of vessels that require
a cargo monitor, oily-water separator
(OWS), or bilge alarm under 33 CFR part
155, subpart B, or 33 CFR part 157; it
would only require that such equipment
meet new pollution prevention
standards.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
Regulatory History
Even before Annex I of MARPOL 73/
78 came into force internationally in
1983, the Coast Guard issued a final rule
(44 FR 53352, September 13, 1979)
containing PPE design and approval
requirements. On December 31, 2003,
the Coast Guard published in the
Federal Register (68 FR 75603) a notice
of policy informing the public of the
new MEPC resolutions, our desire to
update 46 CFR subpart 162.050, and our
willingness to consider alternatives to
the performance and testing standards
in part 162.050.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would revise 46
CFR subpart 162.050 to reflect the new
IMO PPE guidelines and specifications
that governments have been invited to
apply on or after January 1, 2005, to
their implementation of MARPOL
Annex I regulations. The proposed rule
would also align 46 CFR subpart
162.050 more closely with the IMO PPE
guidelines by removing the bilge
monitor standard. The six factors that
were considered in the decision to
propose to remove the bilge monitor
follow:
1. A bilge monitor includes a 100
parts per million (ppm) performance
standard that is no longer an allowed
discharge concentration of oil at sea
nationally or internationally.
2. There is no longer an equivalent to
a bilge monitor requirement in the IMO
guidelines or MARPOL Annex I. The
IMO resolutions and Annex I call for
three types of PPE equipment: cargo
monitors, oil separators and bilge
alarms. In addition to these three types
of equipment, the equipment that can
obtain approval under subpart 162.050
currently also includes bilge monitors.
Retaining the bilge monitor design and
approval standards in the proposed
subpart 162.050 results in unique
testing and performance requirements
inconsistent with international
standards.
3. According to our records, the Coast
Guard has not received an approval
application for a bilge monitor in more
than a decade.
4. Only four bilge monitors are listed
in the Coast Guard equipment database
and only one of those has maintained an
‘‘approved’’ status. All the others are
‘‘former-may use’’ or ‘‘expired.’’
5. There are no specific requirements
in the current regulations for installing
a bilge monitor—it is an alternative to
installation of a bilge alarm.
6. The new bilge alarm requirements
incorporate a recording function which,
other than the 100-ppm alarm, was the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67067
major difference between the bilge
alarm and bilge monitor. As proposed,
a bilge monitor requirement in the
proposed subpart 162.050 would be
both redundant and obsolete.
Unlike many of the engineering
references incorporated into our current
regulations, subpart 162.050 contains
text taken in large part from the IMO
documents detailing the performance
and testing requirements. Two options
exist for updating subpart 162.050:
1. Replace existing regulatory text
with detailed text implementing the
new IMO standards by describing them;
or
2. Replace existing regulatory text
with new text that relies heavily on
incorporating the new standards by
reference to resolutions MEPC.107(49)
and MEPC.108(49), and ISO 9377–2.
In seeking to avoid conflicts between
Coast Guard PPE regulations and
MARPOL Annex I guidelines and
specifications that Member States are
invited to make applicable on or after
January 1, 2005, we considered
incorporating the MARPOL guidelines
and specifications by reference—and
not have any differences between the
MARPOL guidelines and specifications
and Coast Guard PPE standards—but we
decided to maintain some differences.
Some of our regulations will be more
specific and concrete than the MARPOL
Annex I guidelines and specifications.
We will, for example, specify when and
where inclination tests will be
performed. These differences are
intended to make the regulations easier
to enforce and more likely to ensure that
the oil-release-reduction goals of the
MARPOL Annex I guidelines and
specifications are met.
Incorporation by Reference
New material proposed for
incorporation by reference is added in
both 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR
162.050–4. You may inspect this
material at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are
available from the sources listed in
§§ 157.02 and 162.050–4.
Before publishing a binding rule, we
will submit copies of all of the proposed
new material to the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register for
approval of the incorporation by
reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67068
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. A draft
Regulatory Evaluation follows:
Background
This NPRM proposes to change the
performance standards of oily-water
separators (OWS), bilge alarms, and
cargo monitors to meet the revised
guidelines and specifications for the
MARPOL Annex I standards.
In analyzing the cost impact of this
proposed rule, we considered the
increase in cost to buyers of new vessels
who must install new pollution
prevention equipment meeting the
revised standards, and owners and
operators of existing vessels who must
replace old equipment with the new
pollution prevention equipment.
Proposed Action
The Coast Guard proposes to make the
following changes to pollution
prevention equipment performance
standards, outlined in 46 CFR part 162,
subpart 162.050:
• Remove the requirement for a bilge
monitor;
• Require OWSs to effectively process
emulsified oils, surfactants, and
contaminants;
• Change standards for the bilge
alarm which must now: 1. Pass new
tests using emulsified oil and
contaminants; 2. have a ppm display; 3.
display each change in oil content of the
mixture it is measuring within 5
seconds after the change occurs instead
of every 20 seconds; 4. limit access to
the bilge alarm beyond checking
instrument drift must be limited;
repeatability of the instrument reading
and the ability to re-zero the instrument
must require the breaking of a seal; 5.
activate its alarm whenever clean water
is used for cleaning or zeroing purposes;
and 6. record date, time, alarm status,
and operating status of the 15 ppm bilge
separator. The recording device must
also store data for at least 18 months
and be able to display or print a
protocol. In the event the 15 ppm bilge
alarm is replaced, means must be
provided to ensure the data recorded
remains available on board for 18
months; and,
• Change standards for cargo
monitors that are used with category C
and D oil-like noxious liquid
substances. Based on our research, we
found that the manufacturers of cargo
monitors, plan to sell these monitors
meeting the new standards for
approximately the same retail price as
the old equipment. Therefore, there is
no additional cost to vessel owners for
this requirement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
We expect there to be no additional
cost to industry for removing the
requirement for bilge monitors, or
changing standards for cargo monitors
because there will be no change in cost
for installation, operation, and
maintenance.
Applicability
This proposed rule applies to all
ocean-going vessels that operate in U.S.
waters. Foreign vessels in compliance
with MARPOL need not prove
compliance with the domestic
equipment approval standards.
Therefore, this rule primarily affects
U.S. flag vessels.
The vessels impacted by the proposed
changes for the bilge alarm and the
OWS are described in 33 CFR 155.380,
and are divided into three main
categories:
• 33 CFR 155.350—Oceangoing
vessels of less than 400 gross tons (GT).
These vessels are not required to have
the equipment on board if they have the
capacity to retain on board all oily
mixtures and can discharge these oily
mixtures to a reception facility. Certain
vessels, in this category that embark on
international voyages, however, are
required to have an International
Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP)
that requires them to have pollution
prevention equipment on board. Based
on Coast Guard data, we estimate that
30 percent of the fleet have the IOPP
Certificate and have OWSs and bilge
alarms on board.
• Oceangoing vessels of 400 GT and
above, but less than 10,000 GT. The
current regulations require all vessels in
this category to have an installed OWS
and if the vessel ballasts the fuel tanks
and/or plans to discharge through the
OWS within 12 nm of land the vessel
must also have a bilge alarm.
Additionally, vessels in this category
that embark on international voyages,
which are required to have an IOPP
Certificate, have the pollution
prevention equipment on board. Based
on Coast Guard and industry
information, we assume the majority of
new construction oceangoing vessels
have bilge alarms and the OWSs on
board.
• 33 CFR 155.370—Oceangoing
vessels of 10,000 GT and above. The
current regulation requires all
oceangoing vessels in this tonnage range
to have both an OWS and bilge alarm.
We assume all of these vessels comply
with these regulations and have the
equipment.
Costs
The following vessel population
estimates are based on 2004 Coast Guard
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
data. There are approximately 86 new
oceangoing vessels built per year that
would be affected by this proposed rule.
Of these, approximately 29 new vessels
are 400 GT or greater and must meet the
new requirements to have bilge alarms
and oily water separators that meet the
new standards. Of the remaining 57
vessels less than 400 GT, we assume 30
percent, or approximately 17 vessels,
will be installing the equipment because
they will embarking on international
voyages and are required to carry
pollution prevention equipment.
All existing vessels subject to these
PPE regulations, approximately 5,838
U.S. flag vessels, must install equipment
that meets the new standards whenever
the owners or operators replace the
equipment. Based on Coast Guard data,
we assume that the entire existing fleet
of vessels 400 GT and over will update
its equipment as it breaks down over the
next 20 years, which is approximately
the length of service for these U.S. flag
vessels. We assume that the 30 percent
of the fleet below 400 GT that has this
equipment on board will also update it
once over the service life of the vessel.
The cost of this proposed rule to
vessel owners is the additional price
owners must pay for the higher-priced
pollution prevention equipment that
meets the new MARPOL standards. The
owners and operators of existing vessels
would face no immediate mandatory
implementation costs from this
proposed rule, but they would face
ongoing costs as they update equipment
or install new equipment on new
vessels.
We calculated the cost of the
rulemaking for the next 10 years (2005–
2014), which is a long enough period of
analysis to capture the majority of the
future costs of this rulemaking. This
follows OMB’s guidance that the ending
point for calculating costs ‘‘should be
far enough in the future to encompass
all significant benefits and costs likely
to result from the rule’’ (see OMB
Circular A–4, page 31). However, in
other cases, simply presenting
annualized costs are sufficient. For
example, OMB’s Circular A–4 (page 36)
notes that if the expected flow of costs
is constant over time, then annualizing
the cost stream is sufficient and further
discounting is unnecessary. That said,
for this rulemaking we would have been
on safe ground simply reporting
annualized costs.
For vessel owners and operators that
would be replacing equipment once
over the service life of the vessel or once
every twenty years, we assume that five
percent of the affected population
would update their equipment for each
year in the 10-year period of analysis.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67069
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
We considered possible increases in
the operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs. Based on Coast Guard and
industry information, we estimate that
the O&M cost of the new equipment
would not be more than the O&M costs
of the existing equipment, and in some
instances would cost less. Therefore, we
assume that there would be no
significant increases in O&M costs,
since vessels routinely face similar costs
for existing installed equipment.
For OWSs, there is a wide range in the
price of the equipment depending on
flow rates and levels of technological
capability. Based on discussions with
manufacturers, we find that there is
currently considerable variability in
market prices as suppliers begin to
market and sell the new equipment.
Still, we believe we have estimated
average price increases that are
reasonably accurate. We separated the
vessel categories into the three groups
discussed earlier, and assume an
average price increase of:
• $8,000 for vessels below 400 GT;
• $12,000 for vessels 400 GT or more
and less than 10,000 GT; and
• $18,000 for vessels 10,000 GT and
over.
For bilge alarms, there is less of a
variation in the price. The change in the
price ranges from approximately $400 to
$1,500 and we assume an average price
increase of $1,000 for all vessel
categories.
Thus, the total price increase for both
oily water separators and bilge alarms
combined is:
• $9,000 for vessels below 400 GT;
• $13,000 for vessels 400 GT or more
and less than 10,000 GT; and
• $19,000 for vessels 10,000 GT and
over.
We estimate the total annual cost for
new vessels is $548,000 and the total
annual cost for existing vessels is
$2,298,000. See Tables 1 and 2 below
for details on the calculations of the
annual costs.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL COST OF OILY-WATER SEPARATORS (OWS) & BILGE ALARMS FOR NEW VESSELS
Vessel types
Price increase
Annually affected
New vessels
Annual cost
<400 GT .....................................................................................................................
≥400 GT and <10,000 GT .........................................................................................
≥10,000 GT ................................................................................................................
$9,000
13,000
19,000
17
26
3
$153,000
338,000
57,000
Total ....................................................................................................................
..............................
46
548,000
TABLE 2.—ANNUAL COST OF OWSS & BILGE ALARMS FOR EXISTING VESSELS
Vessel types
Price increase
Annually affected
existing vessels
(w/ 20-yr breakdown rate)
Annual cost
<400 GT .....................................................................................................................
≥400 GT and <10,000 GT .........................................................................................
≥10,000 GT ................................................................................................................
$9,000
13,000
19,000
50
91
35
$450,000
1,183,000
665,000
Total ....................................................................................................................
..............................
176
2,298,000
We estimate the total annual cost of
this rule to industry would be
$2,846,000 ($548,000 + $2,298,000). The
present value of the total cost for the
next 10 years is $21,388,531, based on
a 7 percent discount rate, and
$25,005,266, based on a 3 percent
discount rate.
To the extent that shippers purchase
equipment from U.S. suppliers, this is a
transfer from shippers to suppliers.
To the extent that shippers will pass
on these costs to their customers, these
consumers and their customers will bear
most of the burden of the rule. Given
that vessel owners will phase in the
equipment over 20 years, vessel owners
may be more likely to try to absorb as
much of this increase as possible over
the first few years.
To the extent that vessel owners do
eventually pass on costs to consumers,
these price increases would be small
given vessel owners and operators can
spread these costs over thousands of
voyages.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
Benefits
The benefits of this proposed rule are
mainly in the improved environmental
conditions resulting from the use of PPE
which meets higher standards of
pollution prevention. The new OWSs
will better handle the separation of
emulsified oils, surfactants and
contaminants from water whereas in
previously approved units this may not
have occurred. There would also be a
broader range and volume of pollutants
no longer released into the environment
because of these new standards, which
is a positive impact of this proposed
rule.
Testing standards for pollution
prevention equipment outlined in 46
CFR 162.050–39 currently require the
use of the solvents carbon tetrachloride
and Freon 113 (CFC 113), which have
been phased out by the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. This proposed rule would
require a new test protocol to be used
for testing the oil separating capabilities
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of pollution prevention equipment—
outlined in 46 CFR 162.050–39—that
does not include these substances.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The small entities affected by the
proposed rule are vessels owners
required to install or replace pollution
prevention equipment meeting the new
standards on their vessels.
To analyze the financial impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, we
selected and analyzed a random sample
of 360 vessels that is statistically
representative of the target population
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67070
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of 5,838. In the entire population, 2,780
companies own these 5,838 vessels. In
the random sample, we found that 263
companies owned the 360 vessels. In
this sample, 69 small companies owned
79 vessels, 47 large companies owned
99 vessels, the Federal government
owned 26 vessels and we found 156
vessels with no revenue information
available on their 146 owners.
We then assessed the impact of cost
on the revenue of the companies with
information that we identified as small
entities, and broke them down by the
percentage impact on revenue. The large
majority of small entities (about 87
percent) face an impact on revenue
between 0 and 4 percent. To be
conservative, we assumed that all
vessels with no available information on
their ownership were owned by small
entities. We further assumed that the
percentage impact of annual cost on
annual revenue was distributed in the
same proportion as the small businesses
for both the vessels with no information
in the random sample, and for the entire
target population. See Table 3 below for
details.
TABLE 3.—IMPACT OF COST ON SMALL ENTITIES
Number of entities
with known annual
revenues
Percentage of entities with known
annual revenues
Expanded number
of entities with unknown annual revenues
0¥1% ......................................................................................
>1%¥4% .................................................................................
>4%¥10% ...............................................................................
>10%¥20% .............................................................................
>20%¥30% .............................................................................
>30% ........................................................................................
41
19
5
0
3
1
59
28
7
0
4
1
87
40
11
0
6
2
1,074
498
131
0
79
26
Total ..................................................................................
69
100
146
1,807
Percent of annual revenue impact
Distribution of
small entities in
total population
* Some values may not total due to rounding.
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended,
specifically under 42 U.S.C. 7671a, we
must eliminate the use of ozonedepleting testing solvents in our current
PPE regulations. Therefore, ‘‘no action’’
is not an option. Also, the United States
is party to MARPOL Annex I. To
effectively implement MARPOL Annex
I regulations, we must revise our other
PPE regulations to reflect that
resolutions MEPC.107(49) and
MEPC.108(49) have superseded
resolutions MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14),
respectively.
We believe the proposed regulations
will have a minimal costs to small
businesses. First, existing vessels are not
required to immediately install
pollution prevention equipment
meeting the new standards, but only
when they are replacing it, which could
be over a long period of time. Second,
57 percent of vessel types in the small
business category are below 400 GT, and
owners of these vessels have the option
of not installing pollution prevention
equipment and instead discharging oily
mixtures at a reception facility. Finally,
the prices of OWS systems (the highest
cost component of this proposed rule)
vary widely depending on a range of
factors including their technological
capability, so that vessel owners can
choose cheaper versions within the
options available to them.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this rule would
have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
‘‘Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving,
Electrical, and Engineering Equipment;
Construction and Materials.’’ This
collection of information was approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget on December 10, 2002, and will
expire after the 3-year approval period
ends on December 31, 2005.
Assistance for Small Entities
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments or
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. Based on our
survey of vessels expected to be
effected, we have identified only 26
state-owned vessels that may be
affected, and these vessels are already
subject to regulation under the sections
affected by the proposed amendments.
Therefore, we conclude the proposed
rule would not impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on State or
local governments.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled, now, that all of the
categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306,
3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of
vessels), as well as the reporting of
casualties and any other category in
which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s
obligations, are within the field
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult Lt. George
Grills, Office of Systems Engineering
(G–MSE–3), Coast Guard, telephone
202–267–6640. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
The paperwork burden associated
with the manufacture, laboratory
testing, approval tests, and marking of
pollution prevention equipment is
addressed in the existing collection of
information, OMB #1625–0035, entitled
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Federalism
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
foreclosed from regulation by the States.
(See the decision of the Supreme Court
in the consolidated cases of United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S. Ct. 1135 (March 6,
2000)). Our proposed rule would revise
standards for pollution prevention
equipment. Because the States may not
regulate within this category,
preemption under Executive Order
13132 is not an issue.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
67071
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
6. International Organization of
Standardization Standard ISO 8217
(1996) Petroleum products—Fuels (class
F)—Specification of marine fuels;
7. International Organization of
Standardization Standard ISO 9377–2
(2000), Water Quality—Determination of
hydrocarbon oil index—Part 2: Method
Using solvent extraction and Gas
Chromatography.
The proposed sections that reference
these standards and the locations where
these standards are available are listed
in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050–
4.
Technical Standards
Environment
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule uses the following
new voluntary consensus standards:
1. IMO Assembly Resolution
A.393(X)—Recommendation on
International Performance and Test
Specifications For Oily-Water
Separating Equipment and Oil Content
Meters;
2. IMO Assembly Resolution
A.496(XII)—Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
3. IMO Assembly Resolution
A.586(14)—Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
4. IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.13(19)—Guidelines for Plan
Approval and Installation Survey of Oil
Discharge Monitoring and Control
Systems for Oil Tankers and
Environmental Testing of Control
Sections Thereof;
5. IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49)—Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. These regulations
concern equipment approval and
carriage requirements. A preliminary
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is
available in the docket where indicated
under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section of this
preamble. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether this rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.
Energy Effects
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 155
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
33 CFR Part 157
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by
reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 162
Fire prevention, Incorporation by
reference, Marine safety, Oil pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR parts 155 and 157, and
46 CFR part 162 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67072
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable
Waters
PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. Revise the authority citation for
part 155 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); E.O.
11735, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1. Sections 155.100 through
155.130, 150.350 through 155.400, 155.430,
155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and
155.1065(g) are also issued under 33 U.S.C.
1903(b). Sections 155.480, 155.490,
155.750(e), and 155.775 are also issued under
46 U.S.C. 3703. Section 155.490 is also
issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101–
380. Note: Additional requirements for
vessels carrying oil or hazardous materials
are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40,
150, 151, and 153.
2. In § 155.380, revise the section
heading and paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 155.380 Oily-water separating equipment
and bilge alarm approval standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A ship that is required to have a
bilge alarm may defer installment and
use a previously installed bilge monitor
provided the bilge monitor met Coast
Guard approval requirements at the time
of its installation and it does not allow
more than a 15 ppm oil content in water
discharge.
PART 157—RULES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO TANK
VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK
3. Revise the authority citation for
part 157 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703,
3703a (note); Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subparts G,
H, and I are also issued under section
4115(b), Pub. L. 101–380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub.
L. 104–55, 109 Stat. 546.
4. In § 157.02, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
§ 157.02
Incorporation by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The material approved for
incorporation by reference in this part
and the sections affected, are as follows:
International Maritime Organization
(IMO)—4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.393(X),
Recommendation on International
Performance and Test
Specifications For Oily-Water
Separating Equipment and Oil
Content Meters—157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
Guidelines and Specifications for
Oil Discharge Monitoring and
Control Systems for Oil Tankers—
157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14),
Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for
Oil Tankers—157.12
IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee Resolution
MEPC.13(19), Guidelines for Plan
Approval and Installation Survey of
Oil Discharge Monitoring and
Control Systems for Oil Tankers
and Environmental Testing of
Control Sections Thereof—157.12
IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49), Revised Guidelines
and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for
Oil Tankers—157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15),
Provision and Display of
Manoeuvring Information on Board
Ships, Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1,
and 3.2 with appendices, adopted
on 19 November 1987—157.450
IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18),
Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During
Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3–
1.1.4, 1.2–1.3, 2.1, 2.3–2.6, 3–8, and
Annexes 1–10 with appendices,
adopted 4 November 1993—157.430
IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18),
Interim Standards for Ship
Manoeuvrability, Annex sections
1.2, 2.3–2.4, 3–4.2, and 5, adopted
4 November 1993 with Explanatory
Notes in MSC/Circ. 644 dated 6
June 1994—157.445
Oil Companies International Marine
Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen Anne’s
Gate, London, SW1H 9BU,
England].
International Safety Guide for Oil
Tankers and Terminals, Fourth
Edition, Chapters 6, 7, and 10,
1996—157.435
5. In § 157.12, revise paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:
§ 157.12
system.
Cargo monitor and control
*
*
*
*
(b) Each monitor installed on a U.S.
vessel must be approved under 46 CFR
162.050. Each monitor installed on a
foreign vessel must be approved:
(1) Under 46 CFR 162.050; or
(2) As meeting IMO Marine
Environment Protection Committee
resolution MEPC.108(49) by a country
that has ratified the MARPOL 73/78.
Paragraph 1.2.2 of MEPC.108(49)
provides, as to equipment installed in
Frm 00008
§ 157.12a
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Definitions.
As used in §§ 157.12a through
157.12g—
Control section means a unit in a
monitoring system composed of the
items specified in § 157.12d(a)(4)(viii).
Control unit means a device that
receives automatic signals of oil content
of the effluent ppm, flow rate of
discharge m3/hour, ship’s speed in
knots, ship’s position—latitude and
longitude, date and time (GMT,
Greenwich Mean Time), and status of
the overboard discharge control. The
control unit makes automatic recordings
of data as specified in § 157.12d(h)(2).
Oil discharge monitoring and control
system or monitoring system means a
system that monitors the discharge into
the sea of oily ballast or other oilcontaminated water from the cargo tank
areas and comprises the items specified
in § 157.12d(a)(4).
Overboard discharge control means a
device that automatically initiates the
sequence to stop the overboard
discharge of the effluent in alarm
conditions and prevents the discharge
throughout the period the alarm
condition prevails. The device may be
arranged to close the overboard valves
or to stop the relevant pumps, as
appropriate.
PPM or ppm means parts of oil per
million parts of water by volume.
Starting interlock means a facility that
prevents the initiation of the opening of
the discharge valve or the operation of
other equivalent arrangements before
the monitoring system is fully
operational when use of the monitoring
system is required by the Convention.
§ 157.12b
*
PO 00000
‘‘oil tankers the keels of which are laid,
or which are at a similar stage of
construction, before January 1, 2005,’’
for alternative compliance with IMO
resolutions A.393(X), A.496(XII),
MEPC.13(19), and A.586(14). These five
resolutions are incorporated by
reference (see § 157.02).
(c) Each monitor on a U.S. vessel must
be installed in accordance with
§§ 157.12b through 157.12g.
6. Add §§ 157.12a through 157.12g to
read as follows:
Implementation requirements.
Oil discharge monitoring and control
systems must be fitted to oil tankers to
which this subpart applies. A
monitoring and control system must
employ a control unit and be fitted with
a starting interlock and overboard
discharge control.
§ 157.12c Construction, maintenance,
security, calibration and training.
(a) The oil discharge monitoring and
control system must be designed to
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ensure that user access is restricted to
essential controls. Access beyond these
controls must be available for
emergency maintenance and temporary
repair but must require the breaking of
security seals or activation of another
device which indicates an entry to the
equipment.
(b) The seals must be of a design that
only the manufacturer or the
manufacturer’s agent can replace the
seals or reset the system following
inspection and permanent repairs to the
equipment.
(c) The accuracy of the monitoring
system must be verified during
International Oil Pollution Prevention
certificate renewal surveys. The
calibration certificate certifying date of
last calibration check must be retained
on board for inspection purposes.
(d) The monitoring system may have
several scales as appropriate for its
intended use. The recording device
fitted to a meter which has more than
one scale must indicate the scale which
is in use.
(e) Simple means must be provided
aboard ship to check on instrument drift
must be limited; repeatability of the
instrument reading, and the ability to rezero the instrument.
(f) Ship staff training must include
familiarization in the operation and the
maintenance of the equipment.
(g) The routine maintenance of the
monitoring system and troubleshooting
procedures must be clearly defined in
the Operating and Maintenance Manual.
All routine maintenance and repairs
must be recorded.
§ 157.12d
Technical specifications.
(a) Oil discharge monitoring and
control system. (1) The monitoring
system must be capable of effectively
monitoring and controlling the
discharge of any effluent into the sea
through those overboard discharge
outlets permitted by § 157.11 that are
necessary to fulfill the operational
requirements of the oil tanker.
(2) The discharge of dirty ballast
water or other oil-contaminated water
from the cargo tank areas into the sea
through outlets which are not controlled
by the monitoring system is prohibited.
(3) The monitoring system must
function effectively under all
environmental conditions that oil
tankers normally encounter, and must
be designed and constructed to satisfy
the specifications for approval in 46
CFR subpart 162.050. Moreover—
(i) The system must be designed so
that no discharge of dirty ballast or
other oil-contaminated water from the
cargo tank areas can take place unless
the monitoring system is in the normal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
operating mode and the relevant
sampling point has been selected;
(ii) Preferably the system should
sample the effluent discharge from a
minimum number of discharge outlets
and be arranged so that discharge
overboard can take place via only one
outlet at a time;
(iii) Where it is intended that more
than one line be used for simultaneous
discharging purposes, one cargo
monitor, together with a flow meter,
must be installed in each discharge line.
These instruments must be connected to
a common processor; and
(iv) To avoid alarms because of shortterm high oil concentration signals
(spikes) causing indications of high
instantaneous rates of discharge, the
short-term high ppm signal may be
suppressed for a maximum of 10
seconds. Alternatively, the
instantaneous rate of discharge may be
continuously averaged during the
preceding 20 seconds or less as
computed from instantaneous ppm
values of the cargo monitor readings
received at intervals not exceeding 5
seconds.
(4) The monitoring system must
comprise—
(i) A cargo monitor to measure the oil
content of the effluent in ppm. The
monitor must be approved in
accordance with the provisions
contained in 46 CFR 162.050 and be
certified to take into account the range
of cargoes carried;
(ii) A flow rate indicating system to
measure the rate of effluent being
discharged into the sea;
(iii) A ship speed indicating device to
give the ship’s speed in knots;
(iv) A ship position indicating device
to give the ship’s position—latitude and
longitude;
(v) A sampling system to convey a
representative sample of the effluent to
the cargo monitor;
(vi) An overboard discharge control to
stop the overboard discharge;
(vii) A starting interlock to prevent
the discharge overboard of any effluent
unless the monitoring system is fully
operational; and
(viii) A control section comprising—
(A) A processor that accepts signals of
oil content in the effluent, the effluent
flow rate and the ship’s speed, and
computes these values into liters of oil
discharged per nautical mile and the
total quantity of oil discharged;
(B) A means to provide alarms and
command signals to the overboard
discharge control;
(C) A recording device to provide a
record of data required under
§ 157.12d(h)(2);
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67073
(D) A data display to exhibit the
current operational data required under
§ 157.12d(i);
(E) A manual override system to be
used in the event of failure of the
monitoring system; and
(F) A means to provide signals to the
starting interlock to prevent the
discharge of any effluent before the
monitoring system is fully operational.
(5) Each main component of the
monitoring system must be fitted with a
name-plate, properly identifying the
component by assembly drawing
number, type or model number and
serial number, as appropriate.
(6) The electrical components of the
monitoring system that are to be
installed in an explosive atmosphere
must be in compliance with 46 CFR
162.050–25.
(b) Sampling system. (1) Sampling
points must be located so that relevant
samples can be obtained from those
outlets that are used for operational
discharges in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. The
sampling probes located in the
overboard discharge lines and the
piping system connecting the sampling
probes to the cargo monitor must meet
the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) The piping and probes must be of
a material resistant to fire, corrosion,
and oil and be of adequate strength, and
properly jointed and supported.
(3) The system must have a stop-valve
fitted adjacent to each probe, except
that, where the probe is mounted in a
cargo line, two stop-valves must be
fitted, in series, in the sample line; one
of these may be the remote controlled
sample selector valve.
(4) Sampling probes must be arranged
for easy withdrawal and must, as far as
practicable, be mounted at an accessible
location in a vertical section of the
discharge line. Should it be necessary to
fit sampling probes in a horizontal
section of the discharge line it must be
ascertained, during the installation
survey, that the pipe runs full of liquid
at all times during the discharge of the
effluent. Sampling probes must
normally penetrate inside the discharge
pipe to a distance of one quarter the
diameter of that pipe.
(5) Means must be provided for
cleaning the probes and piping system
by the provision of permanent clean
water flushing arrangements or an
equivalent method. The design of the
probes and piping must be such as to
minimize their clogging by oil, oily
residue, and other matter.
(6) The velocity of the fluid in the
piping must be such that, taking into
consideration the length of the piping,
the overall response time must be as
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67074
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
short as possible between an alteration
in the mixture being pumped and the
alteration in the cargo monitor reading
and in any case not more than 40
seconds, including the response time of
the cargo monitor.
(7) The location of sampling probes in
relation to any point of flow diversion
to a slop tank must be selected with
regard to the need for sampling the oily
water in the recirculation mode.
(8) The arrangements for driving the
sampling pump or any other pumps
used in the system must account for the
safety requirements of the space in
which the pump is located. Any
bulkhead penetration between a
hazardous and a non-hazardous area
must be of a design meeting the
requirements of 46 CFR 32.60–20 and 46
CFR subpart 111.105.
(9) The flushing arrangement must be
such that where necessary it can be
utilized for test-running and stabilizing
the cargo monitor and correcting for
zero setting.
(10) Sample water returning to the
slop tank must not be allowed to freefall into the tank. In tankers equipped
with an inert gas system, a water seal
meeting the requirements of 46 CFR
32.53–10(b) must be arranged in the
piping leading to a slop tank.
(11) A valve must be provided for the
manual collection of samples from the
inlet piping to the cargo monitor at a
point downstream of any sampling
pump.
(c) Flow rate indicating system. (1) A
flow meter for measuring the rate of
discharge must be installed in a vertical
section of a discharge line or in any
other section of a discharge line as
appropriate, so as to be always filled
with the liquid being discharged.
(2) A flow meter must employ an
operating principle which is suitable for
shipboard use and, where relevant, can
be used in large diameter pipes.
(3) A flow meter must be suitable for
the full range of flow rates that may be
encountered during normal operation.
Alternatively, arrangements such as the
use of two flow meters of different
ranges or a restriction of the operational
flow rate range may be employed if
necessary to meet this requirement.
(4) The flow meter, as installed, must
have an accuracy of ±10 percent, or
better, of the instantaneous rate of
discharge throughout the operating
range for discharging the effluent.
(5) Any component part of the flow
meter in contact with the effluent
should be of corrosion-resistant and oilresistant material of adequate strength.
(6) The design of the flow metering
arrangements must account for the
safety requirements of the space in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
which such metering arrangements are
located.
(d) Ship’s speed indicating system.
The automatic speed signal required for
a monitoring system must be obtained
from the ship’s speed indicating device
by means of a repeater signal. The speed
information used may be either speed
over the ground or speed through the
water, depending upon the speed
measuring equipment installed on
board.
Note to paragraph (d): See
‘‘Recommendation on Performance Standards
for Devices to Indicate Speed and Distance,’’
Annex to resolution A.824(19) as amended
by resolution MSC.96(72).
(e) Ship position indicating device.
The ship position indicating device
must consist of a receiver for a global
navigation satellite system or a
terrestrial radio navigation system, or
other means, suitable for use at all times
throughout the intended voyage to
establish and update the ship’s position
by automatic means.
(f) Overboard discharge control
management. The overboard discharge
control must be able to stop the
discharge of the effluent into the sea
automatically by either closing all
relevant overboard discharge valves or
stopping all relevant pumps. The
discharge control arrangement must be
fail-safe so that all effluent discharge is
stopped when the monitoring system is
not in operation, at alarm conditions, or
when the monitoring system fails to
function.
(g) Processor and transmitting device.
(1) The processor of a control section
must receive signals from the cargo
monitor, the flow rate indicating system
and the ship’s speed indicating system
at time intervals not exceeding 5
seconds and must automatically
compute the following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of
oil in liters per nautical mile; and
(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged
during the voyage in cubic meters or
liters.
(2) When the limits imposed by
§ 157.37(a)(3) and (4) are exceeded, the
processor must provide alarms and
provide command signals to the
overboard discharge control
arrangement which will cause the
discharge of effluent into the sea to stop.
(3) The processor must normally
include a device for the continuous
generation of time and date information.
Alternative arrangements which ensure
the automatic and continuous reception
of time and date information from an
external source may be approved by the
Marine Safety Center.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) In the event of power failure the
processor must retain its memory in
respect to computation of the total
quantity of oil discharged, time, and
date. A printout of data must be
obtained when the monitoring system is
operating with manual override, but the
printout of data is not required if, when
the power fails, the monitoring system
activates the overboard discharge
control to stop the discharge of effluent.
(h) Recording devices. (1) The
recording device of a control section
must include a digital printer, which
may be formatted electronically. The
recorded parameters must be explicitly
identified on the printout. The printout
must be legible and must remain so
once removed from the recording device
and must be retained for at least 3 years.
(2) The data to be automatically
recorded must include at least the
following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of
oil (liters per nautical mile);
(ii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm);
(iii) The total quantity of oil
discharged (cubic meters or liters);
(iv) Time and date (GMT, Greenwich
Mean Time);
(v) Ship’s speed in knots;
(vi) Ship’s position—latitude and
longitude;
(vii) Effluent flow rate;
(viii) Status of the overboard
discharge control or arrangement;
(ix) Oil type selector setting, where
applicable;
(x) Alarm condition;
(xi) Failure, including, but not limited
to, no flow, or fault; and
(xii) Override action, including, but
not limited to, manual override,
flushing, and calibration. Any
information inserted manually as a
result of an override action must be
identified as such on the printout.
(3) Data required in paragraph (h)(2)
of this section must be printed out or
may be stored electronically with
printout capability, with the following
minimum frequency:
(i) When the discharge is started;
(ii) When the discharge is stopped;
(iii) At intervals of not more than 10
minutes (except when the system is in
stand-by mode);
(iv) When an alarm condition
develops;
(v) When normal conditions are
restored;
(vi) Whenever the computed rate of
discharge varies by 10 liters per nautical
mile;
(vii) When zero-setting or calibration
modes are selected; and
(viii) On manual command.
(4) The recording device must be
located in a position easily accessible to
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the person in charge of the overboard
discharge operation.
(i) Data display. (1) In addition to the
recorded printout, the current data must
be visibly displayed and must as a
minimum contain the following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of
oil (liters per nautical mile);
(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged
(cubic meters or liters);
(iii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm)
(iv) Flow rate;
(v) Ship’s speed; and
(vi) Status of the overboard discharge
control or arrangement.
(2) The data display must be located
in a position easily observed by the
person in charge of the overboard
discharge operation.
(j) Manually operated alternatives in
the event of equipment malfunction.
Acceptable alternative means of
obtaining information in the event of a
failure in the monitoring system include
the following:
(1) Cargo monitor or sampling system:
visual observation of the surface of the
water adjacent to the effluent discharge;
(2) Flow meter: pump discharge
characteristics;
(3) Ship’s speed indicating device:
main engine rpm;
(4) Processor: manual calculation and
manual recording; and
(5) Overboard discharge control:
manual operation of pumps and valves.
(k) Alarm conditions resulting in the
stopping of discharge. Audio-visual
alarms must be activated for any of the
following conditions and the monitoring
system must be so arranged that the
discharge of effluent into the sea is
stopped:
(1) Whenever the instantaneous rate
of discharge of oil exceeds 30 liters per
nautical mile;
(2) When the total quantity of oil
discharged reaches 1/30,000 of the
previous cargo for new vessels and 1/
15,000 for existing vessels;
(3) In the event of failure of the
system’s operation, such as:
(i) Power failure;
(ii) Loss of sample;
(iii) Significant failure of the
measuring or recording system; or
(iv) When the input of any sensor
exceeds the effective capacity of the
system.
(l) Location of alarm indicator. The
alarm indicator of the system must be
installed in the cargo control room,
where provided, and/or in other places
where it will attract immediate attention
and action.
§ 157.12e
Certificate of approval.
(a) A copy of the certificate of
approval for the cargo monitors must be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
carried aboard an oil tanker fitted with
such equipment at all times.
(b) A certificate of type approval must
be issued for the specific application for
which the cargo monitor is approved,
that is, for crude oil, ‘‘black’’ products,
‘‘white’’ products, or other products or
applications as listed on the certificate.
§ 157.12f Workshop functional test
requirements.
(a) Each cargo monitor and each
control section of a monitoring system
must be subjected to a functional test on
a suitable test bench prior to delivery.
The detailed program for a functional
test of such equipment must be
developed by the manufacturer, taking
into account the features and functions
of the specific design of equipment. A
completed workshop certificate
including the delivery test protocol
must be received with each unit
delivered.
(b) A functional test conducted on a
cargo monitor must include at least all
the following operations:
(1) Check flow rate, pressure drop, or
an equivalent parameter as appropriate;
(2) Check all alarm functions built
into the meter;
(3) Check all switching functions
interconnecting with other parts of the
system; and
(4) Check correct reading at several
ppm values on all measurement scales
when operated on an oil appropriate for
the application of the cargo monitor or
by an equivalent method.
(c) A functional check conducted on
a control section of a monitoring system
must include at least all the following
operations:
(1) Check all alarm functions;
(2) Check correct function of the
signal processor and the recording
equipment when simulated input
signals of ppm, flow rate, and speed are
varied;
(3) Check that the alarm is activated
when the input signals are varied to
exceed the discharge limits contained in
§ 157.37(a)(3) and (4).
(4) Check that a signal is given to the
overboard discharge control when alarm
conditions are reached; and
(5) Check that the alarm is activated
when each one of the input signals is
varied to exceed the capacity of the
system.
§ 157.12g
Plan approval requirements.
Adequate documentation must be
prepared well in advance of the
intended installation of a monitoring
system and must be submitted to the
Marine Safety Center for approval. The
documentation to be submitted must
include at least all the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67075
(a) A description of the monitoring
system. The description must include a
diagrammatic drawing of the pumping
and piping arrangements, identifying
the operational outlets for dirty ballast
and oil-contaminated water from the
cargo tank area and compatible with the
operational requirements set out in the
oil tanker’s cargo and ballast handling
manuals. Special considerations may
have to be given to installations in oil
tankers which have unusual pumping
and piping arrangements.
(b) Equipment manuals, supplied by
manufacturers, which must contain
details of the major components of the
monitoring system.
(c) An operations and technical
manual for the complete monitoring
system which is proposed to be
installed in the oil tanker. This manual
must cover the arrangements and
operation of the system as a whole and
must specifically describe parts of the
system which are not covered by the
manufacturer’s equipment manuals.
(d) The operations section of the
manual must include normal
operational procedures and procedures
for the discharge of oily water in the
event of malfunction of the equipment.
(e) The technical section of the
manual must include adequate
information (description and
diagrammatic drawings of the pumping
and piping arrangements of the
monitoring system and electrical/
electronic wiring diagrams) to enable
fault finding and must include
instructions for keeping a maintenance
record.
(f) A technical installation
specification defining, among other
things, the location and mounting of
components, arrangements for
maintaining the integrity of the
boundary between safe and hazardous
spaces and the arrangement of the
sample piping, including calculation of
the sample response time referred to in
§ 157.12d(b)(6). The installation must
comply with manufacturer’s specific
installation criteria.
(g) A copy of the certificate of type
approval for the cargo monitor and
technical documentation relevant to
other main components of the
monitoring system.
(h) A recommended test and checkout
procedure specific to the monitoring
system installed. This procedure must
specify all the checks to be carried out
in a functional test by the installation
contractor and must provide guidance
for the surveyor when carrying out the
on-board survey of the monitoring
system and confirming the installation
reflects the manufacturer’s specific
installation criteria.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67076
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
7. Revise § 157.39(b)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 157.39
Machinery space bilges.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Has in operation an oil discharge
monitoring and control system in
compliance with § 157.12 and oil
separating equipment in compliance
with 33 CFR 155.380.
Appendix F to Part 157—[Removed and
Reserved]
8. Remove and reserve Appendix F to
part 157.
Title 46—Shipping
PART 162—ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT
9. Revise the authority citation for
part 162 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46
U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O.
11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975
Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
10. In § 162.050–1, revise paragraph
(a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 162.050–1
Scope.
(a) * * *
(1) Procedures for approval of 15 ppm
separators, cargo monitors, and bilge
monitors.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Revise § 162.050–3 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–3
Definitions.
As used in this subpart—
15 ppm separator means a separator
that is designed to remove enough oil
from an oil-water mixture to provide a
resulting mixture that has an oil
concentration of 15 ppm or less.
Bilge alarm means an instrument that
is designed to measure the oil content
of oily mixtures from machinery space
bilges and fuel oil tanks that carry
ballast and activate an alarm at a set
concentration limit and record date,
time, alarm status, and operating status
of the 15 ppm separator.
Cargo monitor means an instrument
that is designed to measure and record
the oil content of cargo residues from
cargo tanks and oily mixtures combined
with these residues.
Independent laboratory means a
laboratory that—
(1) Has the equipment and procedures
necessary to approve the electrical
components described in §§ 162.050–
21(b) and 162.050–25(c), or to conduct
the test described in § 162.050–37(a);
and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
(2) Is not owned or controlled by a
manufacturer, supplier, or vendor of
separators, monitors, or bilge alarms.
PPM or ppm means parts per million
by volume of oil in water.
Response time means the time
elapsed between an alteration in the
sample being supplied to the bilge alarm
and the ppm display showing the
correct response.
12. Revise § 162.050–4 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–4
reference.
Documents incorporated by
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Coast Guard must
publish notice of change in the Federal
Register and the material must be
available to the public. All approved
material is available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or
go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available
for inspection at the Coast Guard, (G–
MSE), 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593–0001, and is
available from the sources indicated in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for
incorporation by reference in this part
(subchapter), and the sections affected,
are as follows:
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., (UL) 12
Laboratory Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709–3995.
Underwriters Laboratories Standard
913 (as revised April 8, 1976)—
162.050–21, 162.050–25.
American Society for Testing and
Materials 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959.
ASTM D2777–98, Standard Practice
for Determination of Precision and
Bias of Applicable Test Methods of
Committee D–19 on Water—
162.050–15.
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 1, rue de
´
Varembe, Case postale 56, CH–1211
Geneva 20, Switzerland (Internet:
https://www.iso.org.)
International Organization of
Standardization Standard ISO 8217
(1996) Petroleum products—Fuels
(class F)—Specification of marine
fuels—162.050–20.
International Organization of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Standardization Standard ISO
9377–2 (2000), Water Quality—
Determination of hydrocarbon oil
index—Part 2: Method Using
solvent extraction and Gas
Chromatography—162.050–39.
§ 162.050–5
[Amended]
13. In § 162.050–5, in paragraph (a),
remove the abbreviation ‘‘p.p.m.’’, and
add, in its place, the letters ‘‘ppm’’.
§ 162.050–7
[Amended]
14. In §162.050–7:
a. Remove paragraph (j);
b. Redesignate paragraph (k) as
paragraph (j);
c. In paragraph (e), remove the word
and figure ‘‘fifty (50)’’ wherever they
appear and add, in their place, the
figure ‘‘50’’; in paragraph (h)(3),
following the figure ‘‘3’’, remove the
letter ‘‘S’’ and add, in its place, the letter
‘‘A’’; and in paragraph (h)(4), following
the figure ‘‘5’’, remove the letter ‘‘S’’ and
add, in its place, the letter ‘‘A’’, and in
redesignated paragraph (j)(2), remove
the abbreviation ‘‘p.p.m.’’, and add, in
its place, the letters ‘‘ppm’’; and
d. Revise paragraphs (f), (h)(2), (i)(2),
and redesignated (j)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–7
Approval procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The approval tests in this subpart
must be performed by a facility
designated under § 162.050–15. The
facility must also be accepted as an
independent laboratory by the Coast
Guard under subpart 159.010 of this
chapter. The facility must perform each
test in accordance with the test
conditions prescribed in this subpart for
the test, prepare a test report for the
item if it completes all of the tests, and
send the report with three copies to the
Commanding Officer, USCG Marine
Safety Center. The applicant may
observe the tests. If an item does not
complete testing, a new application
must be made before retesting.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) The oil content of each sample of
separated water effluent taken during
approval testing is 15 ppm or less;
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) Each oil content reading recorded
during approval testing is ±10 ppm or
±10 percent, whichever is greater, of the
oil content of the sample influent
mixture taken at the time of the reading;
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(3) Its response time is five seconds or
less; and
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4910–15–C
(b) * * *
(1) Be a centrifugal pump capable of
operating at 1,000 revolutions per
minute or more;
(2) Have a delivery capacity of at least
1.5 times the maximum throughput at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
t
1−
a,
2
is 3.106. If paragraph (f)(2) of this
section applies, then (n¥1)=10 and
t
1−
a
2
= 3169.
.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4700
Sd
,
n
a
1−
2
where n=12 if all samples meet the
criteria of paragraph(f)(1) and n=11 if
paragraph (f)(2) applies.
¯
(iv) Compare the absolute value of Xd
¯
to the value of u. If |Xd|<u, then the
facility meets the criteria.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) A facility may not subcontract for
approval testing unless previously
authorized by the Coast Guard. A
request for authorization to subcontract
must be sent to Commandant, G–MSE–
3, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20593–0001.
16. In § 162.050–17, revise Figure
162.050–17(a) and paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(3); in paragraph (d)
remove the reference ‘‘162.050–17(e)’’
and add in its place the reference
‘‘162.050–17(d)’’; remove Figure
162.050–17(e) and add in its place
Figure 162.050–17(d) to read as follows:
§ 162.050–17
which the separator being tested is
designed to operate;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
PO 00000
u=t
*
*
Separator test rig.
*
*
(1) Influent water flows at a Reynolds
Number of at least 10,000;
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Its length is at least 20 times its
inside diameter.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
EP03NO05.030</GPH>
Designation of facilities.
(a) Each request for designation as a
facility authorized to perform approval
tests must be submitted to
Commandant, G–MSE–3, 2100 2nd
Street SW., Washington, DC 20593–
0001.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) If the facility meets the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(4) of this section, they must
obtain 12 samples containing mixtures
of oil in water that are within a 10-to30 ppm range that can be verified by an
independent third-party source
mutually acceptable to the applying lab
and the Coast Guard prior to
verification.
(e) The facility must measure the oil
content of each sample using the
method described in § 162.050–39 and
report the value of each of the 12
measurements to Commandant, G–
MSE–3, 2100 2nd St. SW., Washington,
DC 20593–0001.
(iii) Compute the value of u, where
EP03NO05.041</MATH>
§ 162.050–15
(f) * * *
(3) The absolute value of Xd must be
smaller than u based on the following
analysis of paired observations:
¯
(i) Calculate the value of Xd and Sd.
This is the mean and standard
deviation, respectively, of the
differences between the known sample
concentrations and the values obtained
by the facility with their equipment.
¯
The value of Xd for the 12 measurements
described in paragraph (e) of this
section, or for 11 measurements if
paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies,
¯
must be within the range¥1≤Xd≤+1.
(ii) Determine the appropriate critical
value of the Student’s t distribution
with (n¥1) degrees of freedom for a
confidence level of a=0.01. If all 12
samples meet the criteria of paragraph
(f)(1) of this section then (n¥1)=11 and
the critical value,
EP03NO05.034</MATH>
[Removed]
14A. Remove § 162.050–14.
15. In § 162.050–15, revise paragraphs
(a), (d), (e), (f)(3) and (h) to read as
follows:
EP03NO05.033</MATH>
§ 162.050–14
67077
§ 162.050–19
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
[Amended]
(1,000)’’ and add, in their place, the
figure ‘‘1,000’’; and revise Figure
162.050–19 to read as follows:
17. In § 162.050–19(c), remove the
words and figure ‘‘one thousand
BILLING CODE 4910–15–C
18. Add § 162.050–20 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–20
test fluids.
Separator and bilge alarm
(a) Tests required in § 162.050–23 and
§ 162.050–35 shall be performed using
the following three types of test fluids:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
(1) Test Fluid A which is a marine
residual fuel oil in accordance with ISO
8217 (Incorporated by reference, see
§ 162.050–4), type RMG 35 (density at
15 °C not less than 980 kg/m3);
(2) Test Fluid B which is a marine
distillate fuel oil in accordance with ISO
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8217, type DMA (density at 15 °C not
less than 830 kg/m3);
(3) Test Fluid C must be a mixture of
an oil-in-fresh-water emulsion, where 1
kg of the mixture consists of:
(i) 947.8 g of fresh water;
(ii) 25.0 g of Test Fluid A;
(iii) 25.0 g of Test Fluid B;
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
EP03NO05.031</GPH> EP03NO05.032</GPH>
67078
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(iv) 0.5 g of surfactant (sodium salt of
dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid) in the
dry form; and
(v) 1.7 g of iron oxides, a black
ferrosoferric oxide (Fe3O4) with a
particle size distribution of which 90
percent is less than 10 microns, the
remainder having a maximum particle
size of 100 microns.
(b) Test Fluid C must be prepared as
needed for § 162.050–23 or § 162.050–35
by the following procedures:
(1) Measure out 1.2 times the quantity
of surfactant required from the
WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINING
CONSTITUENTS OF TEST FLUID C,
see figure 162.050–20;
(2) Mix it with fresh water and stir
well in a small container to make a
mixture until the surfactant has been
thoroughly dissolved;
(3) Fill clean test fluid tank with fresh
water with a quantity 1.2 times the
volume of the total quantity of water in
the Test Fluid C needed for the test
described in § 162.050–23 and
§ 162.050–35;
(4) Operate the centrifugal pump B
running at a speed of not less than 3,000
rpm with a flow rate at which the
volume of the test fluid has been
changed out at least once per minute;
(5) Add the surfactant mixture from
paragraph (b)(2) of this section first,
followed by oil and suspended solids
(iron oxides) respectively, both 1.2
times the required amounts, to the fresh
water in the tank;
(6) To establish a stable emulsion,
keep running the centrifugal pump B for
one hour and confirm no oil floats on
the surface of the test fluid; and
(7) After the one hour stated in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section, keep
running the centrifugal pump B at
reduced speed to approximately 10
percent of original flow rate, until the
end of the test.
Figure 162.050–20—Worksheet for
Determining Constituents of Test Fluid C
1. Determine volumetric flow rate of
separator in m3/hr.
2. Determine net volume of fluid needed
for testing with fluid C:
a. Multiply Volumetric flow rate × 3 hours
= Net volume (assumes conditioning time of
approximately 30 minutes added to 21⁄2-hour
test period)
3. Determine Volume of Test Fluid C:
a. Multiply Net Volume * 0.06 = Fluid C
Volume
4. Determine amounts of constituents:
a. Volume of Test Fluid C: 1.2 × Net
Volume;
b. Volume of Fresh Water in Test Fluid C:
0.9478 × Volume of Test Fluid C;
c. Weight of Test Fluid A: 25 × Volume of
Test Fluid C;
d. Weight of Test Fluid B: 25 × Volume of
Test Fluid C;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:02 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
e. Weight of Surfactant: 0.5 × Volume of
Test Fluid C; and
f. Weight of iron oxide: 1.7 × Volume of
Test Fluid C.
Example
1. Bilge separator is rated at 2m3/hr;
2. Net Volume needed for the Test: Volume
of test water: 2m3 × 3 hours = 6m3;
3. Volume Test Fluid C: 6 percent of test
water = 0.06 × 6m3 = 0.36m3;
4. Actual Volume to be prepared:
a. Volume of Test Fluid C to be prepared:
1.2 times the Net Volume of Test Fluid C =
1.2 × 0.36 = 0.432m3;
b. Volume of fresh water in Test Fluid C:
(947.8g/1000g) of Test Fluid C = 0.9478 ×
0.432 = 0.4094m3;
c. Weight of Test Fluid A: (25g/1000g) of
Test Fluid C = 25/1000 × 0.432 × 1000 =
10.8kg;
d. Weight of Test Fluid B: (25g/1000g) of
Test Fluid C = 25/1000 × 0.432 × 1000 =
10.8kg;
e. Weight of surfactant: (0.5g/1000g) of Test
Fluid C = 0.5/1000 × 0.432 × 1000 = 0.216kg;
and
f. Weight of iron oxide: (1.7g/1000g) of Test
Fluid C) = 1.7/1000 × 0.432 × 1000 × 0.734kg.
19. In § 162.050–21—
a. In paragraph (b), add the words
‘‘(Incorporated by reference, see
§ 162.050–4)’’ immediately after the
words ‘‘(dated April 8, 1976)’’.
b. In paragraph (e), remove the words
and figure ‘‘twenty-four (24)’’ and add,
in their place, the figure ‘‘24’’.
20. In § 162.050–23—
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (d),
(e), (f), and (g);
b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3)
through (a)(13) as paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(12);
c. In newly designated paragraph
(a)(11), remove the word and figure
‘‘one (1)’’ and add, in their place, the
figure ‘‘1’’ and, in newly designated
paragraph (a)(12), following the words
‘‘Test No. 5’’, remove the letter ‘‘S’’ and
add, in its place, the letter ‘‘A’’; and
d. Revise newly designated paragraph
(a)(4) to read as set out below; and add
new paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read
as follows:
§ 162.050–23
Separator: Approval tests.
(a) * * *
(4) The influent water used in each
test must be clean fresh water or clean
fresh water in solution with sodium
chloride. In either case, the relative
density of the water must be no greater
than 1.015 at 20 °C.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The following tests must be
conducted using Test Fluid A:
(1) Test No. 1A. The separator is filled
with water and started. It is first fed
with pure Test Fluid A for at least 5
minutes and then with a mixture of Test
Fluid A and water influent containing
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67079
Fluid A content of between 5,000 and
10,000 ppm until a steady flow rate
occurs. After the flow rate is steady, the
influent is fed to the separator for 30
minutes. Samples of separated water
effluent are taken after the first 10 and
20 minutes. At the end of the 30-minute
period, the air cock on the test rig is
opened and, if necessary, the oil and
water supply valves are closed to stop
the flow of influent. A sample is then
taken of the separated water effluent as
the effluent flow ceases.
(2) Test No. 2A. Repeat Test No. 1A
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section using
an influent containing approximately 25
percent oil and 75 percent water.
Percentage is on a by volume basis.
(3) Test No. 3A. The separator is fed
with 100 percent Test Fluid A until
Fluid A is discharged at the oil
discharge outlet of the separator at
essentially the same rate that oil is being
fed to the separator. The separator is
then fed with 100 percent Test Fluid A
for 5 additional minutes. If any oily
mixture is discharged from the
separated water outlet on the separator
during the test, that observation is
recorded.
(4) Test No. 4A. The separator is fed
with water for 15 minutes. Samples of
the separated water effluent are taken at
the beginning of the test and after the
first 10 minutes.
(5) Test No. 5A. The separator is
operated automatically for 3 hours.
During the test, the separator is
continuously fed with an influent
varying from water to a mixture of 25
percent Test Fluid A in water and back
to water every 15 minutes. The Test
Fluid A concentration in the influent is
varied in at least five equal increments
during each 15-minute period and the
time intervals between the incremental
changes are equal. During the last hour,
the separator must be inclined at an
angle of 22.5 ° with the plane of its
normal operating position. During the
last time increment in which the unit is
fed a 25 percent Fluid A mixture, a
sample of the separated water effluent is
taken. If the separator stops at any time
during this test, that observation is
recorded.
(c) The following tests shall be
conducted using Test Fluid B:
(1) Test No. 1B: Repeat Test No. 1A
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section using
Test Fluid B; and
(2) Test No. 2B: Repeat Test No. 2A
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section using
Test Fluid B.
(d) The following tests shall be
conducted using Test Fluid C: Test No.
1C. The separator is fed with a mixture
composed of 6 percent Test Fluid C and
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67080
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
94 percent water by volume such that
the emulsified Test Fluid C content is
approximately 3,000 ppm in the test
water until a steady flow rate occurs.
After the flow rate is steady, the influent
containing the 6 percent Test Fluid C
solution is fed to the separator operating
automatically for 3 hours. Samples of
separated water effluent are taken at 50
minutes and 100 minutes. At the end of
the 3-hour period, the air cock on the
test rig is opened and, if necessary, the
oil and water supply valves are closed
to stop the flow of influent. A sample is
then taken of the separated water
effluent as the effluent flow ceases.
21. In § 162.050–25—
a. In paragraph (c), add the words
‘‘(Incorporated by reference, see
§ 162.050–4)’’ immediately after the
words ‘‘(dated April 8, 1976)’’.
b. In paragraph (g), remove the word
and figure ‘‘twenty (20)’’ and add, in
their place, the figure ‘‘20’’.
22. Revise § 162.050–27 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–27
tests.
Cargo monitor: Approval
This section contains requirements
that apply to cargo monitors.
(a) Test conditions. (1) The tests and
each step in the tests must be carried
out in the order described in this
section. Each test must be performed
without time delay between steps in the
test.
(2) A test rig of the type described in
§ 162.050–19 must be used in
performing each test.
(3) Each mixture used during the tests
must be prepared by combining oil
supplied from the oil injection pipe of
the test rig and water supplied from the
mixture tank of the test rig. However, if
the flow of oil through the oil injection
pipe becomes intermittent, oil and water
may be combined in the mixture tank to
form the mixture.
(4) A mixture may be circulated
through a monitor only once during
testing.
(5) Unless otherwise provided in a
specific test, the water used in each test
must be clean, fresh water.
(6) The oil used in each test, except
Test No. 2CM in paragraph (c) of this
section, must be Arabian light crude oil.
(7) Each test must be performed at an
ambient temperature of between 10 °C
and 30 °C.
(8) Unless otherwise provided in a
specific test, each test must be
performed at the maximum mixture
pressure, the maximum flow rate, and
the power supply ratings at which the
monitor is designed to operate.
(9) The particulate contaminant
described in Test No. 5CM in paragraph
(f) of this section, if not attapulgite,
must be of a type that does not lose
more than three percent of its weight
after ignition and must be insoluble in
a 500 ppm mixture.
(10) In each test the monitor must be
operated in accordance with the
procedures described in its instructions
manual.
(11) Unless otherwise provided in a
specific test, the centrifugal pump
shown in Figure 162.050–19 in
§ 162.050–19 must be operated at 1,000
revolutions per minute or more in each
test.
(12) Whenever the oil content of a
mixture is recorded, a sample of the
mixture must also be taken. The oil
content of the sample must be measured
using the method described in
§ 162.050–39.
(13) A one-liter sample of each oil to
be used in testing must be taken and
provided for use in the sample analysis
required by § 162.050–39.
(b) Test No. 1CM Calibration and Zero
Test. The cargo monitor is calibrated
and zeroed to manufacturer’s
instructions. It is then fed with water for
15 minutes and then with mixtures in
the following concentrations: 15 ppm,
50 ppm, 100 ppm, and each additional
concentration, in increments of 50 ppm
up to the highest oil concentration that
can be read on the monitor. Each
mixture is fed to the monitor in the
order listed in Table 162.050–27(c) for
15 minutes. Water is fed to the monitor
for a 15-minute period between each
mixture. At the end of each 15-minute
period, an oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(c) Test No. 2CM Response to
Different Oil Types Test. (1) If the cargo
monitor is designed for use with crude
oils, it is fed with a mixture of water and
the first oil listed in Table 162.050–27(c)
at the following concentrations: 15 ppm,
100 ppm, and a concentration that is 90
percent of the highest oil concentration
in water that can be read on the
monitor. Each concentration is fed to
the monitor in the order listed until a
steady reading occurs and is recorded.
After each steady reading is recorded,
the monitor is fed with water for 15
minutes. At the end of each 15-minute
period of feeding the monitor with
water, an oil content reading is again
obtained and recorded.
(2) The steps described in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section are repeated using
each of the other oils listed in Table
162.050–27(c).
TABLE 162.050–27(C).—OIL TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS
Oil type
Characteristics
Sahara blend crude oil .............................................................................
Arabian light crude oil ...............................................................................
Nigerian medium crude oil .......................................................................
Bachaquero 17 crude oil ..........................................................................
Minas crude oil .........................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Density—low.
Viscosity—low.
Pour point—very low.
Producing country—Algeria.
General description—mixed base.
Density—medium.
Viscosity—medium.
Pour point—low.
Producing country—Saudi Arabia.
General description—mixed base.
Density—high.
Viscosity—medium.
Pour point—low.
Producing country—Nigeria.
General description—naphthenic base.
Density—very high.
Viscosity—very high.
Pour point—low.
Producing country—Venezuela.
General description—asphaltic base.
Density—medium.
Viscosity—high.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
67081
TABLE 162.050–27(C).—OIL TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS—Continued
Oil type
Characteristics
Residual fuel oil ........................................................................................
(3) If any oil listed in Table 162.050–
27(c) is unavailable, an oil with similar
properties may be substituted in testing.
(4) If the monitor is to be used with
refined oil products, the steps described
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are
performed using each of the following:
(i) Leaded regular grade automotive
gasoline;
(ii) Unleaded automotive gasoline;
(iii) Kerosene; and
(iv) Light diesel or No. 2 fuel oil.
(5) If the monitor is to be used with
category C and D oil-like noxious liquid
substances to meet the requirements of
33 CFR 151.41(b), the tests described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are
to be performed using the substances for
which approval is sought.
(d) Test No. 3CM Response Time Test.
(1) The cargo monitor is fed with water,
zeroed, and then fed with a 100 ppm
mixture. The time at which the monitor
first detects oil in the mixture, the times
of reading 63 ppm and 90 ppm, and the
time of reaching the highest steady
reading of oil content are recorded. The
oil content of the mixture at the highest
steady reading is also recorded.
(2) The metering pump is turned off
and the time at which the highest
reading starts to decrease, the times of
reading 37 ppm and 10 ppm, and the
time of returning to the lowest steady oil
content reading are recorded. The oil
content of the mixture at the lowest
steady reading is also recorded.
(3) The time interval between first
detecting oil in the mixture and reading
63 ppm, and the time interval between
the first decrease in the highest reading
and reading 37 ppm, are averaged and
recorded as the response time for the
monitor.
(e) Test No. 4CM Oil Fouling and
Calibration Shift Test. (1) The cargo
monitor is fed with water, zeroed, and
then fed with a mixture containing 10
percent oil for one minute. The
following times occurring during this
procedure are recorded:
(i) Time at which the monitor first
detects oil;
(ii) Time of reading 15 ppm;
(iii) Time of reading 100 ppm;
(iv) Time of exceeding the highest oil
concentration that can be read on the
monitor;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
Pour point—very high.
Producing country—Indonesia.
General description—paraffinic base.
Bunker C or No. 6 Fuel Oil.
(v) Time of returning to the highest oil
concentration that can be read on the
monitor;
(vi) Time of returning to a reading of
100 ppm;
(vii) Time of returning to a reading of
15 ppm; and
(viii) Time of returning to the lowest
steady oil content reading.
(2) The oil content of the mixture at
the lowest steady reading described in
paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this section is
recorded.
(3) The monitor is fed with water,
zeroed, and then fed with oil for 1
minute after which the flow of water is
resumed. The times described in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section are
recorded.
(4) The monitor is fed with a 100 ppm
mixture until a steady oil content
reading is obtained and recorded.
(f) Test No. 5CM Contaminant Test.
(1) The monitor is fed with a 15 ppm
mixture until a steady oil content
reading is obtained and recorded.
(2) The cargo monitor is fed with a 15
ppm oil mixture of contaminated water
consisting of not less than 270 ppm by
weight of the clay mineral attapulgite, or
similar contaminant that is stable in
both fresh and salt water and 30 ppm by
weight of iron oxides. The test
contaminant should have a particle size
distribution with about 30 percent of 10
microns or less and a maximum particle
size of 100 microns. The oil content
reading, when steady, is recorded.
(3) Each of the two contaminants will
be mixed sequentially in the following
manner: the mixing of attapulgite shall
be for a period of not less than 15
minutes so that a homogeneous
suspension is formed; following, iron
oxides will be added for an additional
period of not less than 10 minutes. The
mixing process should maintain the
contaminants in suspension throughout
the test period.
(4) The test in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section is repeated for 100 and 300 ppm
oil mixtures in contaminated water.
(g) Test No. 6CM Air Entrainment
Test. (1) The cargo monitor is fed with
a 15 ppm mixture until a steady oil
content reading is obtained and
recorded.
(2) Air is injected into the cargo
monitor test rig before the sample pump
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or, in the absence of such pump,
immediately before any conditioning
unit used to prepare the mixture for
measurement. Injection must be by
needle having an orifice dimension not
exceeding 0.5 mm in diameter arranged
in line with the sample flow. The
quantity of air injected must be one
percent of the designated flow rate of
the sample pump or conditioning unit at
the point of injection.
(3) Air must be delivered to the
system by direct injection or pump via
a suitable measuring device designed to
permit a constant controllable flow rate
within ±10 percent of the required rate
of injection for an uninterrupted
effective test period of not less than 15
minutes.
(4) The oil content reading, when
steady, is recorded.
(h) Test No. 7CM Oil Particle Size—
Centrifugal Pump Test. (1) The cargo
monitor is fed with a 100 ppm mixture
until a steady oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(2) The monitor is fed with a 100 ppm
mixture that has first passed through the
centrifugal pump of the test rig. The
pump is run at one-fourth of its design
speed. The oil content reading, when
steady, is recorded.
(3) The steps described in paragraph
(h)(2) of this section are repeated with
the pump running at one-half of its
design speed and then repeated at its
design speed.
(i) Test No. 8CM Temperature Test.
(1) The steps described in paragraph
(h)(1) of this section are repeated.
(2) The temperature of the mixture is
adjusted to 10 °C and the flow
continued until a steady oil content
reading is obtained and recorded.
(3) The steps described in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section are repeated with
the temperature of the mixture at 65 °C
or the highest mixture temperature at
which the cargo monitor is designed to
operate, whichever is lower.
(j) Test No. 9CM Sample Pressure or
Flow Test. (1) The steps described in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section are
repeated.
(2) If the monitor has a positive
displacement mixture pump, the
mixture pressure is lowered to one-half
of the monitor’s maximum design
pressure. If the monitor has a centrifugal
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
67082
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
mixture pump, or is not equipped with
a mixture pump, the mixture flow rate
is reduced to one-half of the monitor’s
design flow rate. The reduced flow rate
or mixture pressure is maintained until
a steady oil content reading is obtained
and recorded.
(3) If the monitor has a positive
displacement mixture pump, the
mixture pressure is increased to twice
the monitor’s design pressure. If the
monitor has a centrifugal mixture pump
or does not have a mixture pump, the
mixture flow rate is increased to twice
the monitor’s maximum design flow
rate. The increased flow rate or mixture
pressure is maintained until a steady oil
content reading is obtained and
recorded.
(k) Test No. 10CM Shut-off Test. (1)
The steps described in paragraph (h)(1)
of this section are repeated.
(2) The water and metering pumps on
the test rig are stopped for 8 hours after
which the steps described in paragraph
(h)(1) of this section are repeated.
(l) Test No. 11CM Supply Voltage
Variation Test. (1) The supply voltage to
the cargo monitor is increased to 110
percent of its design supply voltage. The
monitor is then fed a 100 ppm mixture
for one hour. At the end of the 1-hour
period, an oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(2) The steps described in paragraph
(l)(1) of this section are repeated with
the supply voltage to the monitor
lowered to 90 percent of its design
supply voltage.
(3) Upon completing the steps
described in paragraph (l)(2) of this
section, the supply voltage to the
monitor is returned to the design rating.
(4) The steps described in paragraphs
(l)(1) through (l)(3) of this section are
repeated varying each power supply to
the monitor in the manner prescribed in
those steps for supply voltage.
(m) Test No. 12CM Calibration and
Zero Drift Test. (1) The monitor is
calibrated and zeroed.
(2) The steps described in paragraph
(h)(1) of this section are repeated.
(3) A 100 ppm mixture is fed to the
monitor for 8 hours. At the end of the
8-hour period, an oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(4) The monitor is fed with water
until a steady oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(n) Test No. 13CM Shut-down and
Restart Test. (1) All power to the
monitor is shut off for one week. After
1 week the monitor is started, zeroed,
and calibrated.
(2) The monitor is fed with a 100 ppm
mixture for 1 hour. An oil content
reading is then obtained and recorded.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
(3) The monitor is fed with water for
1 hour. An oil content reading is then
obtained and recorded.
(4) The steps described in paragraphs
(n)(2) and (n)(3) of this section are
repeated three additional times. During
the last hour in which the monitor is fed
with a 100 ppm mixture, the monitor is
inclined at an angle of 22.5 ° with the
plane of its normal operating position.
§ 162.050–29
[Removed]
23. Remove § 162.050–29.
§ 162.050–31
[Removed]
24. Remove § 162.050–31.
25. In § 162.050–33, in paragraph (b),
remove the paragraph designator ‘‘(g)’’
and add, in its place, the paragraph
designator ‘‘(f)’’; in paragraph (c)(1),
remove the abbreviation ‘‘p.p.m’’, and
add, in its place, the letters ‘‘ppm’’; and
add new paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), and
(h) to read as follows:
§ 162.050–33 Bilge alarm: Design
specification.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Each bilge alarm must have a ppm
display. Emulsions and/or the type of
oil must not affect the ppm display.
Calibrating the bilge alarm must not be
necessary once installed on board the
vessel, however, on board testing in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions is permitted. The accuracy
of the readings must at all times remain
within the limits described in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(e) Each bilge alarm must be designed
so that it displays each change in oil
content of the mixture it is measuring
within 5 seconds after the change
occurs.
(f) Access to the bilge alarm beyond
checking instrument drift must be
limited; repeatability of the instrument
reading and the ability to re-zero the
instrument must require the breaking of
a seal.
(g) Each bilge alarm must activate its
alarm whenever clean water is used for
cleaning or zeroing purposes.
(h) The bilge alarm must record date,
time, alarm status, and operating status
of the 15 ppm bilge separator. The
recording device must also store data for
at least 18 months and be able to display
or print a protocol. In the event the 15
ppm bilge alarm is replaced, means
must be provided to ensure the data
recorded remains available on board for
18 months.
26. Revise § 162.050–35 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–35
Bilge alarm: Approval tests.
This section contains requirements
that apply to bilge alarms.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(a) Test conditions. (1) Each test must
be conducted under the conditions
prescribed for cargo monitors in
§§ 162.050–27(a)(1) through (a)(5),
(a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(10), (a)(11), and (a)(13).
(2) The tests in this section shall be
performed using test fluids described in
§ 162.050–20.
(3) The oil content of each sample
must be measured using the method
described in § 162.050–39.
(b) Test No. 1A Calibration and Zero
Test. (1) The bilge alarm is calibrated
and zeroed to manufacturer’s
instructions.
(2) It is then fed with water for 15
minutes and then with a mixture of Test
Fluid A and water in the following
concentrations: 0 ppm, 15 ppm, and the
highest oil concentration that can be
read on the monitor. A sample of the
mixture causing actuation of the alarm
is taken. The alarm is then fed with
water for 15 minutes.
(3) Repeat steps in paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section first using Test
Fluid B and then again with Test Fluid
C. Collect samples as required in the test
for each run of Test Fluid B and Test
Fluid C.
(4) If the bilge alarm must be
calibrated and re-zeroed between test
fluids, this shall be noted in the test
report.
(c) Test No. 2A Contaminant Test. (1)
The bilge alarm is fed for 5 minutes
with a 10 ppm mixture of Test Fluid B
and water. At the end of the 5-minute
period an oil content reading is obtained
and recorded.
(2) The bilge alarm is then fed for 5
minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test
Fluid B and water contaminated with a
10 ppm concentration of iron oxide.
Any change in the bilge alarm reading
during the 5 minutes is recorded.
(3) Repeat steps in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section using iron oxide
concentrations of 50 ppm and 100 ppm.
(4) The bilge alarm is then fed for 5
minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test
Fluid B and water. At the end of the 5minute period an oil content reading is
obtained and recorded.
(5) The bilge alarm is fed for 5
minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test
Fluid B and fresh water with 6 percent
sodium chloride. Any change in the
bilge alarm reading is recorded.
(d) Test No. 3A Sample Pressure or
Flow Test. (1) The bilge alarm is fed
with a mixture of Test Fluid B and
water and the test fluid content of the
mixture is increased until the bilge
alarm actuates. The ppm display is
recorded and a sample of the mixture
causing actuation of the alarm is taken.
(2) If the alarm has a positive
displacement mixture pump, the
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules
mixture pressure is reduced to one-half
of the alarm’s maximum design
pressure. If the alarm has a centrifugal
mixture pump or is not equipped with
a mixture pump, the mixture flow rate
is reduced to one-half of the alarm’s
maximum design flow rate. After
reduction of pressure or flow rate, the
oil content in the mixture is increased
until the alarm actuates. The ppm
display is recorded and a sample of the
mixture causing actuation of the alarm
is taken.
(3) If the alarm has a positive
displacement mixture pump, the
influent pressure is increased to twice
the alarm’s minimum design pressure. If
the alarm has a centrifugal mixture
pump or if the alarm is not equipped
with a mixture pump, the influent flow
rate is increased to twice the alarm’s
maximum design flow rate. After
increasing the pressure or flow rate, the
oil content in the mixture is increased
until the alarm actuates. The ppm
display is recorded and a sample of the
mixture causing actuation is taken.
(e) Test No. 4A Shut-off Test. (1) The
steps described in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section are repeated.
(2) The metering and water pumps of
the test rig are stopped for 8 hours with
the bilge alarm left turned on with no
other changes made.
(3) The metering and water pumps are
started and the Test Fluid B content of
the mixture is increased until the bilge
alarm actuates. A sample of the mixture
causing actuation is taken. The bilge
alarm ppm display readings before and
after the 8-hour period will be recorded.
(f) Test No. 5A Supply Voltage
Variation Test. (1) The supply voltage to
the bilge alarm is raised to 110 percent
of its design supply voltage. The bilge
alarm is fed with a mixture of Test Fluid
B and water and the test fluid content
of the mixture is increased until the
bilge alarm actuates. The ppm display is
recorded and a sample of the mixture
causing actuation is taken.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Nov 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
(2) The supply voltage to the alarm is
lowered to 90 percent of its design
supply voltage. The bilge alarm is fed
with a mixture of Test Fluid B and
water and the test fluid content of the
mixture is increased until the bilge
alarm actuates. The ppm display is
recorded and a sample of the mixture
causing actuation is taken.
(3) Upon completion of the steps
described in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, the supply voltage to the alarm
is returned to its design value.
(4) The steps described in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section are
repeated varying each other power
supply to the alarm in the manner
prescribed in those steps for supply
voltage.
(g) Test No. 6A Calibration and Zero
Test. (1) The steps described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section are
repeated and then the steps in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section are
repeated.
(2) The bilge alarm is fed with a 15
ppm mixture of Test Fluid B and water
for eight hours and any calibration drift
is recorded. Samples of the mixture
must be taken at the beginning of the
test and at 2-hour intervals until the
completion of the 8-hour period.
(3) The steps in paragraph (g)(2) of
this section are repeated using clean,
oil-free water only. Any zero drift is
recorded.
(h) Test No. 7A Response Time Test.
(1) The bilge alarm is fed with a 40 ppm
mixture of Test Fluid B and water until
the bilge alarm actuates. The time of
turning on the metering pump of the test
rig and the time of alarm actuation are
recorded. The flow rate on the flow
meter of the test rig is also recorded.
(i) Test No. 8A Shut Down and Restart Test. (1) All power to the bilge
alarm is shut off for 1 week. After 1
week the alarm is then started, zeroed,
and calibrated.
(2) The steps described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section are repeated. Water
is then fed to the monitor for 1 hour.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
67083
(3) The steps described in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section are repeated seven
additional times. During the last hour,
the alarm must be inclined at an angle
of 22.5 ° with the plane of its normal
operating position.
27. In § 162.050–37, in paragraph (b),
remove the figure ‘‘4’’ and add, in its
place, the word ‘‘2’’; redesignate
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) as
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii);
redesignate paragraph (b) introductory
text as (b)(1) and designate the
undesignated paragraph as (b)(2); and
add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 162.050–37
Vibration test.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) After completion of the test
described in paragraph (b) of this
section, the test must be repeated and
any significant change in the vibration
pattern will be noted in the test report.
28. Revise § 162.050–39 to read as
follows:
§ 162.050–39
Measurement of oil content.
(a) The collection and testing of all
samples of oil in water from the
required test will be accomplished in
accordance with ISO 9377–2 (2000),
Water Quality—Determination of
hydrocarbon oil index—Part 2: Method
Using solvent extraction and Gas
Chromatography (Incorporated by
reference, see § 162.050–4).
(b) Testing facilities may continue to
use the infrared spectrophotometer
assay in lieu of ISO 9377–2, so long as
supplies of reagents necessary for the
testing are available.
Dated: October 24, 2005.
T.H. Gilmour,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 05–21573 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
E:\FR\FM\03NOP3.SGM
03NOP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67066-67083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21573]
[[Page 67065]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR Parts 155 and 157
46 CFR Part 162
Pollution Prevention Equipment; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67066]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 155 and 157
46 CFR Part 162
[USCG-2004-18939]
RIN 1625-AA90
Pollution Prevention Equipment
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise its pollution prevention
equipment regulations to make them consistent with new International
Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines and specifications issued under
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) Annex I. These revisions should effectively implement MARPOL
Annex I regulations, reduce the amount of oil discharged from vessels,
and eliminate the use of ozone-depleting solvents in equipment tests.
The proposed rule would require newly constructed vessels carrying oil
in bulk to install cargo monitors that meet revised standards and
require all vessels replacing or installing oil separators and bilge
alarms to install equipment that meets revised standards. Tests for
approval of this equipment would also be revised both to deal with
common bilge contaminants and to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting
solvents.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before February 1, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2004-18939 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
You may inspect the material proposed for incorporation by
reference at room 1300, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-267-6640. Copies of the material are available as indicated in the
``Incorporation by Reference'' section of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander George Grills, Systems Engineering
Division (G-MSE-3), Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-6640. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Organization
This preamble is organized as follows:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
Submitting comments
Viewing comments and documents
Privacy Act
Public Meeting
Background and Purpose
Which vessels would this proposed rule affect?
Regulatory History
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Incorporation by Reference
Regulatory Evaluation
Background
Proposed Action
Applicability
Costs
Benefits
Smal Entities
Assistance for Small Entities
Collection of Information
Federalism
Undated Mandates Reform Act
Taking of Private Property
Civil Justice Reform
Protection of Children
Indian Tribal Governments
Energy Effects
Technical Standards
Environment
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal
information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please
see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your
name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-
2004-18939), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may
submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using
the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Pub. L. 96-478,
sections 2 and 4, 94 Stat. 2297, 2298 (Oct. 21, 1980), 33 U.S.C. 1901
and 1903, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating is authorized to prescribe any necessary or desired
regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act and of Annexes I and
II of the International Convention
[[Page 67067]]
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78). Under the
Act of August 26, 1983, Pub. L. 98-89, 97 Stat. 500, 504, 522, subtitle
II of title 46 of the U.S. Code, specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703, the
Secretary in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to issue
equipment regulations for vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargo,
including oil. Authority under both of these acts has been delegated to
the Coast Guard under Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1 (2)(77) and (92)(b).
For some time, it has been well understood by the international
maritime community that existing pollution prevention equipment (PPE)
is not adequately designed to process bilge wastes. Pollution
prevention equipment on vessels encounter bilge wastes that are not
replicated in test fluids used for certifying and approving PPE. This
has led to release of more oil into the marine environment than
desired. Of specific concern has been emulsified oil in water,
surfactants (for example, detergents), and other contaminants typically
found in bilge water.
A second problem concerned the method by which oil content is
measured in effluent samples during the approval process. Existing
methods require the use of ozone-depleting solvents, specifically
carbon tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113). Both an international
treaty and laws of the United States call for phasing out the use of
these solvents. Therefore, an alternative test method was desired.
Having identified these concerns, the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
instructed the Ship Design and Equipment subcommittee to develop new
performance standards to replace those referenced in MARPOL Annex I.
The Ship Design and Equipment subcommittee drafted new resolutions, in
which the U.S. participated, that were ultimately approved by the MEPC
at its 49th session in July 2003 and designated as MEPC.107(49) and
MEPC.108(49).
Which Vessels Would This Proposed Rule Affect?
Our proposed rule would not change the type or class of vessels
that require a cargo monitor, oily-water separator (OWS), or bilge
alarm under 33 CFR part 155, subpart B, or 33 CFR part 157; it would
only require that such equipment meet new pollution prevention
standards.
Regulatory History
Even before Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 came into force internationally
in 1983, the Coast Guard issued a final rule (44 FR 53352, September
13, 1979) containing PPE design and approval requirements. On December
31, 2003, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register (68 FR
75603) a notice of policy informing the public of the new MEPC
resolutions, our desire to update 46 CFR subpart 162.050, and our
willingness to consider alternatives to the performance and testing
standards in part 162.050.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would revise 46 CFR subpart 162.050 to reflect
the new IMO PPE guidelines and specifications that governments have
been invited to apply on or after January 1, 2005, to their
implementation of MARPOL Annex I regulations. The proposed rule would
also align 46 CFR subpart 162.050 more closely with the IMO PPE
guidelines by removing the bilge monitor standard. The six factors that
were considered in the decision to propose to remove the bilge monitor
follow:
1. A bilge monitor includes a 100 parts per million (ppm)
performance standard that is no longer an allowed discharge
concentration of oil at sea nationally or internationally.
2. There is no longer an equivalent to a bilge monitor requirement
in the IMO guidelines or MARPOL Annex I. The IMO resolutions and Annex
I call for three types of PPE equipment: cargo monitors, oil separators
and bilge alarms. In addition to these three types of equipment, the
equipment that can obtain approval under subpart 162.050 currently also
includes bilge monitors. Retaining the bilge monitor design and
approval standards in the proposed subpart 162.050 results in unique
testing and performance requirements inconsistent with international
standards.
3. According to our records, the Coast Guard has not received an
approval application for a bilge monitor in more than a decade.
4. Only four bilge monitors are listed in the Coast Guard equipment
database and only one of those has maintained an ``approved'' status.
All the others are ``former-may use'' or ``expired.''
5. There are no specific requirements in the current regulations
for installing a bilge monitor--it is an alternative to installation of
a bilge alarm.
6. The new bilge alarm requirements incorporate a recording
function which, other than the 100-ppm alarm, was the major difference
between the bilge alarm and bilge monitor. As proposed, a bilge monitor
requirement in the proposed subpart 162.050 would be both redundant and
obsolete.
Unlike many of the engineering references incorporated into our
current regulations, subpart 162.050 contains text taken in large part
from the IMO documents detailing the performance and testing
requirements. Two options exist for updating subpart 162.050:
1. Replace existing regulatory text with detailed text implementing
the new IMO standards by describing them; or
2. Replace existing regulatory text with new text that relies
heavily on incorporating the new standards by reference to resolutions
MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49), and ISO 9377-2.
In seeking to avoid conflicts between Coast Guard PPE regulations
and MARPOL Annex I guidelines and specifications that Member States are
invited to make applicable on or after January 1, 2005, we considered
incorporating the MARPOL guidelines and specifications by reference--
and not have any differences between the MARPOL guidelines and
specifications and Coast Guard PPE standards--but we decided to
maintain some differences.
Some of our regulations will be more specific and concrete than the
MARPOL Annex I guidelines and specifications. We will, for example,
specify when and where inclination tests will be performed. These
differences are intended to make the regulations easier to enforce and
more likely to ensure that the oil-release-reduction goals of the
MARPOL Annex I guidelines and specifications are met.
Incorporation by Reference
New material proposed for incorporation by reference is added in
both 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4. You may inspect this material
at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in
Sec. Sec. 157.02 and 162.050-4.
Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit copies of all of
the proposed new material to the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under
[[Page 67068]]
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has
not reviewed it under that Order. A draft Regulatory Evaluation
follows:
Background
This NPRM proposes to change the performance standards of oily-
water separators (OWS), bilge alarms, and cargo monitors to meet the
revised guidelines and specifications for the MARPOL Annex I standards.
In analyzing the cost impact of this proposed rule, we considered
the increase in cost to buyers of new vessels who must install new
pollution prevention equipment meeting the revised standards, and
owners and operators of existing vessels who must replace old equipment
with the new pollution prevention equipment.
Proposed Action
The Coast Guard proposes to make the following changes to pollution
prevention equipment performance standards, outlined in 46 CFR part
162, subpart 162.050:
Remove the requirement for a bilge monitor;
Require OWSs to effectively process emulsified oils,
surfactants, and contaminants;
Change standards for the bilge alarm which must now: 1.
Pass new tests using emulsified oil and contaminants; 2. have a ppm
display; 3. display each change in oil content of the mixture it is
measuring within 5 seconds after the change occurs instead of every 20
seconds; 4. limit access to the bilge alarm beyond checking instrument
drift must be limited; repeatability of the instrument reading and the
ability to re-zero the instrument must require the breaking of a seal;
5. activate its alarm whenever clean water is used for cleaning or
zeroing purposes; and 6. record date, time, alarm status, and operating
status of the 15 ppm bilge separator. The recording device must also
store data for at least 18 months and be able to display or print a
protocol. In the event the 15 ppm bilge alarm is replaced, means must
be provided to ensure the data recorded remains available on board for
18 months; and,
Change standards for cargo monitors that are used with
category C and D oil-like noxious liquid substances. Based on our
research, we found that the manufacturers of cargo monitors, plan to
sell these monitors meeting the new standards for approximately the
same retail price as the old equipment. Therefore, there is no
additional cost to vessel owners for this requirement.
We expect there to be no additional cost to industry for removing
the requirement for bilge monitors, or changing standards for cargo
monitors because there will be no change in cost for installation,
operation, and maintenance.
Applicability
This proposed rule applies to all ocean-going vessels that operate
in U.S. waters. Foreign vessels in compliance with MARPOL need not
prove compliance with the domestic equipment approval standards.
Therefore, this rule primarily affects U.S. flag vessels.
The vessels impacted by the proposed changes for the bilge alarm
and the OWS are described in 33 CFR 155.380, and are divided into three
main categories:
33 CFR 155.350--Oceangoing vessels of less than 400 gross
tons (GT). These vessels are not required to have the equipment on
board if they have the capacity to retain on board all oily mixtures
and can discharge these oily mixtures to a reception facility. Certain
vessels, in this category that embark on international voyages,
however, are required to have an International Pollution Prevention
Certificate (IOPP) that requires them to have pollution prevention
equipment on board. Based on Coast Guard data, we estimate that 30
percent of the fleet have the IOPP Certificate and have OWSs and bilge
alarms on board.
Oceangoing vessels of 400 GT and above, but less than
10,000 GT. The current regulations require all vessels in this category
to have an installed OWS and if the vessel ballasts the fuel tanks and/
or plans to discharge through the OWS within 12 nm of land the vessel
must also have a bilge alarm. Additionally, vessels in this category
that embark on international voyages, which are required to have an
IOPP Certificate, have the pollution prevention equipment on board.
Based on Coast Guard and industry information, we assume the majority
of new construction oceangoing vessels have bilge alarms and the OWSs
on board.
33 CFR 155.370--Oceangoing vessels of 10,000 GT and above.
The current regulation requires all oceangoing vessels in this tonnage
range to have both an OWS and bilge alarm. We assume all of these
vessels comply with these regulations and have the equipment.
Costs
The following vessel population estimates are based on 2004 Coast
Guard data. There are approximately 86 new oceangoing vessels built per
year that would be affected by this proposed rule. Of these,
approximately 29 new vessels are 400 GT or greater and must meet the
new requirements to have bilge alarms and oily water separators that
meet the new standards. Of the remaining 57 vessels less than 400 GT,
we assume 30 percent, or approximately 17 vessels, will be installing
the equipment because they will embarking on international voyages and
are required to carry pollution prevention equipment.
All existing vessels subject to these PPE regulations,
approximately 5,838 U.S. flag vessels, must install equipment that
meets the new standards whenever the owners or operators replace the
equipment. Based on Coast Guard data, we assume that the entire
existing fleet of vessels 400 GT and over will update its equipment as
it breaks down over the next 20 years, which is approximately the
length of service for these U.S. flag vessels. We assume that the 30
percent of the fleet below 400 GT that has this equipment on board will
also update it once over the service life of the vessel.
The cost of this proposed rule to vessel owners is the additional
price owners must pay for the higher-priced pollution prevention
equipment that meets the new MARPOL standards. The owners and operators
of existing vessels would face no immediate mandatory implementation
costs from this proposed rule, but they would face ongoing costs as
they update equipment or install new equipment on new vessels.
We calculated the cost of the rulemaking for the next 10 years
(2005-2014), which is a long enough period of analysis to capture the
majority of the future costs of this rulemaking. This follows OMB's
guidance that the ending point for calculating costs ``should be far
enough in the future to encompass all significant benefits and costs
likely to result from the rule'' (see OMB Circular A-4, page 31).
However, in other cases, simply presenting annualized costs are
sufficient. For example, OMB's Circular A-4 (page 36) notes that if the
expected flow of costs is constant over time, then annualizing the cost
stream is sufficient and further discounting is unnecessary. That said,
for this rulemaking we would have been on safe ground simply reporting
annualized costs.
For vessel owners and operators that would be replacing equipment
once over the service life of the vessel or once every twenty years, we
assume that five percent of the affected population would update their
equipment for each year in the 10-year period of analysis.
[[Page 67069]]
We considered possible increases in the operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Based on Coast Guard and industry information, we estimate
that the O&M cost of the new equipment would not be more than the O&M
costs of the existing equipment, and in some instances would cost less.
Therefore, we assume that there would be no significant increases in
O&M costs, since vessels routinely face similar costs for existing
installed equipment.
For OWSs, there is a wide range in the price of the equipment
depending on flow rates and levels of technological capability. Based
on discussions with manufacturers, we find that there is currently
considerable variability in market prices as suppliers begin to market
and sell the new equipment. Still, we believe we have estimated average
price increases that are reasonably accurate. We separated the vessel
categories into the three groups discussed earlier, and assume an
average price increase of:
$8,000 for vessels below 400 GT;
$12,000 for vessels 400 GT or more and less than 10,000
GT; and
$18,000 for vessels 10,000 GT and over.
For bilge alarms, there is less of a variation in the price. The
change in the price ranges from approximately $400 to $1,500 and we
assume an average price increase of $1,000 for all vessel categories.
Thus, the total price increase for both oily water separators and
bilge alarms combined is:
$9,000 for vessels below 400 GT;
$13,000 for vessels 400 GT or more and less than 10,000
GT; and
$19,000 for vessels 10,000 GT and over.
We estimate the total annual cost for new vessels is $548,000 and
the total annual cost for existing vessels is $2,298,000. See Tables 1
and 2 below for details on the calculations of the annual costs.
Table 1.--Annual Cost of Oily-Water Separators (OWS) & Bilge Alarms For New Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annually affected
Vessel types Price increase New vessels Annual cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<400 GT................................................ $9,000 17 $153,000
>=400 GT and <10,000 GT................................ 13,000 26 338,000
>=10,000 GT............................................ 19,000 3 57,000
--------------------
Total.............................................. ................. 46 548,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Annual Cost of OWSs & Bilge Alarms for Existing Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annually affected
existing vessels
Vessel types Price increase (w/ 20-yr Annual cost
breakdown rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<400 GT................................................ $9,000 50 $450,000
>=400 GT and <10,000 GT................................ 13,000 91 1,183,000
>=10,000 GT............................................ 19,000 35 665,000
--------------------
Total.............................................. ................. 176 2,298,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the total annual cost of this rule to industry would be
$2,846,000 ($548,000 + $2,298,000). The present value of the total cost
for the next 10 years is $21,388,531, based on a 7 percent discount
rate, and $25,005,266, based on a 3 percent discount rate.
To the extent that shippers purchase equipment from U.S. suppliers,
this is a transfer from shippers to suppliers.
To the extent that shippers will pass on these costs to their
customers, these consumers and their customers will bear most of the
burden of the rule. Given that vessel owners will phase in the
equipment over 20 years, vessel owners may be more likely to try to
absorb as much of this increase as possible over the first few years.
To the extent that vessel owners do eventually pass on costs to
consumers, these price increases would be small given vessel owners and
operators can spread these costs over thousands of voyages.
Benefits
The benefits of this proposed rule are mainly in the improved
environmental conditions resulting from the use of PPE which meets
higher standards of pollution prevention. The new OWSs will better
handle the separation of emulsified oils, surfactants and contaminants
from water whereas in previously approved units this may not have
occurred. There would also be a broader range and volume of pollutants
no longer released into the environment because of these new standards,
which is a positive impact of this proposed rule.
Testing standards for pollution prevention equipment outlined in 46
CFR 162.050-39 currently require the use of the solvents carbon
tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113), which have been phased out by
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This
proposed rule would require a new test protocol to be used for testing
the oil separating capabilities of pollution prevention equipment--
outlined in 46 CFR 162.050-39--that does not include these substances.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The small entities affected by the proposed rule are vessels owners
required to install or replace pollution prevention equipment meeting
the new standards on their vessels.
To analyze the financial impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, we selected and analyzed a random sample of 360 vessels that
is statistically representative of the target population
[[Page 67070]]
of 5,838. In the entire population, 2,780 companies own these 5,838
vessels. In the random sample, we found that 263 companies owned the
360 vessels. In this sample, 69 small companies owned 79 vessels, 47
large companies owned 99 vessels, the Federal government owned 26
vessels and we found 156 vessels with no revenue information available
on their 146 owners.
We then assessed the impact of cost on the revenue of the companies
with information that we identified as small entities, and broke them
down by the percentage impact on revenue. The large majority of small
entities (about 87 percent) face an impact on revenue between 0 and 4
percent. To be conservative, we assumed that all vessels with no
available information on their ownership were owned by small entities.
We further assumed that the percentage impact of annual cost on annual
revenue was distributed in the same proportion as the small businesses
for both the vessels with no information in the random sample, and for
the entire target population. See Table 3 below for details.
Table 3.--Impact of Cost on Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percentage of Expanded number
entities with entities with of entities with Distribution of
Percent of annual revenue impact known annual known annual unknown annual small entities in
revenues revenues revenues total population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1%................................ 41 59 87 1,074
>1%-4%.............................. 19 28 40 498
>4%-10%............................. 5 7 11 131
>10%-20%............................ 0 0 0 0
>20%-30%............................ 3 4 6 79
>30%................................ 1 1 2 26
--------------------
Total........................... 69 100 146 1,807
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some values may not total due to rounding.
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended, specifically under 42 U.S.C.
7671a, we must eliminate the use of ozone-depleting testing solvents in
our current PPE regulations. Therefore, ``no action'' is not an option.
Also, the United States is party to MARPOL Annex I. To effectively
implement MARPOL Annex I regulations, we must revise our other PPE
regulations to reflect that resolutions MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49)
have superseded resolutions MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14), respectively.
We believe the proposed regulations will have a minimal costs to
small businesses. First, existing vessels are not required to
immediately install pollution prevention equipment meeting the new
standards, but only when they are replacing it, which could be over a
long period of time. Second, 57 percent of vessel types in the small
business category are below 400 GT, and owners of these vessels have
the option of not installing pollution prevention equipment and instead
discharging oily mixtures at a reception facility. Finally, the prices
of OWS systems (the highest cost component of this proposed rule) vary
widely depending on a range of factors including their technological
capability, so that vessel owners can choose cheaper versions within
the options available to them.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult Lt. George Grills, Office of
Systems Engineering (G-MSE-3), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-6640. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The paperwork burden associated with the manufacture, laboratory
testing, approval tests, and marking of pollution prevention equipment
is addressed in the existing collection of information, OMB
1625-0035, entitled ``Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving,
Electrical, and Engineering Equipment; Construction and Materials.''
This collection of information was approved by the Office of Management
and Budget on December 10, 2002, and will expire after the 3-year
approval period ends on December 31, 2005.
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments or would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. Based on our survey of vessels
expected to be effected, we have identified only 26 state-owned vessels
that may be affected, and these vessels are already subject to
regulation under the sections affected by the proposed amendments.
Therefore, we conclude the proposed rule would not impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on State or local governments.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field
[[Page 67071]]
foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the
Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S. Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). Our
proposed rule would revise standards for pollution prevention
equipment. Because the States may not regulate within this category,
preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an issue.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule uses the following new voluntary consensus
standards:
1. IMO Assembly Resolution A.393(X)--Recommendation on
International Performance and Test Specifications For Oily-Water
Separating Equipment and Oil Content Meters;
2. IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII)--Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
3. IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14)--Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
4. IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.13(19)--Guidelines for Plan Approval and Installation Survey of
Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers and
Environmental Testing of Control Sections Thereof;
5. IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49)--Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers;
6. International Organization of Standardization Standard ISO 8217
(1996) Petroleum products--Fuels (class F)--Specification of marine
fuels;
7. International Organization of Standardization Standard ISO 9377-
2 (2000), Water Quality--Determination of hydrocarbon oil index--Part
2: Method Using solvent extraction and Gas Chromatography.
The proposed sections that reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are available are listed in 33 CFR
157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(e), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. These regulations concern equipment
approval and carriage requirements. A preliminary ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' is available in the docket where indicated under
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble. Comments on this section will be considered before we make
the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically
excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 155
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
33 CFR Part 157
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 162
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 155 and 157, and 46 CFR part 162 as follows:
[[Page 67072]]
Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. Revise the authority citation for part 155 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1. Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 through 155.400,
155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) are
also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Sections 155.480, 155.490,
155.750(e), and 155.775 are also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3703.
Section 155.490 is also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101-
380. Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40,
150, 151, and 153.
2. In Sec. 155.380, revise the section heading and paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 155.380 Oily-water separating equipment and bilge alarm approval
standards.
* * * * *
(c) A ship that is required to have a bilge alarm may defer
installment and use a previously installed bilge monitor provided the
bilge monitor met Coast Guard approval requirements at the time of its
installation and it does not allow more than a 15 ppm oil content in
water discharge.
PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK
3. Revise the authority citation for part 157 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subparts G,
H, and I are also issued under section 4115(b), Pub. L. 101-380, 104
Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546.
4. In Sec. 157.02, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 157.02 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
part and the sections affected, are as follows:
International Maritime Organization (IMO)--4 Albert Embankment, London
SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.393(X), Recommendation on International
Performance and Test Specifications For Oily-Water Separating Equipment
and Oil Content Meters--157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII), Guidelines and Specifications
for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers--
157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14), Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers--157.12
IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution MEPC.13(19),
Guidelines for Plan Approval and Installation Survey of Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers and Environmental
Testing of Control Sections Thereof--157.12
IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49), Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers--157.12
IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15), Provision and Display of
Manoeuvring Information on Board Ships, Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1,
and 3.2 with appendices, adopted on 19 November 1987--157.450
IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18), Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4, 1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-2.6, 3-8, and
Annexes 1-10 with appendices, adopted 4 November 1993--157.430
IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18), Interim Standards for Ship
Manoeuvrability, Annex sections 1.2, 2.3-2.4, 3-4.2, and 5, adopted 4
November 1993 with Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ. 644 dated 6 June
1994--157.445
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen Anne's Gate,
London, SW1H 9BU, England].
International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals, Fourth
Edition, Chapters 6, 7, and 10, 1996--157.435
5. In Sec. 157.12, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 157.12 Cargo monitor and control system.
* * * * *
(b) Each monitor installed on a U.S. vessel must be approved under
46 CFR 162.050. Each monitor installed on a foreign vessel must be
approved:
(1) Under 46 CFR 162.050; or
(2) As meeting IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
resolution MEPC.108(49) by a country that has ratified the MARPOL 73/
78. Paragraph 1.2.2 of MEPC.108(49) provides, as to equipment installed
in ``oil tankers the keels of which are laid, or which are at a similar
stage of construction, before January 1, 2005,'' for alternative
compliance with IMO resolutions A.393(X), A.496(XII), MEPC.13(19), and
A.586(14). These five resolutions are incorporated by reference (see
Sec. 157.02).
(c) Each monitor on a U.S. vessel must be installed in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 157.12b through 157.12g.
6. Add Sec. Sec. 157.12a through 157.12g to read as follows:
Sec. 157.12a Definitions.
As used in Sec. Sec. 157.12a through 157.12g--
Control section means a unit in a monitoring system composed of the
items specified in Sec. 157.12d(a)(4)(viii).
Control unit means a device that receives automatic signals of oil
content of the effluent ppm, flow rate of discharge m3/hour,
ship's speed in knots, ship's position--latitude and longitude, date
and time (GMT, Greenwich Mean Time), and status of the overboard
discharge control. The control unit makes automatic recordings of data
as specified in Sec. 157.12d(h)(2).
Oil discharge monitoring and control system or monitoring system
means a system that monitors the discharge into the sea of oily ballast
or other oil-contaminated water from the cargo tank areas and comprises
the items specified in Sec. 157.12d(a)(4).
Overboard discharge control means a device that automatically
initiates the sequence to stop the overboard discharge of the effluent
in alarm conditions and prevents the discharge throughout the period
the alarm condition prevails. The device may be arranged to close the
overboard valves or to stop the relevant pumps, as appropriate.
PPM or ppm means parts of oil per million parts of water by volume.
Starting interlock means a facility that prevents the initiation of
the opening of the discharge valve or the operation of other equivalent
arrangements before the monitoring system is fully operational when use
of the monitoring system is required by the Convention.
Sec. 157.12b Implementation requirements.
Oil discharge monitoring and control systems must be fitted to oil
tankers to which this subpart applies. A monitoring and control system
must employ a control unit and be fitted with a starting interlock and
overboard discharge control.
Sec. 157.12c Construction, maintenance, security, calibration and
training.
(a) The oil discharge monitoring and control system must be
designed to
[[Page 67073]]
ensure that user access is restricted to essential controls. Access
beyond these controls must be available for emergency maintenance and
temporary repair but must require the breaking of security seals or
activation of another device which indicates an entry to the equipment.
(b) The seals must be of a design that only the manufacturer or the
manufacturer's agent can replace the seals or reset the system
following inspection and permanent repairs to the equipment.
(c) The accuracy of the monitoring system must be verified during
International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate renewal surveys. The
calibration certificate certifying date of last calibration check must
be retained on board for inspection purposes.
(d) The monitoring system may have several scales as appropriate
for its intended use. The recording device fitted to a meter which has
more than one scale must indicate the scale which is in use.
(e) Simple means must be provided aboard ship to check on
instrument drift must be limited; repeatability of the instrument
reading, and the ability to re-zero the instrument.
(f) Ship staff training must include familiarization in the
operation and the maintenance of the equipment.
(g) The routine maintenance of the monitoring system and
troubleshooting procedures must be clearly defined in the Operating and
Maintenance Manual. All routine maintenance and repairs must be
recorded.
Sec. 157.12d Technical specifications.
(a) Oil discharge monitoring and control system. (1) The monitoring
system must be capable of effectively monitoring and controlling the
discharge of any effluent into the sea through those overboard
discharge outlets permitted by Sec. 157.11 that are necessary to
fulfill the operational requirements of the oil tanker.
(2) The discharge of dirty ballast water or other oil-contaminated
water from the cargo tank areas into the sea through outlets which are
not controlled by the monitoring system is prohibited.
(3) The monitoring system must function effectively under all
environmental conditions that oil tankers normally encounter, and must
be designed and constructed to satisfy the specifications for approval
in 46 CFR subpart 162.050. Moreover--
(i) The system must be designed so that no discharge of dirty
ballast or other oil-contaminated water from the cargo tank areas can
take place unless the monitoring system is in the normal operating mode
and the relevant sampling point has been selected;
(ii) Preferably the system should sample the effluent discharge
from a minimum number of discharge outlets and be arranged so that
discharge overboard can take place via only one outlet at a time;
(iii) Where it is intended that more than one line be used for
simultaneous discharging purposes, one cargo monitor, together with a
flow meter, must be installed in each discharge line. These instruments
must be connected to a common processor; and
(iv) To avoid alarms because of short-term high oil concentration
signals (spikes) causing indications of high instantaneous rates of
discharge, the short-term high ppm signal may be suppressed for a
maximum of 10 seconds. Alternatively, the instantaneous rate of
discharge may be continuously averaged during the preceding 20 seconds
or less as computed from instantaneous ppm values of the cargo monitor
readings received at intervals not exceeding 5 seconds.
(4) The monitoring system must comprise--
(i) A cargo monitor to measure the oil content of the effluent in
ppm. The monitor must be approved in accordance with the provisions
contained in 46 CFR 162.050 and be certified to take into account the
range of cargoes carried;
(ii) A flow rate indicating system to measure the rate of effluent
being discharged into the sea;
(iii) A ship speed indicating device to give the ship's speed in
knots;
(iv) A ship position indicating device to give the ship's
position--latitude and longitude;
(v) A sampling system to convey a representative sample of the
effluent to the cargo monitor;
(vi) An overboard discharge control to stop the overboard
discharge;
(vii) A starting interlock to prevent the discharge overboard of
any effluent unless the monitoring system is fully operational; and
(viii) A control section comprising--
(A) A processor that accepts signals of oil content in the
effluent, the effluent flow rate and the ship's speed, and computes
these values into liters of oil discharged per nautical mile and the
total quantity of oil discharged;
(B) A means to provide alarms and command signals to the overboard
discharge control;
(C) A recording device to provide a record of data required under
Sec. 157.12d(h)(2);
(D) A data display to exhibit the current operational data required
under Sec. 157.12d(i);
(E) A manual override system to be used in the event of failure of
the monitoring system; and
(F) A means to provide signals to the starting interlock to prevent
the discharge of any effluent before the monitoring system is fully
operational.
(5) Each main component of the monitoring system must be fitted
with a name-plate, properly identifying the component by assembly
drawing number, type or model number and serial number, as appropriate.
(6) The electrical components of the monitoring system that are to
be installed in an explosive atmosphere must be in compliance with 46
CFR 162.050-25.
(b) Sampling system. (1) Sampling points must be located so that
relevant samples can be obtained from those outlets that are used for
operational discharges in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section. The sampling probes located in the overboard discharge lines
and the piping system connecting the sampling probes to the cargo
monitor must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) The piping and probes must be of a material resistant to fire,
corrosion, and oil and be of adequate strength, and properly jointed
and supported.
(3) The system must have a stop-valve fitted adjacent to each
probe, except that, where the probe is mounted in a cargo line, two
stop-valves must be fitted, in series, in the sample line; one of these
may be the remote controlled sample selector valve.
(4) Sampling probes must be arranged for easy withdrawal and must,
as far as practicable, be mounted at an accessible location in a
vertical section of the discharge line. Should it be necessary to fit
sampling probes in a horizontal section of the discharge line it must
be ascertained, during the installation survey, that the pipe runs full
of liquid at all times during the discharge of the effluent. Sampling
probes must normally penetrate inside the discharge pipe to a distance
of one quarter the diameter of that pipe.
(5) Means must be provided for cleaning the probes and piping
system by the provision of permanent clean water flushing arrangements
or an equivalent method. The design of the probes and piping must be
such as to minimize their clogging by oil, oily residue, and other
matter.
(6) The velocity of the fluid in the piping must be such that,
taking into consideration the length of the piping, the overall
response time must be as
[[Page 67074]]
short as possible between an alteration in the mixture being pumped and
the alteration in the cargo monitor reading and in any case not more
than 40 seconds, including the response time of the cargo monitor.
(7) The location of sampling probes in relation to any point of
flow diversion to a slop tank must be selected with regard to the need
for sampling the oily water in the recirculation mode.
(8) The arrangements for driving the sampling pump or any other
pumps used in the system must account for the safety requirements of
the space in which the pump is located. Any bulkhead penetration
between a hazardous and a non-hazardous area must be of a design
meeting the requirements of 46 CFR 32.60-20 and 46 CFR subpart 111.105.
(9) The flushing arrangement must be such that where necessary it
can be utilized for test-running and stabilizing the cargo monitor and
correcting for zero setting.
(10) Sample water returning to the slop tank must not be allowed to
free-fall into the tank. In tankers equipped with an inert gas system,
a water seal meeting the requirements of 46 CFR 32.53-10(b) must be
arranged in the piping leading to a slop tank.
(11) A valve must be provided for the manual collection of samples
from the inlet piping to the cargo monitor at a point downstream of any
sampling pump.
(c) Flow rate indicating system. (1) A flow meter for measuring the
rate of discharge must be installed in a vertical section of a
discharge line or in any other section of a discharge line as
appropriate, so as to be always filled with the liquid being
discharged.
(2) A flow meter must employ an operating principle which is
suitable for shipboard use and, where relevant, can be used in large
diameter pipes.
(3) A flow meter must be suitable for the full range of flow rates
that may be encountered during normal operation. Alternatively,
arrangements such as the use of two flow meters of different ranges or
a restriction of the operational flow rate range may be employed if
necessary to meet this requirement.
(4) The flow meter, as installed, must have an accuracy of 10 percent, or better, of the instantaneous rate of discharge
throughout the operating range for discharging the effluent.
(5) Any component part of the flow meter in contact with the
effluent should be of corrosion-resistant and oil-resistant material of
adequate strength.
(6) The design of the flow metering arrangements must account for
the safety requirements of the space in which such metering
arrangements are located.
(d) Ship's speed indicating system. The automatic speed signal
required for a monitoring system must be obtained from the ship's speed
indicating device by means of a repeater signal. The speed information
used may be either speed over the ground or speed through the water,
depending upon the speed measuring equipment installed on board.
Note to paragraph (d): See ``Recommendation on Performance
Standards for Devices to Indicate Speed and Distance,'' Annex to
resolution A.824(19) as amended by resolution MSC.96(72).
(e) Ship position indicating device. The ship position indicating
device must consist of a receiver for a global navigation satellite
system or a terrestrial radio navigation system, or other means,
suitable for use at all times throughout the intended voyage to
establish and update the ship's position by automatic means.
(f) Overboard discharge control management. The overboard discharge
control must be able to stop the discharge of the effluent into the sea
automatically by either closing all relevant overboard discharge valves
or stopping all relevant pumps. The discharge control arrangement must
be fail-safe so that all effluent discharge is stopped when the
monitoring system is not in operation, at alarm conditions, or when the
monitoring system fails to function.
(g) Processor and transmitting device. (1) The processor of a
control section must receive signals from the cargo monitor, the flow
rate indicating system and the ship's speed indicating system at time
intervals not exceeding 5 seconds and must automatically compute the
following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil in liters per nautical
mile; and
(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged during the voyage in cubic
meters or liters.
(2) When the limits imposed by Sec. 157.37(a)(3) and (4) are
exceeded, the processor must provide alarms and provide command signals
to the overboard discharge control arrangement which will cause the
discharge of effluent into the sea to stop.
(3) The processor must normally include a device for the continuous
generation of time and date information. Alternative arrangements which
ensure the automatic and continuous reception of time and date
information from an external source may be approved by the Marine
Safety Center.
(4) In the event of power failure the processor must retain its
memory in respect to computation of the total quantity of oil
discharged, time, and date. A printout of data must be obtained when
the monitoring system is operating with manual override, but the
printout of data is not required if, when the power fails, the
monitoring system activates the overboard discharge control to stop the
discharge of effluent.
(h) Recording devices. (1) The recording device of a control
section must include a digital printer, which may be formatted
electronically. The recorded parameters must be explicitly identified
on the printout. The printout must be legible and must remain so once
removed from the recording device and must be retained for at least 3
years.
(2) The data to be automatically recorded must include at least the
following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil (liters per nautical
mile);
(ii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm);
(iii) The total quantity of oil discharged (cubic meters or
liters);
(iv) Time and date (GMT, Greenwich Mean Time);
(v) Ship's speed in knots;
(vi) Ship's position--latitude and longitude;
(vii) Effluent flow rate;
(viii) Status of the overboard discharge control or arrangement;
(ix) Oil type selector setting, where applicable;
(x) Alarm condition;
(xi) Failure, including, but not limited to, no flow, or fault; and
(xii) Override action, including, but not limited to, manual
override, flushing, and calibration. Any information inserted manually
as a result of an override action must be identified as such on the
printout.
(3) Data required in paragraph (h)(2) of this section must be
printed out or may be stored electronically with printout capability,
with the following minimum frequency:
(i) When the discharge is started;
(ii) When the discharge is stopped;
(iii) At intervals of not more than 10 minutes (except when the
system is in stand-by mode);
(iv) When an alarm condition develops;
(v) When normal conditions are restored;
(vi) Whenever the computed rate of discharge varies by 10 liters
per nautical mile;
(vii) When zero-setting or calibration modes are selected; and
(viii) On manual command.
(4) The recording device must be located in a position easily
accessible to
[[Page 67075]]
the person in charge of the overboard discharge operation.
(i) Data display. (1) In addition to the recorded printout, the
current data must be visibly displayed and must as a minimum contain
the following:
(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil (liters per nautical
mile);
(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged (cubic meters or liters);
(iii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm)
(iv) Flow rate;
(v) Ship's speed; and
(vi) Status of the overboard discharge control or arrangement.
(2) The data display must be located in a position easily observed
by the person in charge of the overboard discharge operation.
(j) Manually operated alternatives in the event of equipment
malfunction. Acceptable alternative means of obtaining information in
the event of a failure in the monitori
