Pollution Prevention Equipment, 3364-3393 [E9-802]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3364-3393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-802]



[[Page 3363]]

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

Part VII





Department of Homeland Security





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



Coast Guard



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



33 CFR Parts 155 and 157

46 CFR Part 162



Pollution Prevention Equipment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 3364]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157

46 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2004-18939]
RIN 1625-AA90


Pollution Prevention Equipment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its oil 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 will implement MARPOL Annex I 
regulations and are intended to reduce the amount of oil discharged 
from vessels and eliminate the use of ozone-depleting solvents in 
equipment tests. This interim rule will require all vessels replacing 
or installing oil separators and bilge alarms to install equipment that 
meets revised standards and it will require newly constructed vessels 
carrying oil in bulk to install monitoring systems that meet the 
revised standards. We have delayed the implementation of three 
paragraphs involving vessels constructed and equipment installed on or 
after January 1, 2005. We seek comments on these three paragraphs and 
will consider those comments before issuing a final rule.

DATES: Effective dates: This interim rule is effective March 17, 2009, 
with the exception of paragraphs 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), 
and 155.370(a)(4), which are effective October 13, 2009.
    Comment date: Comments on paragraphs 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 
155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4) must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before April 16, 2009.
    Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of March 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2004-18939 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For 
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and 
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim 
rule, call Mr. Wayne Lundy, Systems Engineering Division (CG-5213), 
Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 
202-372-1379. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material 
to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket 
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting comments
    B. Viewing comments and documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background and Purpose
    A. Types of Equipment
    B. Authority
    C. International Standards Being Implemented
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Test and Performance
    B. Measurement of Oil Content
    C. Calibration
    D. Training
    E. Operating Requirements
    F. Simulated Shipborne Environment
    G. Operating Manual
    H. Applicability
    I. PPE Alternatives
    J. Data Recording
    K. Test Rig
    L. Response Time
    M. Test Fluid
    N. Incorporating MEPC.107(49) by Reference
    O. Test Report
    P. Cleaning Detergent in Engine Room
    Q. PPE Design
    R. Oil Categories
    S. Beyond the Scope of This Rulemaking
    T. Changes from Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2004-18939), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert ``USCG-2004-18939'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter, 
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you 
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit 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 and may change this rule 
based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the 
screen, insert USCG-2004-18939 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and 
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. If you do not have 
access to the internet, you may view the

[[Page 3365]]

docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We 
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the 
Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. 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.

II. Abbreviations

 
 
 
API.........................................................................  American Petroleum Institute
CFC 113.....................................................................  Chlorofluorocarbon-113
CFR.........................................................................  Code of Federal Regulations
DHS.........................................................................  Department of Homeland Security
EPA.........................................................................  Environmental Protection Agency
FR..........................................................................  Federal Register
GC Method...................................................................  Replacement hydrocarbon-gas
                                                                               chromatography method
GMT.........................................................................  Greenwich Mean Time
IMO.........................................................................  International Maritime
                                                                               Organization
IOPP........................................................................  International Oil Pollution
                                                                               Prevention
IR method...................................................................  Freon-infrared spectrophotometer
                                                                               method
ISO.........................................................................  International Organization for
                                                                               Standardization
MARPOL......................................................................  International Convention for the
                                                                               Prevention of Pollution from
                                                                               Ships
MEPC........................................................................  Marine Environment Protection
                                                                               Committee
NARA........................................................................  National Archives and Records
                                                                               Administration
NEPA........................................................................  National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES.......................................................................  National Pollution Discharge
                                                                               Elimination Standards
NPRM........................................................................  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA.......................................................................  National Technology Transfer and
                                                                               Advancement Act
OCIMF.......................................................................  Oil Companies International Marine
                                                                               Forum
OMB.........................................................................  Office of Management and Budget
ORB.........................................................................  Oil Record Book
OWS.........................................................................  Oily-Water Separator
PPM.........................................................................  Parts Per Million
Sec.  ......................................................................  Section symbol
SRM.........................................................................  Standard Reference Material
UL..........................................................................  Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
U.S.C.......................................................................  United States Code
USDA........................................................................  United States Department of
                                                                               Agriculture
 

III. Regulatory History

    On November 3, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Pollution Prevention Equipment'' in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 67066). We received 17 letters containing 80 comments 
on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was 
held.
    On December 15, 2005, we published a correction notice in the 
Federal Register (70 FR 74259). The NPRM, as published, contained the 
phrase ``must be limited'' at two points, once in the preamble and once 
in the regulatory text. We deleted that phrase because it was inserted 
by error and could have confused readers.

IV. Background and Purpose

    This interim rule will implement international standards for oil 
pollution prevention equipment designed for ships and oil tankers. 
These standards address the testing, certification, and approval for 
oil pollution prevention equipment, including discharge monitors, which 
will help prevent oily discharges from a ship into the water.

A. Types of Equipment

    There are two types of equipment involved in this rulemaking that 
deal with oil, water, and other substances that collect in the 
machinery space bilges of ships:
    A bilge separator (also referred to as oily-water separator), is 
designed to produce an effluent from the bilge of ships with oil 
content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less; and
    A bilge alarm is designed to activate an automatic stopping device 
when the oil content concentration exceeds 15 ppm, and thus stop any 
discharge overboard of oily-mixtures with an oil content exceeding 15 
ppm.
    This rulemaking also involves equipment used on tankers to process 
oil-tanker ballast and tank-washing water. The oil discharge monitoring 
and control system (``monitoring system'') monitors the discharge into 
the sea of oily ballast or other oil-contaminated water from the cargo 
tank areas. This monitoring system contains an oil content meter 
(hereinafter ``meter'') that measures the oil content of the effluent 
in ppm.

B. Authority

    The Coast Guard has authority to issue this regulation. Under the 
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Public Law 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 Annex I (Regulations for the 
prevention of pollution by oil) of the International Convention 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, Public Law 98-89, 97 Stat. 500, 504, 522, subtitle II 
of title 46 of the U.S. Code (46 U.S.C.), specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703, 
the Secretary in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to 
issue

[[Page 3366]]

equipment regulations, and related maintenance and training 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).

C. International Standards Being Implemented

    This rulemaking implements revisions to the international oil 
pollution prevention standards for ships in MARPOL Annex I, 
specifically regulations 14, 18, and 31. Under Article 38 of the 
Convention on the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the IMO 
Marine Environment Protection Committee (Committee) is designated to 
consider IMO matters involving the prevention and control of marine 
pollution from ships.
    In 1992, during its 33rd session, the Committee adopted a 
resolution, MEPC.60(33), containing guidelines and specifications for 
pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships. In 
2003, recognizing the advancement of technology since 1992, the 
Committee adopted resolution MEPC.107(49), which contained new 
guidelines and specifications that superseded those adopted in 1992.
    The MEPC.107(49) changed the fluids used to test pollution 
prevention equipment so they would more closely represent the bilge 
wastes encountered on vessels. Emulsified oil in water, surfactants 
(for example, detergents), and other contaminants are typically found 
in bilge water. Under MEPC.107(49), the bilge separator must be capable 
of separating the oil from the emulsion to produce an effluent with an 
oil content not exceeding 15 ppm.
    The MEPC.107(49) also changed the method by which oil content is 
measured in effluent samples during the approval process. Past methods 
permitted the use of ozone-depleting solvents, specifically carbon 
tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113). Both an international treaty and 
United States laws call for phasing out the use of these solvents. See 
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
(``Montreal Protocol''), Sept. 16, 1987, 26 I.L.M. 1550, and Title VI 
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q. Accordingly, MEPC.107(49) 
specifies a different test method that does not use ozone-depleting 
solvents.
    The MEPC.107(49) guidelines and specifications were incorporated 
into Annex I after the 2004 adoption of resolution MEPC.117(52), which 
led to the revision of MARPOL Annex I. On January 1, 2007, the revised 
Annex I came into force. Resolution MEPC.107(49) is incorporated into 
Regulation 14 (Oil filtering equipment) of the revised Annex I.
    Additionally, in 2003, the Committee also adopted resolution 
MEPC.108(49), which revised guidelines and specifications for oil 
discharge monitoring and control systems for oil tankers constructed 
after 2004. These new guidelines and specifications were incorporated 
into Regulations 18 (Segregated Ballast Tanks) and 31 (Oil discharge 
monitoring and control system) of the revised Annex I and apply to oil 
content meters as part of oil discharge monitoring and control systems 
installed on tankers constructed after 2004. Because of revisions to 
MARPOL Annex II, effective January 1, 2007, neither resolution 
MEPC.108(49) nor the resolution it is replacing, A.586(14), are 
referenced in Annex II.
    The new MEPC.108(49) guidelines and specifications call for:
     Only one category of a monitoring system to apply to all 
tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above;
     The monitoring system to be able to record position 
(latitude and longitude) from a vessel-position indicating device, 
allowing more accurate input of speed parameters;
     Greater control of oil mixture discharges by tightening 
the accuracy requirements for both the oil content meter and the 
flowmeter; and
     A more objective specification for identifying crude oils: 
Simply by number and assigned characteristics and parameters--such as 
density, viscosity, and cloud point--rather than geographical 
denominations used in Resolution A.586(14).
    See IMO Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment Report to the 
Maritime Safety Committee, DE 46/32 at 12 & 13 (April 4, 2003).

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    In response to our NPRM, we received a total of 80 comments 
reflected in the 73 issues presented below.

A. Test and Performance

    Commenters raised 18 issues regarding the testing and performance 
of PPE.
    Issue 1: One commenter stated that the paragraph 1.2.15, Shutoff 
test in the Annex to MEPC.108(49) for the oil content meter 
(``meter''), should be renamed the ``Dry Operation While Energized 
Test'' and that to ensure that our regulation achieves its apparent 
purpose--allowing observation of the reaction of a non-lubricated 
meter, the shutoff time should be increased to at least 24 hours.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. The duration of shutoff we 
specify in 46 CFR 162.050-27(k) matches MEPC.108(49): 8 hours. This 
simulates a short period of inactivity of the meter, and thus we 
believe the current title is accurate. Adding 1 to 2 days to this test 
is not necessary. Our shutdown and restart test in 46 CFR 162.050-27(n) 
maintains the existing 1-week shutdown requirement.
    While we did not change the title of the Shutoff test, this and 
other comments demonstrated the need to better align our terms with 
MEPC.108(49) as well as our current pollution certificate requirements 
in 33 CFR part 151, subpart A. In aligning with MEPC.108(49), we have 
removed the term ``cargo monitor'' because it can be interpreted either 
as a oil content meter or oil discharge monitoring and control system 
(``monitoring system''). In 33 CFR part 157, we no longer use ``cargo 
monitor'' to identify the ``monitoring system.'' Also, in 46 CFR part 
162, we have replaced the term ``cargo monitor'' with the term ``oil 
content meter.'' In defining ``oil content meter'', we used the same 
definition for ``cargo monitor'' in the proposed rule, except that we 
removed a reference to a recordkeeping function. To ensure uniformity 
in the CFR parts involved, we made nomenclature changes in some 
sections or paragraphs that were not included in the proposed rule: 
Sec. Sec.  155.380(a) and (b), 157.03 ``clean ballast'' definition 
paragraph (2), 157.11(b)(2)(iii), 157.37(a)(6), (c) and (d), 157.43(a) 
and (b), 162.050-5(a)(8), 162.050-7(i), 162.050-11(a) and (b)(8), and 
162.050-19(a) and (c).
    Issue 2: After discussing the 8-hour shutoff test in paragraph 
2.2.8 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49), which was reflected in Sec.  
162.050-35(e) of our proposed rule, one commenter said that the 46 CFR 
subpart 162.050 test protocol requiring bilge alarms to be shutoff for 
7 days should be retained as the true ``ShutOff'' test.
    Response: The current requirement in Sec.  162.050-35(i), Test No. 
7A , specifies that the bilge alarm be shutoff for 1 week and then 
tested. We have retained this useful 1-week shutoff test in Sec.  
162.050-35(i) of the interim rule and renamed it ``Test No. 8A Shutdown 
and Restart Test.'' We have also retained the 8-hour shutoff test 
appearing in Sec.  162.050-35(e), Test No. 4A Shutoff Test, of the 
proposed rule. We made no changes from the proposed rule based on this 
comment.
    Issue 3: One commenter stated that the ``Calibration and Zero 
Test'',

[[Page 3367]]

paragraph 1.2.5 of the Annex to MEPC.108(49), uses ``calibration'' for 
what we would classify as ``capability,'' and that this test should be 
run as a comparative test with the influent and effluent sampled as the 
cargo monitor (monitoring system) output display is read and recorded. 
The commenter also stated the value of the influent and effluent should 
be within 10 parts per million (ppm) of the cargo monitor 
display at the time of sampling.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees with the commenter. We believe 
that this test constructs a calibration curve up to the maximum 
capability of the equipment. The fact that this test also establishes 
the capability of the unit is secondary to its intended purpose. 
However, this comment has revealed that this testing requirement was 
insufficiently written in the NPRM as it did not specifically mention 
the creation of a calibration curve. The regulatory text in 46 CFR 
162.050-27(b) and (c) has been revised to correct this omission.
    Regarding the 10 ppm comment, this was addressed in 
proposed Sec.  162.050-7(i)(2) (Approval procedures), which we did not 
change in the interim rule.
    Issue 4: One commenter said that the ``Oil Fouling and Calibration 
Shift Test'', paragraph 1.2.9 of the Annex to MEPC.108(49), should be a 
comparative test with the only other requirement being that the 
monitoring system be capable of being cleaned or self-cleaned from the 
influent. The commenter also noted that using the test stand's current 
configuration may allow heavy oil to permeate the fittings on the test 
stand plumbing and cause fluctuations in the influent concentration.
    Response: This comment made us realize that we should have included 
a sentence from MEPC.108(49) in our proposed rule. To correct this 
omission, we have redesignated Sec.  162.050-27(e)(4) as (e)(5) and 
inserted a new paragraph (e)(4) that reads: ``If it is necessary to 
clean the meter after each oil-fouling test for it to return to a zero 
reading, this fact and the time required to clean and recalibrate the 
meter must be noted and recorded in the test report.'' Regarding the 
permeation of heavy oil in the test stand setup, we note this comment, 
but are adhering to MEPC.108(49) test stand specifications. 
Observations such as these should be included in the lab report.
    Issue 5: One commenter suggested revising Sec.  162.050-20(b)(2) to 
include a specific dilution ratio or stating that the amount of water 
added must be accounted for in the volume added under paragraph Sec.  
162.050-20(b)(3).
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees with this suggestion. We 
believe that the overall ratio for fluid C (for the testing of oily 
water separators and bilge alarms) is dictated by paragraph (a)(3) of 
Sec.  162.050-20. In paragraph (b)(2), the proposed regulations call 
for the mixing of the surfactant with water in a ``small container.'' 
We believe that the amount of water needed to make the surfactant 
solution is insignificant compared to the amount of water required for 
paragraph (b)(3). We have amended the regulatory text, however, to 
clarify that the amount of water that may be used to comply with 
paragraph (b)(2) must be the minimum required for the creation of a 
complete surfactant solution.
    Issue 6: One commenter stated that a new paragraph should be added 
near Sec.  162.050-23(a) that bars changing filters, manually cleaning 
filters, or replacing consumable items during or between the tests.
    Response: We agree with the concern expressed by the commenter, but 
note that the existing 46 CFR 162.050-23(a)(11) prohibits maintenance 
of the separator during or between the tests. In the interim rule, this 
paragraph has been redesignated as (a)(10). We made no changes from the 
proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 7: One commenter said that the Coast Guard should consider 
influent concentrations tests of 200 ppm and 1,000 ppm because common 
separator technologies, such as gravity coalescence, generally have an 
easier time separating higher concentrations of oil in water.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. While gravity coalescence may 
demonstrate better performance at the stated concentrations, it would 
be difficult to stipulate optimum concentrations for each method 
without making the test regime overly prescriptive. Therefore, we made 
no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 8: One commenter asked if the concentration stated in Sec.  
162.050-23(b)(1) should be constant throughout Test 1A or vary between 
5,000 and 10,000 ppm. If the concentration should be constant, the 
commenter recommended setting a specific concentration. If not, then 
require that the same user-selected concentration also be used in Test 
1B.
    Response: The recognized lab must select a concentration within a 
range of 5,000 to 10,000 ppm. The selected concentration must remain 
consistent throughout the test. We have made a slight revision in the 
text of Sec.  162.050-23(b)(1) to make this point clearer. The same 
test run for test fluid B could be at a different concentration within 
the same range, but again we have decided to leave this selection to 
the discretion of the test lab.
    Issue 9: One commenter stated that calibration and zeroing should 
be allowed only at the onset of the bilge alarm tests if the 
manufacturer recommends it.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. We revised Sec.  162.050-35(b)(3) 
to remove the calibration and re-zeroing requirement between tests. 
This requirement should not have been included in the proposed rule.
    Issue 10: One commenter said that a new paragraph (a)(4) should be 
added to Sec.  162.050-35 and read as follows: ``No maintenance, 
including replacement of parts, may be performed on a bilge alarm 
during or between the tests described in this section.'' The commenter 
also added that because this applies to separator approval tests, it 
should apply to bilge alarms too.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees with the need for a revision, but 
we have revised a different paragraph. We added a sentence--``No 
maintenance, including replacement of parts, may be performed on a 
meter during or between the tests described in this section.''--to 
Sec.  162.050-27(a)(1). These requirements must be complied with for 
bilge alarm approval tests under a new Sec.  162.050-35(a)(1).
    Issue 11: One commenter suggested adding new steps in the 
calibration and zero test between paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) in Sec.  
162.050-35 to ensure the bilge alarm makes the correct decision of 
allowing or disallowing overboard discharge. Another commenter 
recommended adding new steps in the calibration and zero drift test 
between paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) in Sec.  162.050-35 to ensure the 
bilge alarm makes the correct decision of allowing or disallowing 
overboard discharge.
    Response: In both cases, the Coast Guard disagrees. Tests for the 
concentration that triggers the alarm and how long the alarm takes to 
be triggered are already contained in Sec.  162.050-35(d) (ppm level 
sample pressure or flow test) and (h) (response time test). The results 
of these two tests will indicate whether the bilge alarm activates an 
automatic stopping device when it should and thus stop the discharge 
overboard of oily mixtures with an oil content exceeding 15 ppm. 
Therefore, we did not make the requested changes.
    Issue 12: One commenter stated that the pass/fail criteria for the 
test in Sec.  162.050-35(c) is unclear.
    Response: The criteria for approval of a bilge alarm for 
certification are contained in 46 CFR 162.050-7(j) and

[[Page 3368]]

include an accuracy standard of 15 ppm 5 ppm. We made no 
changes based on this comment.
    Issue 13: One commenter recommended testing the bilge alarm at the 
minimum and maximum design pressure or flow rate instead of one half 
and at twice the maximum design pressure or flow rate. They stated 
testing the bilge alarm at twice the maximum design pressure does not 
provide useful information and may damage the unit.
    Response: While the recommendation appears to provide a sound 
alternative, we have maintained the current language of Sec.  162.050-
35(d) because it is consistent with paragraph 2.2.7 of the Annex for 
MEPC.107(49). Further, this test has been used internationally for 
several years, and we are not aware of any bilge alarms damaged by this 
test. We made no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 14: One commenter asked if the purpose of the last phase of 
Test No. 6A in proposed Sec.  162.050-35(g)(3) was to collect samples 
of clean water. If not, then the procedure requires clarification.
    Response: The purpose of this last phase is not to collect samples 
of clean water. To provide clarification, we have revised paragraph 
(g)(3) to better align it with paragraph 2.2.10 of the Annex to 
MEPC.107(49).
    Issue 15: One commenter recommended adding language to start Test 
No. 7A in Sec.  162.050-35(h) with a 0 ppm injection until the bilge 
alarm stabilizes and diverts flow ``overboard,'' followed by the 40 ppm 
injection. Furthermore, the commenter stated if you start at 40 ppm, 
the actuation point for the alarm may not be observed.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. We believe that the 
requirement in the preceding test in Sec.  162.050-35(g)(3) 
accomplishes the initial conditions the commenter seeks by adding a 0 
ppm injection in Sec.  162.050-35(h) for Test No. 7A and, as specified 
in Sec.  162.050-35(a), these tests must be performed in sequence. We 
made no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 16: One commenter said that Test No. 6A in Sec.  162.050-
35(g) should be titled ``Calibration and Zero Drift Test'' to 
distinguish it from Test No. 1A in the same section.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. We have revised the test name to 
``Test No. 6A Calibration and Zero Drift Test.''
    Issue 17: One commenter stated that the lab representative 
conducting the test should verify and state on the test report all 
parameters of the testing, including the test's start and end time. The 
report should include verification and documentation that all test 
fluids were in conformity with those specified and that test fluid C 
was a ``stable'' emulsion. This should apply to the tests for both the 
monitoring system and the separator. Any unit submitted without testing 
all three fluids concurrently should be rejected.
    Response: The Coast Guard believes that the information currently 
required in test reports by 46 CFR 162.050-9 is sufficient for a 
determination of whether MEPC PPE standards have been met. We also 
believe that the regulations, as proposed and adopted in this interim 
rule, are clear that the three test fluids should be tested for both 
the separator and bilge alarm, in order, and as one continual series of 
tests, without pause, as far as practicable. We made no changes based 
on this comment.
    Issue 18: One commenter said that the 15 ppm bilge alarm device 
functions as a key component in the overall performance of the 
separating equipment. Therefore, these 15 ppm bilge alarm devices 
should also be included in the separator testing procedure so the 
accuracy can be measured against the chemical analysis of the clean 
water discharge.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees that all bilge alarms should 
always be tested with separators, however, separators with integral 
bilge alarms should be tested as one unit. Therefore, we have added new 
paragraph Sec.  162.050-23(a)(13) stating: ``If a separator has an 
integral bilge alarm, the separator must be tested with the bilge alarm 
installed.''

B. Measurement of Oil Content

    Commenters raised eight issues regarding the measurement of oil 
content.
    Issue 19: One commenter suggested eliminating Sec.  162.050-39(b) 
to better conform with IMO resolutions MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49) 
because the infrared spectrophotometer assay mentioned in that 
paragraph is not permitted in the current IMO regulations. The 
commenter also believes the reagent used in the infrared 
spectrophotometer assay is no longer available in its pure, unused 
form.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. We do not believe that any 
laboratories would benefit from a phasing-out of the test permitted 
under Sec.  162.050-39(b). Therefore, this paragraph has been removed 
consistent with our stated goal of eliminating the use of ozone-
depleting reagents required by the test in Sec.  162.050-39(b).
    Issue 20: One commenter asked if the Coast Guard knows the ``error 
bar'' for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 
method given the different ways it may be performed. The commenter 
suggested adding the error bar to the 15 ppm value so as not to 
preclude a separator whose ``real'' performance is 15 ppm or less. 
Another commenter stated the Coast Guard should ensure that the 
replacement hydrocarbon-gas chromatography (GC) method provides results 
comparable to the freon-infrared spectrophotometer (IR) method, and 
apply an adjustment factor to the ISO results if warranted.
    One commenter said that the MEPC requires the use of ISO 9377-2 to 
determine oil content of separator and bilge alarm samples. The 
commenter recommended that the Coast Guard use EPA's Method 1664A as 
the method of verification. If the ISO method is still the chosen 
method, the commenter recommended that Sec.  162.050-39 reference the 
petroleum hydrocarbon extraction method used in 40 CFR part 136 to 
maintain consistent results.
    Response: The Coast Guard does not have an ``error bar'' for the 
ISO 9377-2 method. We believe that conducting a comparison test of the 
GC method with the IR method is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
However, we welcome the results of any such comparison. Should 
verifiable results show an adjustment factor is needed, the Coast Guard 
would request that the United States bring this to the attention of the 
IMO for consideration of amendments to MEPC.107(49). We made no changes 
in response to this comment.
    Issue 21: One commenter said the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) Method 8015M should be used instead of the ISO 9377-2 method. The 
commenter stated the EPA method more closely represents the method that 
should be used, but understands ISO 9377-2 is an international standard 
and that the use of one nation's method might not be as universally 
accepted.
    Response: At this point, the Coast Guard does not have enough data 
to ensure the EPA method is equivalent. It is our desire to remain 
consistent with the IMO resolution. However, if a designated lab or 
manufacturer desires to use the EPA method in lieu of ISO 9377-2, they 
must show that it delivers equivalent results. Under 46 CFR 159.001-7, 
if an alternative method produces equivalent or better performance, we 
may accept oil-in-water analysis results based on that method. We made 
no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 22: One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard have 
discussions with the EPA regarding changes to ISO 9377-2 because 40 CFR 
part 136 calls for the use of Method 1664A to report oil, grease, and

[[Page 3369]]

petroleum hydrocarbons under National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
Standards (NPDES) permits.
    Response: The United States has a responsibility to implement 
MARPOL Annex I as revised. This includes issuing regulations for 
approving oil pollution prevention equipment for vessels covered by 
MARPOL Annex I. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Coast Guard 
believes maintaining consistency with the IMO resolution is the best 
approach. Therefore, we made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 23: One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard use EPA 
Method 1664 for hardware approval until the implications of using 
different measurement techniques for hardware approval and enforcement 
are resolved.
    Response: As a Party to MARPOL Annex I, we have an obligation to 
implement the revised Annex. The Coast Guard believes that maintaining 
consistency with the IMO resolution is the best way to meet that 
obligation. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 24: One commenter stated that the NPRM language should 
facilitate inclusion of alternate methods in the future. The commenter 
offered to work with the Coast Guard in defining a method that falls 
within the guidelines of ISO 9377-2, but is more specific.
    Response: The Coast Guard currently has the regulatory authority to 
allow the use of alternative methods that demonstrate equivalent 
performance characteristics, under 46 CFR 159.007-1 and 159.005-7. 
Therefore, if a designated lab or manufacturer demonstrates an 
alternative method with equal or better oil-in-water analysis, then 
that analysis may be proposed in the lab's application to the Coast 
Guard for further consideration. We made no changes from the proposed 
rule in response to this comment.
    Issue 25: One commenter asked if Sec.  162.050-7(h)(2) means a 15 
ppm separator will fail to receive Coast Guard approval if one or more 
samples are greater than 15 ppm as measured by ISO 9377-2. The 
commenter believes that an approved separator should pass the 15 ppm 
limit test for all conditions including emulsions since an emulsion is 
a key aspect of the MEPC.107(49) test.
    Response: The commenter's interpretation is correct. The only 
difference from the existing text is that we have eliminated the words 
``In the case of a 15 ppm separator'' because this distinction is no 
longer necessary. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 26: The EPA suggested that we establish a reasonable, but 
specific date for discontinuation of the IR assay.
    Response: As noted above, the Coast Guard removed Sec.  162.050-
39(b) from the rule. That paragraph would have permitted the continued 
use of IR assays, in place of the ISO 9377-2 GC method, so long as 
reagents for the IR assay remained available. By removing paragraph 
(b), we eliminated an inconsistency between our proposed rule and the 
revised MARPOL Annex I.

C. Calibration

    Commenters raised 10 issues regarding calibration.
    Issue 27: One commenter stated that the NPRM does not include 
procedures for sealing, breaking, and re-sealing oil content meter 
seals and recommended identifying procedures and personnel authorized 
to perform such tasks.
    Response: As indicated in proposed 33 CFR 157.12c, a manufacturer's 
representative should conduct the breaking of meter seals during 
calibration and repair work. The procedures for routine maintenance and 
troubleshooting must be clearly defined in the Operating and 
Maintenance Manual and such work must be recorded. We made no changes 
in response to this comment.
    Issue 28: One commenter stated that there are no valid reasons to 
restrict access to all basic meter check-and-test features. The 
commenter said that imposing these limitations would most likely lead 
to an unacceptable level of equipment operational disruptions in cases 
where simple testing/adjusting (re-zeroing) would rectify minor 
problems. The commenter recommended aligning with MEPC.107(49) on this 
issue.
    Response: On December 15, 2005, we corrected the language in 
proposed 33 CFR 157.12c(e) (see 70 FR 74259), and we have since revised 
the language in 46 CFR 162.050-33(f) so both better align with the MEPC 
resolutions. Access for re-zeroing the instrument, checking for 
instrument drift, and checking the repeatability of the instrument 
reading will not be limited or require the breaking of a seal. But also 
consistent with the MEPC resolutions, 33 CFR 157.12c(a) and 46 CFR 
162.050-33(f) specify that access beyond these controls would require 
the braking of a seal of activation of another device which indicates 
an entry to the equipment.
    Issue 29: A commenter found the requirement in paragraph 4.2.5 of 
MEPC.107(49) that ``[i]t should not be necessary to calibrate the 15 
ppm Bilge Alarm on board ship'' confusing and challenging because the 
calibration requires traceability, recordkeeping, expiration dates, due 
dates, and the use of calibration standards that effectively 
demonstrate traceability.
    Response: The Coast Guard believes that paragraph 4.2.5 ensures 
that the reliability of the bilge alarm is tested and requires that the 
bilge alarm should be installed on the vessel in a calibrated 
condition. This paragraph also allows for onboard checking of the 
calibration per the manufacturer's instructions which, in 46 CFR 
162.050-5(a)(6), we require to be submitted as part of the 
manufacturer's application for approval of a bilge alarm. In 46 CFR 
162.050-35(b), we specify that the bilge alarm must be calibrated and 
zeroed using the manufacturer's instructions.
    While we have made no changes based on this comment, as noted in 
our response below to Issue 36, we have added paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 
155.380. That paragraph requires a check of the equipment during the 
International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate surveys. This 
calibration certificate must be retained onboard. We made no changes 
based on this comment.
    Issue 30: One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should require 
action if a bilge alarm fails an onboard calibration test.
    Response: This rulemaking incorporates the MEPC.107(49) changes 
relating to equipment design and testing. We feel that changing the 
current regulation to address equipment performance after installation 
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, we believe that the 
current IOPP survey regime assures the proper operation of the 
equipment prior to issuance/endorsement of the certificate. Basically, 
if an installed bilge alarm fails to calibrate, then the vessel would 
no longer be in compliance with MARPOL IOPP requirements. We made no 
changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 31: One commenter stated that the regulation should address 
how drift repeatability and re-zeroing affect calibration.
    Response: We believe that the full suite of tests, as prescribed, 
will give a good indication of the equipment's ability to maintain 
accuracy. In addition to the readings from the instrument, samples are 
taken and analyzed. Any variance between the reading and the sample 
concentration would be noted in the report. We made no changes in 
response to this comment.
    Issue 32: Citing industry norms that calibration intervals never 
extend beyond 2 years, one commenter said that calibration intervals 
for bilge alarms should be no more than 2 years.

[[Page 3370]]

    Response: Currently, under 33 CFR 151.17, the Coast Guard requires 
that PPE remains in satisfactory condition for the service intended and 
is checked during the annual IOPP surveys. We made no changes in 
response to this comment.
    Issue 33: One commenter stated that the calibration test for bilge 
alarms in paragraph 2.2.5 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49), implemented 
through 46 CFR 162.050-35, should be adjusted so that a highly accurate 
and traceable input is used or renamed for what it is really doing--
determining the stability of the meter and its sensors against varying 
oil types.
    Response: The Coast Guard does not believe that a change is 
necessary. This test ensures the proper calibration of the bilge alarm 
using all three test fluids. We do not see a need to alter the name of 
the test.
    Issue 34: One commenter stated that the proposed rule seems to 
shift the burden of calibration from shipboard operations to the 
manufacturer. Furthermore, the commenter stated that there should be a 
recognized standard for calibration because there must be a calibration 
process used by mariners operating meters and separators.
    Response: Resolution MEPC.107(49) does not dictate a specific 
calibration standard. Furthermore, the Coast Guard believes that the 
calibration is for the meter only and not the main body of electronics 
to interpret the signal from the meter. The standard of calibration of 
the instrument (not the sensor) will be at the discretion of the third 
party the ship owner uses. We made no changes in response to this 
comment.
    Issue 35: One commenter believes that the following wording in 
proposed 46 CFR 162.050-33 is unclear and somewhat contradictory to 
MEPC.107(49): ``calibrating the bilge alarm must not be necessary once 
installed on board the vessel, however, on board testing in accordance 
with manufacturer's instruction is permitted.''
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. We have revised this portion of 
Sec.  162.050-33(d) to read: ``calibrating the bilge alarm must not be 
necessary once installed onboard the vessel; however, onboard testing 
in accordance with the manufacturer's operating instructions is 
permitted for the purposes of checking instrument drift and 
repeatability of the instrument reading, as well as the ability to re-
zero the instrument.''
    Issue 36: One commenter said that the same statement, ``calibrating 
the bilge alarm must not be necessary once installed on board the 
vessel,'' must be clarified to reflect that calibration may be 
performed by the manufacturer or qualified personnel at an onshore 
facility.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. We have added paragraph (d) to 33 
CFR 155.380 to implement the requirements of MEPC.107(49) paragraph 
4.2.11. This change will restrict calibration checks to the 
manufacturer or persons authorized by the manufacturer. It would be up 
to the manufacturer to prescribe where the calibration check may be 
conducted.

D. Training

    Commenters raised one issue regarding training.
    Issue 37: One commenter stated that the Coast Guard (and IMO) must 
ensure that new separating equipment is thoroughly field tested, 
standardized, and properly supported by mandatory ``factory'' training 
for any person expected to use it. Another commenter requested amending 
the final rule to mandate formal safety and vocational training in 
equipment operation and maintenance.
    Response: The purpose and scope of this rulemaking is to issue PPE 
design, installation, and testing regulations that implement the 
revised MARPOL Annex I. The Coast Guard believes this interim rule 
achieves that goal. For clarification, however, we are adding 
paragraphs (e) and (f) to 33 CFR 155.380 regarding training and 
maintenance, respectively.

E. Operating Requirements

    Commenters raised seven issues regarding operating requirements.
    Issue 38: Regarding proposed 46 CFR 162.050-23(d), one commenter 
stated that the clean effluent line of the separator should be at least 
90 percent of the influent flow rate for purposes of emulsion breaking.
    Response: We disagree. This recommendation would require our 
regulations to be more prescriptive than our performance-based standard 
from paragraph 1.2.11.1 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49) of feeding a 
mixture to the separator composed of 6 percent Test Fluid C and 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. We made no changes based on this comment.
    Issue 39: Two commenters suggested adding a new paragraph to 
address the minimum service life for which bilge alarms should be 
designed. These commenters also raised material compatibility issues. 
They stated that the equipment should be suitable for seawater service, 
and compatible with oil, fuel, and bilge contaminants such as 
surfactants and particulates.
    Response: We do not believe that it is within the scope of this 
rulemaking to require manufacturers to state the minimum service life 
of their product. Furthermore, the IMO resolutions do not address 
service life. As for the material compatibility issues, we believe that 
these are addressed in the plan review process specified in existing 46 
CFR 162.050-5(a)(4), which requires the submittal of arrangement plans 
and piping diagrams in accordance with the requirements of 46 CFR 
56.01-10(d). We made no changes based on these comments.
    Issue 40: Responding to proposed 46 CFR 162.050-33, one commenter 
suggested adding a new paragraph to incorporate fail-safe design 
requirements for bilge-alarm systems. Specifically, they would require: 
(1) The bilge alarm to provide a control signal for the ``overboard 
discharge control device''; (2) at least four consecutive bilge-alarm 
measurements must be below the alarm set-point before sending the 
control signal to allow overboard discharge; and (3) when the bilge 
alarm cannot obtain a reading due to interference or other causes, this 
must be considered a reading above the alarm set-point as it relates to 
No. (2).
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees as this suggested change is not 
in line with the requirements of MEPC.107(49) which are sufficiently 
designed to stop the discharge overboard of oily-mixtures with an oil 
content exceeding 15 ppm. We made no changes in response to this 
comment.
    Issue 41: One commenter recommended adding a new paragraph (c)(3) 
in Sec.  162.050-33 to describe a specific condition that would require 
the bilge alarm to produce a warning signal and a signal to actuate 
stop valves when ``the concentration of interferences in the sample 
(e.g., emulsions, solids, color, air, bulk oil, etc.) may affect the 
bilge-alarm measurements.'' Additionally, the commenter stated that 
interferences in the sample may cause erroneous bilge alarm 
measurements, thus resulting in an inadvertent overboard discharge of 
oily waste.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter's intent, we feel that 
this situation has been covered by Sec.  162.050-33(c), which calls for 
stop valves to be activated when the oil content of the mixture 
measured exceeds 15 ppm or the bilge alarm malfunctions, breaks down, 
or otherwise fails to operate properly. Further, the proposed and 
adopted testing scheme includes tests for emulsions and solids. We made 
no changes in response to this comment.

[[Page 3371]]

    Issue 42: Regarding 46 CFR 162.050-33(h), one commenter requested a 
definition of ``operating status.'' Additionally, the commenter 
wondered if ``operating status'' includes recording if the separator is 
on/off or in manual/automatic mode. Finally, the commenter also asked 
about the recording of separator valve positions and alarm conditions.
    Response: Resolution MEPC.107(49) does not define operating status, 
however, a separator would likely have few operating conditions. These 
would include ``manual'' or ``automatic'' modes, ``off,'' and a 
cleaning or water-only flush cycle.
    The bilge alarm must record when an alarm occurred, i.e., the 
``alarm condition,'' with the date and time. While the resolution does 
not state that the ppm at the time the alarm occurred must be recorded, 
anything over 15 ppm should be prevented from going overboard. Neither 
the IMO resolutions nor Coast Guard regulations address the recording 
of valve positions; however, the option may be provided by 
manufacturers. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 43: One commenter stated that there should be specifications 
mandating that the separators operate ``essentially'' unattended even 
in manned engine rooms.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and have amended 
46 CFR 162.050-21(e) to align with MEPC.107(49) by removing reference 
to ``unattended machinery space.''
    Issue 44: One commenter stated that separators should be required 
to start in the recirculation mode before entering a filtering phase.
    Response: We believe that this change is too divergent from 
MEPC.107(49). Operationally, we believe that it is the function of the 
bilge alarm to cause the recirculation of the separator effluent. We do 
not believe that an additional recirculation stage is necessary. We 
made no changes in response to this comment.

F. Simulated Shipborne Environment

    Commenters raised four issues regarding the simulated shipborne 
environment.
    Issue 45: One commenter asked why the Coast Guard's vibration test 
specification, which appears in Sec.  162.050-37, is not fully aligned 
with the IMO specification. The commenter stated that the second 2-hour 
period of endurance is unlikely to show much more than the first 
period. The commenter also believed maintaining a different standard 
than the IMO standard will cause continued confusion among 
manufacturers.
    Response: We agree. We revised paragraphs (b) and (c) of 46 CFR 
162.050-37 to align them with identical vibration tests in paragraph 
3.2.2.1 of the Annex for MEPC.107(49) and paragraph 2.2.1.1 of the 
Annex for MEPC.108(49).
    Issue 46: We received two comments stating that the proposed 
standards do not require that a separator be capable of operating while 
a vessel is underway and subject to vessel pitching, rolling, and 
vertical and horizontal ``G'' forces.
    Response: The equipment is subjected to environmental testing 
designed to simulate the shipboard environment. Based on the proven 
abilities of the current approved separators to operate in a dynamic 
marine environment, we do not propose to require dynamic motion testing 
while operating the separators for the purposes of certification. We 
made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 47: One commenter recommended that we conduct incline 
experiments for all three test fluids.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. We believe that the intent of 
the environmental testing portions of the IMO resolutions ensures the 
electrical and electronic sections of the equipment are capable of 
operating under the test conditions. Therefore, requiring this test to 
be conducted with all three fluids is excessive and not in line with 
the intent of the requirements. We made no changes based on this 
comment.
    Issue 48: One commenter said that the Coast Guard should provide a 
list of fluids to conduct exposure tests.
    Response: We disagree. Paragraph (d) of 46 CFR 162.050-21 requires 
compliance with 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter F--Marine Engineering, as 
applicable. Also the material specifications of the separator will be 
considered during plan review. We made no changes in response to this 
comment.

G. Operating Manual

    Commenters raised two issues regarding the operating manual.
     Issue 49: One commenter stated that the separator instruction 
booklet should be carefully written in easily-understood English.
    Response: We agree. We have added an express requirement in Sec.  
162.050-5(a)(6) that the manual must be easily understood. We also 
adopted the naming convention of MEPC.107(49) and identified the manual 
as the ``operating and maintenance manual.''
     Issue 50: One commenter stated that the operations manual should 
provide guidance on failure-logging of separators and guidance on 
obtaining system improvements.
    Response: We disagree. We believe that our revision of requirements 
for manuals in Sec.  162.050-5(a)(6) is consistent with MEPC.107(49). 
We made no changes in response to this comment.

H. Applicability

    Commenters raised two issues regarding applicability.
     Issue 51: One commenter stated that the proposed regulation's 
applicability should be clearly addressed. Another commenter asked if 
the current bilge separators approved under MEPC.107(49) will remain 
``approved'' after the new rule is adopted. And if that is the case, 
will there be different categories of approval (e.g., MEPC.107(49), 
MEPC.60(33), 46 CFR subpart 162.050). Another commenter asked if we 
intended for the rule changes to take effect upon acceptance of the 
rule or at a later date.
    Response: Most sections of this interim rule will become effective 
March 17, 2009. The revised MARPOL Annex I became effective 
internationally January 1, 2007. Paragraph 1.3.1 of resolution 
MEPC.107(49), which was incorporated into the revised MARPOL Annex I 
Regulation 14, makes the resolution applicable to ships built on or 
after January 1, 2005, and to ships that install new PPE on or after 
January 1, 2005. This aspect of the revised Annex I was not reflected 
in our proposed rule. To implement these incorporated requirements, we 
have added three paragraphs--33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 
155.370(a)(4)--to the interim rule requiring vessels built on or after 
January 1, 2005, and vessels that install new PPE on or after January 
1, 2005, to meet the new PPE requirements. We are delaying the 
effective date of those paragraphs, so that we may seek your comments 
on them before making them effective. Based on your comments, we may 
revise these paragraphs before making them effective in a final rule.
    Since publishing a notice of policy in December 2003 acknowledging 
the new MARPOL guidelines (68 FR 75603, December 31, 2003), we have 
approved some systems from PPE manufacturers who, in anticipation of 
the new MARPOL guidelines, sought Coast Guard approval under testing 
standards other than those in the current 46 CFR subpart 162.050. As 
the 2003 notice stated, the Coast Guard may, in its discretion, 
determine whether alternative standards ensured equivalent performance 
characteristics.

[[Page 3372]]

    Systems approved under MEPC.60(33) that were installed before 
January 1, 2005, on vessels built before January 1, 2005, and are still 
in good working order will not be affected by this rule. Systems 
approved before the effective date of this rule using resolution 
MEPC.107(49) guidelines will remain approved. For any systems approved 
to a standard other than MEPC.107(49) after January 1, 2005, but before 
March 17, 2009, the approval will expire March 17, 2009.
     Issue 52: One commenter stated that, if adopted, the new rules 
would apply to U.S.-flag ships only and recommended developing a 
requirement for identification of equipment built, tested, and 
certified for U.S.-flag vessels or alternatively adopt IMO standards in 
its entirety.
    Response: We disagree. Current regulations in 33 CFR 155.380 
stipulate compliance with 46 CFR 162.050 requirements for all U.S.-flag 
inspected vessels. Uninspected U.S.-flag vessels and foreign-flag 
vessels may either comply with 46 CFR 162.050 or MARPOL Annex I. (See 
discussion of Sec.  155.380(b) in the Changes from Proposed Rule 
section below.) The identification of equipment built, tested, and 
certified for U.S.-flag vessels, is currently required by 46 CFR 
162.050-11, Marking. We have not changed these current requirements.

I. PPE Alternatives

    Commenters raised one issue regarding PPE alternatives.
     Issue 53: One commenter requested that the Coast Guard consider 
properly designed and engineered holding tanks as a regulatory 
alternative to installing separator equipment that is unreliable and 
difficult to maintain on small vessels manned by lower-level mariners.
    Response: This rulemaking implements PPE design and performance 
guidelines and standards in MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49), and does not 
change which vessels must have PPE. Subpart B of 33 CFR part 155 and 
Regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex I dictate that ships of 400 gross tons or 
more must be fitted with PPE.
    Our regulations require holding tanks on oceangoing ships over 400 
gross tons in certain situations (see 33 CFR 155.360(b) and (c), and 33 
CFR 155.370(b) and (c)), in addition to requiring the installation of 
approved PPE. We made no changes from the proposed rule based on this 
comment.

J. Data Recording

    Commenters raised three issues regarding data recording.
    Issue 54: One commenter asked if a vessel's speed and position-data 
requirement include the bilge alarm as well as the oil-discharge 
monitoring system.
    Response: Neither the MEPC resolutions nor our proposed rules 
contain a requirement for bilge alarms to record the vessel speed and 
position. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 55: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not 
prevent overriding data inputs for failed equipment.
    Response: This rule may only discourage, not prevent, overriding 
data inputs. However, those who tamper with the system will leave 
evidence in the form of broken seals on the bilge alarm. We made no 
changes based on this comment.
    Issue 56: One commenter stated that a recording interval for bilge 
alarms is not specified in Sec.  162.050-33(h). The commenter also 
wanted to know if our intent for bilge-alarm recording intervals is the 
same as in Sec.  157.12d(h)(3) for oil content meters.
    Response: Where the meter has a stated 10-minute interval, there is 
no required interval for the bilge alarm to print, display, or save a 
particular piece of information. The bilge alarm is merely required to 
save alarm events and operational status with a date and time stamp. 
The recorded information aids regulatory agencies in correlating 
separator-related entries in the oil record book. We made no changes 
from the proposed rule in response to this comment.

K. Test Rig

    Commenters raised four issues regarding test rigs.
    Issue 57: One commenter stated that the 30[deg] chisel-edged 
chamfer in figure 162.050-17(d), Sample Point, should be around the 
outside perimeter instead of the inside perimeter of the sampler inlet 
to minimize disturbance of the sampling flow and to be consistent with 
MEPC.107(49).
    Response: We agree and have corrected the chamfer illustrated in 
Figure 162.050-17(d).
    Issue 58: One commenter recommended requiring the use of a syringe 
pump with a screw-type driver in place of the buret for oil injection 
at low concentrations to avoid pulsations of oil injections.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. Our figure at 46 CFR 162.050-
19 and MEPC.107(49) figure 5 stipulate ``burets and metering pumps for 
injecting known oil ppm's and high oil tr