MARPOL Annex I Amendments, 5922-5938 [2015-01925]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5922-5938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01925]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 156, and 157

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0194]
RIN 1625-AB57


MARPOL Annex I Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule the Coast Guard is updating our regulations 
to harmonize U.S. regulations with international conventions regarding 
oil pollution. We are amending the regulations covering Title 33: 
Navigation and Navigable Waters to align with recent amendments to 
Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 
from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, which were 
adopted by the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment 
Protection Committee during its 52nd, 54th, 55th, and 59th sessions. 
This final rule also amends sections of the Vessel Response Plan 
regulations to include the Safety of Life at Sea Material Safety Data 
Sheets as an equivalent hazardous communications standard.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 5, 2015. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on May 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2010-0194 and are available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to https://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2010-0194 in the ``Search'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email LCDR William Nabach, Office of Operating and 
Environmental Standards (CG-OES-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1386, email William.A.Nabach@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing 
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket 
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Background
    A. MARPOL 73/78
    B. SOLAS 1974
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. STS Operations
    B. Oil Record Book
    C. SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets
    D. Other Issues Raised in Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Collection of Information
COTP Captain of the Port
FR Federal Register
GHS Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of 
Chemicals
HCS Hazard Communication Standard
IMO International Maritime Organization
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating to that Convention
MSC IMO Maritime Safety Committee
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
POAC Person in Overall Advisory Control
PSC Port state control
Sec.  Section symbol
SDS Safety Data Sheets
SOLAS 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 
1974
STBL Ship to be Lightered
SS Service Ship
STS Ship-to-Ship transfer
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    On April 9, 2012, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled MARPOL Annex I Amendments in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 21360). The Coast Guard also published a notice on July 
26, 2012 (77 FR 43741) extending the public comment period for an 
additional 60 days so that the public had time to review the Regulatory 
Assessment that was added to the docket shortly after the NPRM was 
published.
    We received 12 comment letters with 31 discrete comments on the 
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

III. Background

    Protection of the marine environment and maritime safety are two of 
the primary missions of the Coast Guard. Specific Coast Guard 
regulations are designed to minimize the amount of pollution produced 
by ships at sea and to protect mariners. Many of the Coast

[[Page 5923]]

Guard's pollution control regulations implement 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). Similarly, many mariner safety regulations incorporate 
provisions from the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
Sea, as amended (SOLAS 1974), to which the U.S. is also a signatory 
nation.

A. MARPOL 73/78

    MARPOL 73/78 is an international agreement prepared under the 
direction of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United 
Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and 
security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. 
It is the main international convention covering prevention of 
pollution of the marine environment by ships from either operational or 
accidental causes.
    MARPOL 73/78 is a combination of two international agreements 
adopted in 1973 and 1978 and revised by subsequent amendments. The 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 
adopted on November 2, 1973 (1973 Convention), covered pollution by 
oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, and 
garbage. The Protocol of 1978, which amended the 1973 Convention, was 
adopted in February 1978, in response to a spate of tanker accidents 
that occurred in 1976 and 1977. MARPOL 73/78 entered into force on 
October 2, 1983. Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, Regulations for the 
Prevention of Pollution by Oil (Annex I) contains provisions intended 
to minimize both operational and accidental oil pollution from vessels.
    Annex I is implemented in U.S. law through the Act to Prevent 
Pollution from Ships (APPS) (Pub. L. 96-478, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 
2297), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Under 33 U.S.C. 1902, 1903, 
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast 
Guard has the authority to draft regulations to implement the MARPOL 
73/78 and the amendments thereunder, with respect to U.S. vessels and 
foreign vessels within U.S. navigable waters or exclusive economic 
zone. The Coast Guard implements MARPOL 73/78 through regulations in 33 
CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157.
    Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 are made through the resolution drafting 
and adoption process within the Marine Environment Protection Committee 
(MEPC) of IMO. The United States takes part in revising and updating 
MARPOL 73/78 by sending delegates to MEPC. These delegates negotiate 
with delegates of other signatory nations to support the U.S. position 
regarding pollution from ships.
    Since the last revision of Coast Guard regulations implementing 
Annex I in 2001, (66 FR 55571), there have been numerous amendments to 
the international standards. This means that the Coast Guard 
regulations in the CFR and the provisions of Annex I are not currently 
aligned. The MEPC revised Annex I in the following resolutions:
     MEPC.117(52) (October 15, 2004): This resolution revised 
all of Annex I and adopted new Annex I Regulations 22 and 23. 
Regulation 22 requires that every tanker of 5,000 deadweight tons or 
more, constructed on or after January 1, 2007, meet minimum standards 
of pump-room bottom protection, while Regulation 23 requires that every 
tanker delivered on or after January 1, 2010, must meet the standard 
for accidental oil outflow performance. MEPC.117(52) became effective 
January 1, 2007.
     MEPC.141(54) (March 24, 2006): This resolution adopted 
Annex I Regulation 12A, which contains requirements for the protected 
location of oil fuel tanks and performance standards for accidental oil 
fuel outflow for all ships delivered on or after August 1, 2010. This 
resolution became effective August 1, 2007.
     MEPC.154(55) (October 13, 2006): In this resolution, the 
MEPC adopted the Southern South African Waters as a special area, which 
prohibits the discharge of bilge water and oil in the defined area. 
This resolution entered into force on March 4, 2008.
     MEPC.186(59) (July 17, 2009): This resolution adopted a 
new Chapter 8 (consisting of Regulations 40, 41, and 42) to Annex I to 
prevent pollution during transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers at 
sea. In addition, it added a requirement for a Ship-to-Ship transfer 
(STS) operations plan. This entered into force on January 1, 2011, and 
applies to STS Operations in which at least one of the involved oil 
tankers is of 150 gross tons or more.
     MEPC.187(59) (July 17, 2009): This resolution amended 
Annex I Regulations 1, 12, 13, 17, and 38 by altering definitions 
relating to oil residue, and by adding requirements to Regulation 12 
that ships over 400 gross tons contain sludge tanks that meet certain 
specifications. It also amended International Oil Pollution Prevention 
Certificate Forms A and B to include a section regarding the means for 
retention and disposal of oil residues, and added new recordkeeping 
requirements prescribing entries in the Oil Record Book for bunkering 
of fuel or bulk lubricating oil or any failure of oil filtering 
equipment. This resolution entered into force on January 1, 2011.
    With this final rule, and as required by the APPS, the Coast Guard 
aligns our regulations in 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 with 
international standards in Annex I regarding oil pollution from ships. 
Aligning the U.S. domestic regulations with international standards 
decreases the risk that U.S. vessels will be subject to Port State 
Control (PSC) enforcement measures while engaged in international 
trade.
    On August 27, 2007, we published a notice (72 FR 49013), announcing 
our policy for resolving conflicts between our regulations and the 
Annex I amendments. The policy remains in effect via 33 U.S.C. 1903 
until our regulations are aligned with the amendments to MARPOL 73/78. 
Our goal in this rulemaking is to align the regulations in the CFR with 
those in Annex I, and thus promote consistent and homogenous 
enforcement of Annex I through revisions to 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, 
and 157.

B. SOLAS 1974

    In addition to revisions to MARPOL 73/78, we have not yet 
integrated some revisions to the SOLAS 1974 agreement into 46 CFR part 
197. The Coast Guard represents the United States as a signatory nation 
of SOLAS 1974, which specifies standards for the safe operation of 
ships at sea. Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, 46 U.S.C. 3703, and Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard has authority 
to prescribe necessary rules and regulations to implement the 
provisions of SOLAS 1974. These sections include authority over the 
inspection of vessels and the carriage of liquid bulk dangerous 
cargoes. The Coast Guard implements SOLAS 1974, in part, through 
regulations in 46 CFR part 197.
    Like MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS 1974 is amended by resolution of an IMO 
Committee, in this case the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). In 
resolution MSC.150(77), the 77th Session of the MSC urged that 
beginning in June 2003, governments ensure the supply and carriage of 
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for Annex I cargoes and marine 
fuels. The 83rd session of MSC amended SOLAS 1974 by adding Regulation 
5-1 to Chapter VI, stating that ``Ships carrying Annex I cargoes, as 
defined in Appendix I to Annex I of [MARPOL 73/78], and marine fuel 
oils shall be provided with a MSDS prior to the loading of such cargoes 
based on the recommendations developed by IMO.''

[[Page 5924]]

The 86th session of the MSC further amended the SOLAS 1974 into clear 
and concise language to ensure a common understanding and unambiguous 
implementation of SOLAS Regulation VI/5-1. SOLAS Regulation VI/5-1 
entered into force internationally on July 1, 2009.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    As stated previously, the Coast Guard received 12 comment letters 
in response to the NPRM, consisting of 31 discrete comments. Those 
comments provided detailed and informative perspective on the proposed 
rule and the associated economic analysis, and have been instrumental 
in developing this final rule. In this section, we discuss the comments 
by grouping them generally into four categories: (a) The implementation 
of MARPOL Annex I Regulations 40-42 (STS Operations and Lightering); 
(b) The changes to the Oil Record Book; (c) The proposal to incorporate 
a requirement to carry MSDS on board; and (d) A general category for 
other comments. In each section, we describe the proposal from the 
NPRM, the comments received, and the changes, if any, made to the final 
rule in light of those comments.

A. STS Operations

    One of the primary proposed actions in the NPRM was to incorporate 
the new regulations governing the STS of oil stored as cargo. The 
existing 33 CFR part 156 already contained regulatory requirements for 
lightering operations, but the scope of what is considered `lightering' 
under the current regulations in Part 156 and the scope of what is 
defined as `STS Operations' in MARPOL Annex I are slightly different. 
For that reason, as discussed extensively in the preamble to the NPRM, 
we proposed to include two sets of requirements in Part 156, one that 
would set out the requirements for STS Operations as described by 
MARPOL, and one that would cover the remaining lightering operations. 
To that end, we included requirements for both in Part 156.
    We received several comment letters discussing the proposal to 
separate the two requirements. These letters contained a series of 
discrete comments on numerous aspects of the proposed changes. The 
Coast Guard appreciates these comments and has incorporated them into 
the finalized version of the rule where warranted. The specific issues 
addressed in the comments are laid out below.
1. Conforming Edits to Part 156, Subparts B and C
    Several commenters stated that with the separation of what had 
previously been called lightering operations into two distinct 
categories, ``lightering'' and ``STS Operations,'' the proposed 
regulatory changes omitted some necessary conforming edits to subparts 
B and C. They made several recommendations intended to ensure that 
certain existing requirements that should apply to STS Operations are 
not inadvertently omitted. In response to those suggestions, we have 
reexamined the proposed text of Part 156 and made changes that we 
believe will accurately encompass the changes described in the NPRM.
    The NPRM proposed to reorganize Part 156 slightly to reflect the 
dichotomy between lightering and STS Operations. The existing 
regulatory text contains Subpart B, ``Special Requirements for 
Lightering of Oil and Hazardous Material Cargoes,'' and subpart C, 
``Lightering Zones and Operational Requirements for the Gulf of 
Mexico,'' both of which simply apply the current definition of 
lightering operations. However, as the comments pointed out, with the 
addition of STS Operations as a separate operation, certain conforming 
edits to the terminology and applicability in those sections need to be 
made to ensure the sections apply to the appropriate operations.
    Two commenters stated that the difference between lightering and 
STS Operations is confusing, and that the two terms had historically 
meant the same thing. While we sympathize with the confusion, MARPOL 
Annex I applies only to transfers of oil, and only when one of the 
vessels at issue is 150 GT or larger. While this definition is similar 
to lightering, it is not identical. We have endeavored to make the 
regulatory differences between lightering and STS Operations clear in 
this rule, and the commenters have proposed some ways in which we can 
do this, specifically by adjusting the language throughout subparts B 
and C of part 156 to specifically indicate where the sections apply to 
lightering and STS Operations. In this final rule, we have made 
numerous conforming edits in these parts to better indicate which 
requirements apply to the various types of operations. These edits make 
clear that the requirements of subpart C apply to STS Operations as 
well continue to apply to lightering.
    Two commenters recommended that Sec.  156.225, ``Designation of 
Lightering Zones,'' be modified to refer to lightering and STS 
Operations. This section currently reads, ``[w]hen a lightering zone 
has been designated, lightering operations in a given geographic area 
may only be conducted within the designated lightering zone.'' However, 
the specific rules in effect in lightering zones and prohibited areas 
are not intended to be used in lightering operations only, but apply to 
STS Operations as well. For that reason, we are adopting the 
commenters' recommendation to include a reference to STS Operations in 
the text of Sec.  156.225.
    Two commenters also recommended that an applicability section be 
added to Subpart C. Subpart C lists various geographic areas and 
accompanying lightering zones, as well as prohibited areas where 
lightering operations are forbidden due to environmental and safety 
concerns. In the NPRM, we inadvertently did not include an editorial 
change to Sec.  156.310, ``Prohibited areas,'' that would have included 
STS Operations in the list of prohibited operations. Thus, in response 
to the commenters, we are adding a reference to STS Operations in that 
section. As stated above, we have also made numerous edits throughout 
subpart C to make clear that the operational requirements apply to STS 
Operations as well as lightering operations.
2. Qualifications of the POAC--Sec.  156.410
    One comment we received suggested that we alter the wording in 
paragraph 156.410(f), which relates to the responsibilities of the 
person in overall advisory control (POAC) of an STS Operation. The 
proposed text, based on MARPOL Annex I Regulation 41, paragraph 4, 
states that the POAC shall be qualified to perform all relevant duties, 
taking into account the qualifications found in the best practice 
guidelines from the IMO Manual on oil pollution. The commenter 
suggested that we add language emphasizing that the appointment of the 
POAC himself is equally important.
    While we agree that it is important that a qualified POAC be 
appointed, the existing proposed regulatory text already requires this 
type of appointment. We do not agree that there is a reason to deviate 
from the existing text of the MARPOL Annex I language in this matter.
3. Notification Requirements for STS Operations--Sec.  156.415
    Two commenters raised objections to a provision in Sec.  156.415(a) 
requiring a 48-hour advance notification of STS

[[Page 5925]]

Operations. The commenters stated that this is not current practice, 
and that such a notice period would be impracticable and/or could lead 
to very high additional costs associated with under-utilization of 
service ships (SS). One commenter stated that scheduling oil transfer 
operations requires absolute flexibility, and that as a result of 
weather conditions, logistical delays, channel closures, terminal 
delays, or other issues can require changing the identified SS at the 
last minute. The commenter also stated that it is common practice to 
nominate and clear at least three vessels for each STS Operation to 
ensure that a suitable vessel is available when the ship to be 
lightered (STBL) arrives at the designated STS Operation location. In 
light of these facts, the commenters recommended that the Coast Guard 
limit the advance notice required for the SS to 24 hours, while 
maintaining the 48-hour requirement for the STBL.
    The requirement for a 48-hour advance notification derives 
specifically from the text of Regulation 42, ``Notification,'' of Annex 
I. Paragraph 1 of that regulation reads:

    Each oil tanker subject to this chapter that plans STS 
operations within the territorial sea, or the exclusive economic 
zone of a Party to the present Convention shall notify that Party 
not less than 48 hours in advance of the scheduled STS operations. 
Where, in an exceptional case, all of the information specified in 
paragraph 2 is not available not less than 48 hours in advance, the 
oil tanker discharging the oil cargo shall notify the Party to the 
present Convention, not less than 48 hours in advance that an STS 
operation will occur and the information specified in paragraph 2 
shall be provided to the Party at the earliest opportunity.

Given the unambiguous requirement of a 48-hour notice period in Annex 
I, we are maintaining that requirement.
    However, we do realize that while Regulation 42 requires the 48-
hour period, it does provide for an exception for instances in which 
some details of the transfer, including information about the SS, are 
not available 48 hours in advance of the STS Operation. This exception 
was not reflected in the proposed regulatory text, but we are including 
it in the final rule as Sec.  156.415(f). That text will permit an oil 
tanker to delay transmitting the required information to the Captain of 
the Port (COTP) until the information is available, as long as the 
known information about the transfer is provided at least 48 hours in 
advance of the STS Operation.
    This change will address the commenters' concerns regarding the 
flexibility required to conduct STS Operations without incurring supply 
chain interruptions, idle time, or compromising on-time performance. 
Instead, the STBL must transmit only as much information required by 
Sec.  156.415(a) as is known at least 48 hours before the scheduled STS 
Operation. The remaining information must be transmitted when the final 
details have been worked out in accordance with paragraph (f) of this 
Final Rule. While the text of Regulation 42 indicates that such 
subsequent notification would be used ``in an exceptional case,'' we 
expect that in some areas where oil cargo is frequently transferred, 
the use of this supplemental notification procedure would be used 
commonly.
    One commenter stated that, because each SS needs to be reviewed by 
the customer for requisite approval under their vetting approval system 
before conducting an STS Operation, it is common practice to nominate 
at least three vessels for each STS Operation to ensure that a 
suitable, approved vessel will be available when the STLB arrives at 
the designated position for the STS Operation. In such a case, where 
details of multiple contingent operations need to be tentatively worked 
out, the Coast Guard would expect that these contingent details be 
transmitted to the COTP at least 48 hours prior to the STS Operation in 
accordance with paragraph (a). Once final details have been worked out, 
they must be transmitted to the COTP in accordance with paragraph (f) 
of this Final Rule.
    The modification of the strict 48-hour advance notice requirement 
also causes us to re-evaluate the provision, which in the NPRM was 
proposed Sec.  156.415(g), that required the master, owner, or agent of 
each oil tanker planning to conduct STS Operations in a designated 
lightering zone to provide 24 hours advance notice to the nearest COTP, 
rather than the 48-hour period for other U.S. waters. One commenter 
pointed out that only a very small percentage of STS Operations 
conducted in the U.S. is conducted in the designated lightering zones. 
Furthermore, the commenter noted that the lightering zones were 
intended to be used primarily by single-hulled vessels, and that most 
STS Operations are performed by double-hulled tankers that are not 
required to make use of lightering zones. Based on this information, as 
well as the reduced notification requirements with the addition of the 
new Sec.  156.415(f) we have re-evaluated whether the different 
notification standards for lightering zones and other zones within the 
U.S. are necessary.
    Upon review, we also note that the basis for the 24-hour 
notification requirement in proposed paragraph (g) appears to be 
erroneous. In the NPRM, we stated that ``[t]he proposed regulatory text 
[in Sec.  156.415(g)] differs from Regulation 42 for oil tankers 
planning to conduct STS Operations in designated lightering areas, 
where a 24-hour advance notice of STS Operations to the nearest COTP 
specified in the existing Sec.  156.215 would be used instead of the 
48-hour notice specified in Regulation 42'' (77 FR at 21364). However, 
on a second look, Sec.  156.215, which governs pre-arrival notices for 
lightering operations, is not exclusive to lightering zones, but 
applies to arrival at a lightering location or zone. Nor do we see any 
reason to apply that lightering requirement to STS Operations in lieu 
of the 48-hour requirement in Annex I.
    While several commenters supported the proposal to allow a 24-hour 
notification requirement, in lieu of a 48-hour one, in lightering 
zones, they requested that the 24-hour requirement be extended to all 
STS Operations in the U.S. While we agree with the commenter that there 
should be no difference in the notice requirements based on whether the 
STS Operation takes place in a lightering zone, we are obligated to 
implement the 48-hour requirement from Annex I. However, because we are 
adding the ability to provide information relating to the SS in a 
supplemental notification, in accordance with the new Sec.  156.415(f), 
we believe that this will provide even more flexibility than the 
proposed 24-hour notice requirement. For these reasons, we are not 
incorporating the proposed Sec.  156.415(g) into the final rule.
4. Reporting of Oil Discharges--Sec.  156.420
    Two commenters discussed the Coast Guard's proposal, in Sec.  
156.420(b), that would require the receiving vessel to report an 
incident of a discharge of oil during STS Operations. The commenters 
suggested that the Coast Guard instead require the responsible party, 
that is, the party that caused the discharge, to notify the Coast Guard 
of the event. One commenter also made an alternative suggestion, which 
is that either party sighting oil discharge in the water should report 
the sighting to the Coast Guard, although such a report would not 
constitute an assumption of responsibility for the incident.
    In proposing the language for Sec.  156.420, the Coast Guard had 
used the language from Sec.  156.220 as a model. Section 156.220 
requires that the ``service vessel,'' that is, the SS in a lightering 
operation, report the

[[Page 5926]]

discharge of oil or hazardous material. To maintain consistency, we 
proposed to require that the SS in an STS Operation be subject to the 
same requirement.
    The objections to this proposal were based upon the concept that 
reporting the discharge would imply that the reporting party is 
responsible for the discharge, and therefore, a requirement to report 
the discharge is tantamount to an admission of responsibility for the 
incident. We note that because the responsibility for reporting was 
proposed to be placed on the SS at all times, it was not meant to 
assume that the receiving vessel would be responsible for all 
discharges. The purpose of the notification requirements in subparts B 
and D of part 156 is not to assign responsibility, but rather to ensure 
immediate notification to the Coast Guard of any discharges to allow us 
to provide a timely response. Nonetheless, we are modifying the 
language of this section to remove any indication that the notification 
implies responsibility for a discharge incident.
    We believe that the alternative recommendation proposed by one 
commenter offers the best regulatory structure. This recommendation was 
that the Person in Overall Advisory Control (POAC) of the STS Operation 
should be required to make the report. Such a report would not 
constitute an admission of responsibility for the spill by either party 
involved. This requirement would ensure that a timely report is made 
and allow the Coast Guard to mount a rapid response to the incident if 
necessary.
    Two alternative suggestions from commenters were not adopted for 
various reasons. One suggestion was that the responsible party would be 
required to report the discharge. This was rejected because delays in 
assigning responsibility could delay the reporting of the incident. 
Another suggestion was that both parties should be required to report 
the incident. This was rejected because the extra report is superfluous 
and the requirement could result in unnecessary burden from reporting. 
We believe that having the POAC report the incident, without assigning 
responsibility, is the best approach.
5. Editorial Changes to Subpart D of Part 156
    In addition to the substantive changes, we are making some 
editorial changes to Subpart D of part 156. One commenter noted that 
proposed Sec.  156.415(a)(3) and (a)(6) are duplicative. We agree and 
are removing paragraph (a)(6). Additionally, we noticed that there was 
no paragraph (b) in Sec.  156.415, which we have corrected. That 
section has been renumbered accordingly.
6. Incorporation by Reference
    Two commenters suggested that industry standards incorporated by 
reference should be incorporated without specific reference to the date 
and edition. They noted that some of the standards are updated 
regularly, and thus would become out of date if they were updated after 
publication of this final rule.
    We are not accepting the commenters' proposals. The Administrative 
Procedure Act requires that the Coast Guard provide notice and solicit 
comments before substantively altering its regulation, a requirement 
that applies to the adoption of standards incorporated by reference 
(See 5 U.S.C. 553). While we will endeavor to promptly update the 
regulations if we determine that the incorporation of new standards 
will be beneficial, such actions will be undertaken in accordance with 
the applicable legal requirements.

B. Oil Record Book

    After publication of the NPRM, we included a proposed version of 
the Oil Record Book in the docket (USCG-2010-0194-0015) that would 
incorporate some of the changes to the Code of Federal Regulations 
proposed in this rule. One commenter provided a series of suggested 
changes to the proposed Oil Record Book. Additionally, since the 
publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard has considered how to 
integrate additional IMO guidance and policy considerations. Since 
these deliberations are still ongoing, we are not publishing an updated 
version of the Oil Record Book in conjunction with this rulemaking. The 
Coast Guard will consider comments received on the subject when 
deliberating future updates.

C. SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets

    Several commenters raised a variety of issues relating to the Coast 
Guard's proposal to require vessels subject to the International 
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) carry SOLAS 
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), as defined under MSC.286(86). 
MSDSs and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are a widely used system for 
cataloging information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical 
mixtures. The data sheets include a variety of information about the 
physical characteristics of the substance, such as toxicity, 
flammability, and explosiveness. These documents may also include 
instructions for the safe use of and potential hazards associated with 
a particular material or product, such as specific firefighting 
measures to be used with the substance. Most data sheets are formatted 
as charts divided into sixteen sections that seek to provide the reader 
with quick access to information regarding the hazardous substance they 
might encounter. These data sheets are required by U.S. regulations and 
international conventions anywhere chemicals are being used or 
transported.
    SOLAS was published in 1974 and entered into force with the United 
States as a party in 1980. This Convention sought to address a broad 
array of safety issues ranging from lifeboat requirements to safety of 
navigation schemes to be implemented by nations as port state control 
measures. Under SOLAS, amendments to the technical appendices are 
considered to be tacitly accepted by the parties to the convention if 
the amendment is adopted without sufficient objections from nations 
party to the convention, and the SOLAS MSDS recommendations are 
contained in one such appendix. The International Maritime Organization 
(IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, serves to oversee 
and amend SOLAS as part of the IMO's mission to enhance the safety and 
security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.
    The Maritime Safety Committee, which is a sub-committee of the IMO, 
developed SOLAS MSDS provisions as an amendment to SOLAS. In 2009, the 
MSC adopted the amendments to chapter VI ``Carriage of Cargoes'' of 
SOLAS 1974 (MSC.239(83)). Those amendments included Regulation 5-1 
requiring that vessels carrying oil or oil fuel, as defined in 
regulation 1 of MARPOL 73/78 be provided with a SOLAS MSDS. In June of 
2009, the MSC adopted resolution MSC.286(86), which contains an 
appendix providing a model MSDS with requirements for each section 
entitled ``Recommendations for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for 
MARPOL Annex I Oil Cargo and Oil Fuel.'' These amendments became 
effective on January 1, 2011.
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed implementing the SOLAS MSDS 
requirements for Annex I cargoes and fuels for U.S. vessels and all 
vessels operating in the navigable waters of the U.S. to which the 
SOLAS requirements apply. We stated that by aligning the U.S. 
regulations with international standards, compliant U.S. vessels would 
encounter fewer difficulties when engaged in international trade. We 
also

[[Page 5927]]

proposed, in Appendices A and B of 46 CFR 197, Subpart D, a non-
mandatory example of an MSDS for marine use, taken from MSC.286(86). 
Because we proposed to apply a SOLAS requirement only to vessels to 
which SOLAS already applied, we did not believe that vessels would 
incur any additional costs as a result of these changes. This lack of 
anticipated costs was why this proposal was given brief treatment in 
the preliminary regulatory analysis.
    Multiple commenters disputed this analysis, and suggested that we 
had erred in assuming that all vessels indicated would already comply 
with the proposed requirements. The commenters stated that the proposed 
requirements, including the items in the non-mandatory Appendices, 
differed from the standard SDSs used by many industries in the U.S. and 
around the world, and that compliance with the proposed Coast Guard 
regulations would be costly and redundant.
    The commenters argued that the SOLAS MSDSs that were proposed in 
the NPRM are similar, but not identical to, widely-used SDSs 
promulgated by the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System of 
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), as well as the Hazard 
Communication Standard (HCS) regulations recently promulgated by the 
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) of the Department 
of Labor under 29 CFR 1910.1200, and that a requirement to use SOLAS 
MSDSs would create an expensive, redundant requirement that offered 
little or no marginal safety benefit.\1\ In general, petroleum industry 
companies prepare SDSs to meet the legal requirements of the countries 
in which they market and distribute materials. According to the 
commenters, the legal requirements of such countries are moving toward 
an internationally harmonized system--the GHS, because uniform content 
is designed to improve effective hazard communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OSHA published a final rule on hazard communications in the 
Federal Register (77 FR 17574, March 6, 2012), which modified its 
Hazard Communication Standard to align with the GHS. It did so to 
enhance the effectiveness of the HCS which ensures that employees 
are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, 
and to reduce the incidence of chemical-related occupational 
illnesses and injuries. In addition to OSHA, several other agencies 
were active during the development of a harmonized SDS format for 
the GHS, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, and Department of Transportation. While 
the Coast Guard was not active in the GHS development process, we 
believe that the harmonized format still contains a highly effective 
means to reduce the incidence of chemical-related injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also raised concerns about the proposed requirement to 
post MSDSs in the working language of the crew, as translation of 
complex and highly technical MSDSs into various languages could have 
significant costs. Finally, one commenter suggested that the Coast 
Guard had not adequately justified the proposed requirement for MSDSs.
    Based on these comments, we have reconsidered the proposed 
requirement to label harmful chemicals in this rulemaking. Considering 
the widespread use of the OSHA HCS and the GHS-standard SDSs, and the 
extensive guidance available regarding those formats, we have decided 
not to finalize the proposed requirement for an MSDS from MSC.286(86).
    However, we note that regulations requiring information on the 
``name, description, physical and chemical characteristics, health and 
safety hazards, and spill and firefighting procedures for the oil cargo 
aboard the vessel'' are part of the existing Vessel Response Plan 
requirements in 33 CFR 155.1035(j)(10), 33 CFR 155.1040(k)(10), 33 CFR 
155.1045(j)(6), and 33 CFR 155.5035(j)(10). Currently, we consider SDSs 
compliant with 29 CFR 1910.1200 (OSHA-compliant) to meet these 
requirements. In this final rule, we are adding language to sections 
155.1035, 155.1040, 155.1045, and 155.5035 that shows we consider the 
SOLAS MSDS to meet the requirements found in the response plan 
regulations. Therefore, we are amending those documents mentioned as 
appropriate in meeting those regulations to include the SOLAS MSDS as 
defined by MSC.286(86). We note that this does not constitute a 
requirement to use SOLAS MSDSs, but does explicitly permit their use in 
providing the required information per the VRP regulations.
    We believe that providing this option will give maximum flexibility 
to industry while making the hazard information available to maritime 
personnel. Furthermore, we consider the use of the SOLAS 74 MSC. 
286(86) format, which contains low reporting threshold quantities of 
benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur, to provide maritime personnel 
with clear, concise and accurate information on the health and 
environmental effects of toxic substances carried on board.
    Furthermore, we are removing the proposed requirement that the MSDS 
must be provided in English, as well as the working language of the 
crew. We believe that introducing a regulatory requirement that 
differs, even slightly, from the widely-used Safety Data Sheets could 
present unneeded difficulties with little safety benefits. While we 
still believe that we should incorporate a requirement for safety data 
sheets into our regulations, we will consult with OSHA and other 
agencies to integrate a standard for maritime SDSs in any future 
rulemakings.
    We also received one comment that argued that the NPRM was 
procedurally flawed with regard to the proposed MSDS requirement, an 
argument that we believe is based on several misperceptions of the 
proposal. Specifically, the commenter argued that the proposal to 
require an MSDS was vague, unconstitutional, and would create 
uncertainties and liability if finalized. We disagree with the 
commenter's characterization of the proposal.
    The vagueness argument was based on the idea that the information 
contained in MSC.286(86) did not provide guidance on what should be 
inserted into an MSDS for a topic on which no information is available. 
Thus, an operator might leave the space blank, insert a statement that 
no information is available, or perform certain research or chemical 
analysis. This uncertainty, according to the commenter, rendered the 
proposed section unconstitutionally vague, as it failed to give 
sufficient guidance to those subject to it and those who would enforce 
it. In response, we would note that while questions about the 
interpretation or enforcement of a proposal are appropriate to ask, the 
mere fact that questions exist does not constitute unconstitutional 
vagueness.
    The commenter also argued that the proposed section is an ex post 
facto rule due to the July 1, 2011 date given with regard to carriage 
of MSDSs. We believe that the commenter has misinterpreted the 
proposal, and note that the proposal would not become effective until 
after publication of a final rule. We believe that the confusion may 
stem from the language in proposed Sec.  197.820(a), which read ``Each 
vessel subject to SOLAS 1974 must carry a Material Safety Data Sheet 
(MSDS) for each Annex I cargo and ship fuel carried in bulk after 
January 1, 2011.'' While the date listed would have a delaying effect 
if the final rule had been made effective before January 1, 2011, it 
would not create a retroactive requirement.
    Finally, the commenter also stated that the NPRM would unfairly 
expose shipping and transport interests to a significant risk of tort 
liability, as regulatory standards can be viewed as setting a minimum 
level of care, and that these uncertainties would be further 
exacerbated if the Coast Guard were to adopt the SDS requirements in 
proposed Sec.  197.820. It is unclear

[[Page 5928]]

specifically to what risk the commenter was referring. Regardless, we 
are aware of no basis to conclude that displaying a safety data sheet, 
whether or not it is required by regulation, negates the responsibility 
to exercise reasonable care.

D. Other Issues Raised in Comments

    We received several additional comments to the NPRM that are 
discussed in this section. One commenter supported the proposed rule, 
stating that the harmonization of U.S. regulations and international 
conventions will hopefully prevent accidents such as oil spills in the 
Gulf of Mexico. Another commenter supported the proposed rule, noting 
that increased fuel tank protection can help prevent oil spills. An 
additional commenter expressed support that the Oil Record Book 
requirements, fuel tank protection standards, STS Operations 
guidelines, pump room protections, and oil outflow performance 
requirements would all help to reduce pollution at sea. We appreciate 
these supportive comments and believe that the requirements implemented 
by this final rule will help to prevent oil pollution at sea.
    In the NPRM, we included a discussion regarding the possibility of 
requiring non-oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or larger to install 
oily bilge water holding tanks. We asked a series of questions 
regarding their use on vessels, costs, and alternatives to holding 
tanks. While we did not receive specific economic data, one commenter 
did include a discussion regarding the necessity of oily bilge water 
retention tanks and oily water separators and the effect on the 
maritime environment. The comment noted that in cases where bilge water 
is treated with an oily water separator, it can still contain other 
substances that are environmentally harmful if discharged overboard. 
These substances include volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile 
organics, salts, and contaminants such as soaps, detergents, and 
degreasers that can bypass the oily water separator system. The 
commenter recommended that an emulsion breaking bilge water cleaning 
system can alleviate these problems, but would also require the use of 
a storage tank.
    Given the lack of economic data regarding the bilge water holding 
systems, as well as the additional information regarding oily water 
separators, we are not including in this final rule a provision to 
require non-oceangoing ships to have oily bilge water holding tanks. 
However, we do intend to continue this research and may propose a more 
detailed program for handling bilge discharge depending on the 
information collected in the future.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 
Sec. Sec. 155.140, 156.111, and 157.02 for incorporation by reference 
under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are 
available from the sources listed in that section.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 
flexibility.
    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not 
reviewed it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of 
the costs and benefits of this final rule to ascertain its probable 
impacts on industry. This regulatory assessment (``Regulatory 
Analysis'') is available in the docket where indicated in section A of 
this preamble. A summary of the Regulatory Analysis follows:
    The proposed rule contains provisions to codify the 2004, 2006 and 
2009 Amendments to Annex I in the Code of Federal Regulations. These 
provisions are designed to harmonize U.S. regulations with 
international standards.
    In the NPRM (77 FR 21360, April 9, 2012), detailed descriptions of 
the proposed CFR changes are described in Section V. Discussion of 
Comments and Changes of this preamble. A summary of the regulatory 
analysis is shown in Table 1 below.

               Table 1--Summary of the Regulatory Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                      Summary (harmonization)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Affected Population *.......  ~4,029 current and future U.S. flag
                                     ships with 1,768 U.S. current
                                     owners or operators.
Costs (7% discount rate)..........  $2.9 mil (annualized), $20.3 mil (10-
                                     year).
Unquantified Benefits.............  Compliance with internationally
                                     enforced standards where non-
                                     compliance could result in Port
                                     State Control interventions and
                                     detentions or delays.
                                    General reduction of the risk of oil
                                     discharges in the marine
                                     environment.
                                    33 CFR 151.25 improves the
                                     availability of information on
                                     certain processes and equipment.
                                    33 CFR 151.360-370 prevents the
                                     direct discharge of oily sludge
                                     residue and indirect discharge
                                     through oily bilge water.
                                    33 CFR 151.400-420 helps to ensure
                                     STS Operations are conducted safely
                                     and that an apparatus is in place
                                     to mitigate environmental damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total affected population shown in this table refers to the sum of
  the affected population for each individual requirement. An individual
  ship may be subject to multiple requirements. If there is no overlap
  of requirements, the affected population would be a maximum of 4,029
  new and existing ships. If there is overlap of requirements, the total
  affected population could be less.


[[Page 5929]]

1. The Affected Population
    The individual provisions of the proposed rule affect different 
populations of U.S. flag ships. A summary of the affected population is 
shown in Table 2.

                                  Table 2--Affected Populations U.S. Flag Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     New ships
                                                                      Current        delivered
               Provision                   Population affected       affected     during the 10-   Total number
                                                                    population    year period of     of ships
                                                                                     analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Oil Record Book entry        All inspected ships                1,672             273           1,945
 requirements.                           bunkering fuel or
                                         lubricating oil.
Valve separating the sludge tank        Oceangoing Ships 400               1,044             225           1,269
 drains from the bilge system.           gross tons and over.
Preparation of STS Operations Plans     Tankers and Tank ships..             512             303             815
 and STS Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCG MISLE database.

2. Costs
    While some of the provisions in this final rule reflect existing 
industry standards that have been implemented in advance of 
internationally agreed upon dates, the remaining provisions will 
generate costs for owners and operators of affected ships.
    The recurring costs represent additional operating expenses for 
required Oil Record Book entries and recordkeeping; for the continuing 
costs of plan revisions, training, and notifications associated with 
Ship-to-Ship (STS) oil-transfer operations plans (STS Operations 
Plans).
    The non-recurring costs are of two types: The cost of required 
equipment and its installation, including various valves and drain 
modifications; and the cost of the initial preparation and training 
required to implement STS Operations Plans.
    The primary cost estimate of the proposed rule is displayed in 
Table 3 and results in a total cost of $24.2 million (undiscounted) for 
the ten year period of analysis. This cost estimate was prepared 
assuming no ships currently comply with any of the provisions of the 
proposed rule. In present value terms, the total cost estimate is $19.8 
million using a 3-percent discount rate and $20.3 million using a 7-
percent discount rate. Annualized costs are $2.3 million per year at 3 
percent and $2.9 million per year at 7 percent.

                         Table 3--Costs Summary by Year ($ Millions) to U.S. Flag Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Discounted
                                                              Undiscounted   -----------------------------------
                                                                                  7 percent         3 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1....................................................             $10.1              $9.6              $9.8
Year 2....................................................               1.3               1.2               1.2
Year 3....................................................               1.4               1.2               1.2
Year 4....................................................               1.5               1.2               1.1
Year 5....................................................               1.5               1.2               1.1
Year 6....................................................               1.6               1.2               1.1
Year 7....................................................               1.6               1.2               1.1
Year 8....................................................               1.7               1.2               1.1
Year 9....................................................               1.7               1.2               1.1
Year 10...................................................               1.8               1.2               1.0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................              24.2              20.3              19.8
Annualized................................................  ................               2.9               2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please refer to Appendices B through E in the Regulatory Analysis 
for the annual costs. Costs are broken out by section and by 
population.
    Table 4 displays the unit costs per vessel and outlines the per 
vessel costs for the provisions.

         Table 4--Unit Costs (undiscounted) for U.S. Flag Ships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Section                    Description        Per ship costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25..................  Oil Recordkeeping books            $443
33 CFR 155.360.................  Oceangoing Ships 400 GT           5,400
                                  to 10,000 Gross Tons--
                                  Valves.
33 CFR 155.370.................  Oceangoing Ships above            7,549
                                  10,000 Gross Tons--
                                  Valves.
33 CFR 155.400-420.............  STS Operations Plans...           5,409
                                 STS Training...........           2,148
                                 STS Notifications......              16
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5930]]

3. Benefits
    The benefits of the proposed rule include harmonization and 
compliance with internationally enforced standards and the reduction of 
risks of oil pollution, as well as improved mariner safety.
    Functional benefits of each provision of the proposed rule are 
shown in Table 5.

                      Table 5--Functional Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Beneficial impact on oil spill
               Provision                          risk reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25--This provision would      This provision will reduce the
 establish new recordkeeping              risk of oil spills by
 requirements for the Oil Record Book:    improving the availability of
 A requirement to make an entry for the   information on certain
 bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating    processes and equipment. For
 oil; a requirement to make an entry      example, the additional entry
 for any failure of oil filtering         for the bunkering of fuel or
 equipment; and a requirement to make     bulk lubricating oil would
 an entry for any failure of the oil      help to track the use and
 discharge monitoring and control         disposal of oil and oil
 system.                                  residues. The other two
                                          additional entries would
                                          capture equipment failures for
                                          all ships with an Oil Record
                                          Book.
33 CFR 155.360-370 This provision        This provision will reduce the
 requires that these ships have a         risk of oil spills by ensuring
 separate designated pump for the oil     segregation of oily sludge
 residue tank (sludge tank) and that      residue from the bilge system.
 this sludge disposal system (pump and    These measures prevent the
 tank) must be segregated from the        direct discharge of oily
 bilge system except for manually         sludge residue and the
 operated drains with visual monitoring   indirect discharge through
 of settled water that lead to an oily    oily bilge water.
 bilge water tank or a bilge well. Any
 nonconformity would require a ship in
 this group to purchase and install
 appropriate equipment.
33 CFR 156.400-420 This provision        This provision will reduce the
 requires that oil tankers transferring   risk of oil spills by
 oil cargoes between ships at sea (Ship-  requiring that oil tankers
 to-Ship (STS) transfers of oil) have     engaging in STS Operations
 an STS Operations Plan meeting           provide the relevant MARPOL 73/
 specific IMO standards.                  78 party with 48 hours' notice
                                          of STS Operations. This
                                          includes information regarding
                                          the location, time, and
                                          duration of the STS
                                          Operations, oil type and
                                          quantity, identification of
                                          the STS Operations service
                                          provider, and confirmation
                                          that there is a compliant STS
                                          Operations Plan. Providing
                                          this information helps to
                                          ensure that STS Operations are
                                          conducted safely and that an
                                          apparatus is in place to
                                          mitigate environmental damage
                                          should a spill occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule is to harmonize Coast Guard 
regulations with new provisions of MARPOL 73/78 to which the United 
States is a signatory. Compliance with these Conventions is, in itself, 
a benefit to all ships on international routes because the failure to 
comply with these international standards for pollution prevention and 
safety would subject the non-compliant ship to PSCs. Coast Guard 
incorporation of these provisions is also a requirement of U.S. law, 
APPS 33 U.S.C. 1901-1915 (2002), which implements and codifies the 
MARPOL agreements into U.S. law. Thus, this rulemaking seeks to reduce 
regulatory uncertainty.
    Port State Controls may include detention of a ship in a foreign 
port until the identified deficiencies are rectified. Delays of this 
type can be costly to the owner/operator of a ship. For example, the 
Paris Memorandum on Port State Control Annual Report (Paris Memorandum) 
for 2009 indicated that 27 oil tankers were detained worldwide under 
PSCs; 17 of these tankers (63 percent) were detained for violations of 
Annex I. With charter rates for oil tankers averaging $31,700 per day, 
even short delays under PSCs can result in substantial costs. None of 
these deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels because of the adherence 
to international standards enforced by the Coast Guard. With this 
proposed rule the Coast Guard intends to ensure that no ambiguities 
exist between MARPOL 73/78 and the regulatory requirements of the CFR.
    The Paris Memorandum for 2009, the latest year for which there are 
data, also indicated that 3,764 ships that were inspected worldwide 
under PSCs had deficiencies regarding Annex I requirements. 
Additionally, 15,800 ships were found deficient regarding safety and 
firefighting standards (SOLAS requirements). As with oil tankers (noted 
above) none of these deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels because of 
the adherence to international standards enforced by the Coast Guard.
    We examined the risk reduction using a break even analysis of the 
oil spill amount that would need to be prevented in order for the 
benefits to equal the total regulatory cost of this rule. From 
historical data,\2\ we determined there was an average of 5,583 barrels 
of oil spilled annually from U.S. flagged SOLAS ships over the 2001-
2010 period. To calculate the annual monetary value of remediating 
damages from oil spills, we used a cost of $10,700 per barrel of oil 
based on an analysis of expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund. Consequently, the costs of oil spill damages averaged $59.7 
million per year (undiscounted) over the 2001-2010 period. Please refer 
to the Regulatory Analysis for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Coast Guard MISLE data, 2001 to 2010, oil spilled from 
U.S. flagged, SOLAS vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 7 percent annualized cost of this rule is $2.89 million. With 
average annual costs of oil spill damages of $59.7 million 
(undiscounted), the provisions would have to reduce the volume of oil 
spills by 4.85 percent ($2.89 million/$59.7 million) in order to 
achieve a breakeven.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of 
this proposed rule on small entities is available in the docket by 
following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. A 
summary of the analysis follows. There are an estimated 1,768 U.S. 
entities that would be affected by this proposed rule and these 
entities operate a maximum of 3,228 existing ships. We chose a random 
sample of 296 entities and evaluated these against the applicable 
standard for determining whether the entity was

[[Page 5931]]

small (i.e., SBA size standards for businesses and RFA standards for 
governments and not-for-profits). Table 6 provides the size 
determinations of the sample population.

        Table 6--Number of Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities below the threshold............................             113
Entities above the threshold............................              78
Government below the threshold..........................               1
Government above the threshold..........................               4
N/A.....................................................             100
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................             296
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We analyzed revenue impacts for the implementation year as that is 
the highest impact on small entities. First year costs include costs 
for additional required Oil Record Book entries, equipment purchase and 
installation costs, costs associated with the STS Operations Plan 
preparation and crew training, and the additional notification to the 
Coast Guard that an STS Operation will occur.
    This proposed rule has many provisions that would affect different 
types of vessels and therefore, businesses' revenue impacts would vary 
according to the number and type of vessel owned. Table 7 provides the 
list of per vessel cost by provision.

                     Table 7--Potential Vessel Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Section                    Description        Per ship costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25..................  Oil Recordkeeping Books            $443
33 CFR 155.360.................  Oceangoing Ships 400 GT           5,400
                                  to 10,000 Gross Tons--
                                  Valves.
33 CFR 155.370.................  Oceangoing Ships above            7,549
                                  10,000 Gross Tons--
                                  Valves.
33 CFR 155.400-420.............  STS Plans..............           5,409
                                 STS Training...........           2,148
                                 STS Notifications......              16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To measure the impact on small entities we distinguished which 
provision each entities subscribed to and then attributed the per 
company costs based on those provisions. In other words, the per ship 
cost ranged from $443 (recordkeeping costs only) to $8,016 
(recordkeeping and STS Operation costs) depending on which provision(s) 
the entity fell under. Table 8 provides the percent impacts on revenue 
that the provision(s) will have on entities.

   Table 8--Estimated Percent of the Revenue Impact of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of
                 Impact range                     entities     Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1%...........................................           90           80
1%-< 3%.......................................           14           12
3% or greater.................................            9            8
                                               -------------------------
    Sum.......................................          113          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities and we requested public comments on this 
certification. We received one comment on the economic analysis of the 
48-hour notification. However, because we modified the 48-hour 
notification to allow for more than one notification, we deemed this 
cost as an additional collection of information rather than a 
significant change in industry practice or a significant cost burden to 
industry.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This final rule would not require a new Collection of Information 
(COI) request under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520) but would increase the burden hours under three existing 
collections of information.
    1. Information Collection Request: OMB control number 1625-0009 
(Oil Record Book for Ships).
    Title: Oil Record Book for Ships [33 CFR part 151.25].
    Summary of the Information Collection Request: The Coast Guard uses 
the information recorded in the Oil Record Book to verify sightings of 
actual violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), to 
determine the level of compliance with MARPOL 73/78, and as a means of 
reinforcing the discharge provisions. The actual recording of discharge 
information reinforces the intent of the regulations. Unless this 
information is recorded, the Coast Guard would have to rely solely on 
actual sightings of oil discharges for enforcement. Violation of the 
law may go undetected resulting in continued pollution of the sea by 
oil. The Coast Guard would have no method of determining the level of 
compliance with regulations.
    Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses the information recorded 
in the Oil Record Book to verify sightings of actual violations of the 
APPS, to determine the level of compliance with MARPOL 73/78, and as a 
means of reinforcing the discharge provisions.
    Description of the Respondents: Oil tankers and tank barges of 150 
gross tons and above; ships of 400 gross tons and above other than oil 
tankers (including freight barges equipped to discharge oil or oil 
mixtures); manned fixed or floating drilling rigs, except those that 
are not equipped to discharge oil or oil mixtures, or rigs that are in 
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit; and manned fixed or floating drilling platforms over 
400 gross tons, primarily Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) over 
400 gross tons.
    Number of Respondents: The number of respondents is 1,672.

[[Page 5932]]

    Frequency of Response: The frequency of response is occasional 
reports for recordkeeping and reporting.
    Burden of Response: The increase in burden hours is from the 
current estimated 540 entries per ship per year for oil tankers and 
tank barges to 762 entries per year; and from 180 entries per ship per 
year for non-oil ships to 254 entries per year.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The rule will increase the total 
annual burden by approximately 8,314 hours to 28,535 hours. The current 
annual burden for this collection is 20,221 hours.
    2. Information Collection Request: OMB control number 1625-0041 
(MARPOL Related Documents STS Operations Plan)
    Title: Various International Agreement Pollution Prevention 
Certificates and Documents, and Equivalency Certificates [33 CFR 156. 
400-420 Subpart D--Prevention of Pollution During Transfer of Oil Cargo 
Between Oil Tankers at Sea].
    Summary of the Information Collection Request: This rule will 
modify an existing collection of information. The Coast Guard is 
requiring oil tankers and tank barges of 150 gross tons and above, that 
engage in transfers of oil at sea, to comply with an international 
agreement (MARPOL Annex I) to which the U.S. is a contracting party. 
These requirements would add a new subsection that will reduce the 
possibility of an accidental oil spill/discharge during a STS oil-
transfer operation.
    Use of Information: This is procedural information that each ship 
involved in STS operations must follow in order to be in compliance 
with the new Chapter 8 of the 2009 Amendments to MARPOL.
    Description of the Respondents: Oil tankers of 150 gross tons and 
above and each other U.S. ship of 400 gross tons and above; that 
engages on international voyages to ports or off-shore terminals under 
the jurisdiction of other parties to MARPOL 73/78. This ICR will apply 
to oil tankers and tank barges who engage in STS operations.
    Number of Respondents: The total number of respondents in this COI 
is 1,556, of which this rule will affect a subset of 512 ships.
    Frequency of Response: The frequency of response is a non-recurring 
burden for the initial preparation of an STS Operations Plan and the 
recurring annual burden for updates to the plan and familiarization 
(training) of responsible persons.
    Burden of Response: The rule will increase the total annual burden 
by a non-recurring requirement of approximately 69,120 hours for 
preparation of the STS Operations Plan and a recurring burden of 
approximately 2,048 hours. The current annual burden for this 
collection is 2,738 hours.
    3. Information Collection Request: OMB control number 1625-0042 
(Ship-to-Ship Operations, 48-hour Advanced Notification).
    Title: Requirements for Lightering of Oil and Hazardous Material 
Cargoes
    Summary of the Information Collection Request: This rule would 
modify an existing collection of information, found in Title 33 CFR 
156.200-330. These provisions will add a new section 156.400 which 
requires oil tankers and tank barges of 150 gross tons and above, that 
engage in transfers of oil at sea, to comply with an international 
agreement (MARPOL Annex I) to which the U.S. is a contracting party and 
in order to reduce the possibility of an accidental oil spill/discharge 
during a STS oil-transfer operation.
    Use of Information: The purpose of this collection is to inform the 
local Coast Guard Captain of the Port of the time and place of an STS 
Operation.
    Description of the Respondents: This ICR will apply to oil tankers 
and tank barges who engage in lightering or transfers of dangerous 
cargoes at sea. This ICR will add tank barges of 150 gross tons and 
above, that engage in STS operations.
    Number of Respondents: The number of respondents affected by this 
rule will be 512 ships, a subset of the current 779 respondents.
    Frequency of Response: The frequency of response is a recurring 
annual burden for notifications regarding transfers of oil.
    Burden of Response: The rule will increase the total annual burden 
by a recurring burden of approximately 133 hours. The current annual 
burden for this collection is 217 hours.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, or on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. We have analyzed this final rule under that Order and 
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the field preemptive 
impact of the Federal regulatory regime for inspected vessels. See, 
e.g., Kelly v. Washington ex rel Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 (1937) and the 
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 
529 U.S. 89, 113-116 (2000). Therefore, Coast Guard regulations issued 
under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1903 and 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas 
of design, construction, alteration, operation, hulls, fittings, 
equipment, appliances, propulsion machinery, auxiliary machinery, 
piping, and material safety labeling have preemptive effect over State 
regulation in these fields, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has 
issued regulations on the subject or not, and regardless of the 
existence of conflict between the State and Coast Guard regulation. For 
this reason, we do not believe that this rule has Federalism 
implications.
    In the NPRM, we invited affected State and local governments and 
their representative national organizations to indicate their desire 
for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by 
submitting comments on the proposed rule. We also noted we would 
document the extent of our consultation with State and local officials 
that submit comments, summarize the nature of concerns raised by State 
or local governments and our response, and state the extent to which 
the concerns of State and local officials have been met. We did not 
receive any comments from State or local governments.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights''.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

[[Page 5933]]

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards:
    1. Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, Petroleum;
    2. Manual on Oil Pollution, Section I: Pollution; and
    3. Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations.
    The sections that reference these standards and the locations where 
these standards are available are listed in 33 CFR 155.140, 33 CFR 
156.111, and 33 CFR 157.02.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) 
and (b) of the ``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast 
Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency 
Policy'' (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations 
which are editorial or procedural; Regulations concerning vessel 
operation safety standards; and congressionally mandated regulations. 
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are available in the docket where indicated under the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

33 CFR Part 155

    Alaska, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil 
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

    Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

33 CFR Part 157

    Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 as follows:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE, 
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

0
1. The authority citation for part 151 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1903, 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101; Pub. L. 
104-227 (110 Stat. 3034); E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  151.05 as follows:
0
a. Designate in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Oil-like NLS'' 
and ``Oil tanker'';
0
b. Revise the definition for ``Oil residue''; and
0
c. Add definitions in alphabetical order for ``Oil residue (sludge)'', 
``Oil residue (sludge) tank'', ``Oily bilge water'', and ``Oily bilge 
water holding tank''.
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  151.05  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Oil residue means oil cargo residue.
    Oil residue (sludge) means the residual waste oil products 
generated during the normal operation of a ship such as those resulting 
from the purification of fuel or lubricating oil for main or auxiliary 
machinery, separated waste oil from oil filtering equipment, waste oil 
collected in drip trays, and waste hydraulic and lubricating oils.
    Oil residue (sludge) tank means a tank which holds oil residue 
(sludge) from which sludge may be disposed directly through the 
standard discharge connection or any other approved means of disposal.
* * * * *
    Oily bilge water means water which may be contaminated by oil 
resulting from things such as leakage or maintenance work in machinery 
spaces. Any liquid entering the bilge system including bilge wells, 
bilge piping, tank top or bilge holding tanks is considered oily bilge 
water.
    Oily bilge water holding tank means a tank collecting oily bilge 
water prior to its discharge, transfer or disposal.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  151.13, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  151.13  Special areas for Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

    (a) For the purposes of Sec. Sec.  151.09 through 151.25 of this 
subpart, the special areas are the Mediterranean Sea area, the Baltic 
Sea area, the Black Sea area, the Red Sea area, the Gulfs area, the 
Gulf of Aden, the Antarctic area, the

[[Page 5934]]

North West European waters, the Oman area of the Arabian Sea, and the 
Southern South African Waters, which are described in Sec.  151.06 of 
this subpart. The discharge restrictions are effective in the 
Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and the Antarctic area.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  151.25, revise paragraphs (d)(3) and (4), add paragraphs 
(d)(5) and (6), revise paragraphs (e)(9) and (10), and add paragraph 
(e)(11) to read as follows:


Sec.  151.25  Oil Record Book.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Disposal of oil residue;
    (4) Discharge overboard or disposal otherwise of bilge water that 
has accumulated in machinery spaces;
    (5) Bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating oil; and
    (6) Any failure, and the reasons for, of the oil filtering 
equipment.
    (e) * * *
    (9) Closing of valves necessary for isolation of dedicated clean 
ballast tanks from cargo and stripping lines after slop tank discharge 
operations;
    (10) Disposal of oil residue; and
    (11) Any failure of, and the reasons for, the oil discharge 
monitoring and control system.
* * * * *

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

0
5. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 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). Section 155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. 
L. 101-380. Sections 155.1110 through 155.1150 also issued under 33 
U.S.C. 2735.

0
6. In Sec.  155.140, add paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  155.140  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 
prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 3--Requirements for machinery 
spaces of all ships, Part A-Construction, Regulation 12A, ``Oil fuel 
tank protection'', incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  
155.250 (Annex I, Regulation 12A).
* * * * *

0
7. Add Sec.  155.250 to read as follows:


Sec.  155.250  Oil fuel tank protection.

    Each ship with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600 cubic meters 
or more that is delivered on or after August 1, 2010, must meet the 
minimum standard of oil fuel tank protection required by Annex I, 
Regulation 12A (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  155.140).
0
8. In Sec.  155.360, revise paragraph (a)(1), add paragraph (a)(3), 
revise paragraph (b) introductory text, and add paragraph (b)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  155.360  Oily mixture (bilge slops) discharges on oceangoing 
ships of 400 gross tons and above but less than 10,000 gross tons, 
excluding ships that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, no 
person may operate an oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons and above but 
less than 10,000 gross tons, excluding a ship that carries ballast 
water in its fuel oil tanks, unless it is fitted with approved 15 parts 
per million (ppm) oily-water separating equipment for the processing of 
oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast.
* * * * *
    (3) Any ship certified under the International Code of Safety for 
High-Speed Craft engaged on a scheduled service with a turn-around time 
not exceeding 24 hours and covering also non-passenger/cargo-carrying 
relocation voyages for these ships need not be provided with oil 
filtering equipment. These ships must be fitted with an oily bilge 
water holding tank having a volume adequate for the total retention 
onboard of the oily bilge water. All oily bilge water must be retained 
onboard for subsequent discharge to reception facilities.
    (b) No person may operate a ship under this section unless it is 
fitted with an oil residue (sludge) tank or tanks of adequate capacity 
to receive the oil residue that cannot be dealt with otherwise.
* * * * *
    (3) Ships subject to this section must--
    (i) Be provided with a designated pump for disposal that is capable 
of taking suction from the oil residue (sludge) tank(s); and
    (ii) Have no discharge connections to the bilge system, oily bilge 
water holding tank(s), tank top or oily water separators except that 
the tank(s) may be fitted with drains, with manually operated self-
closing valves and arrangements for subsequent visual monitoring of the 
settled water, that lead to an oily bilge water holding tank or bilge 
well, or an alternative arrangement, provided such arrangement does not 
connect directly to the bilge piping system.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  155.370, revise paragraph (a) introductory text, add 
paragraph (a)(5), revise paragraph (b) introductory text, and add 
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  155.370  Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil tank ballast water 
discharges on oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross tons and above and 
oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons and above that carry ballast water 
in their fuel oil tanks.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, no 
person may operate an oceangoing ship of 10,000 gross tons and above, 
or any oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons and above, that carries 
ballast water in its fuel oil tanks, unless it has--
* * * * *
    (5) Any ship certified under the International Code of Safety for 
High-Speed Craft engaged on a scheduled service with a turn-around time 
not exceeding 24 hours and covering also non-passenger/cargo-carrying 
relocation voyages for these ships need not be provided with oil 
filtering equipment. These ships must be fitted with an oily bilge 
water holding tank having a volume adequate for the total retention 
onboard of the oily bilge water. All oily bilge water must be retained 
onboard for subsequent discharge to reception facilities.
* * * * *
    (b) No person may operate a ship under this section unless it is 
fitted with an oil residue (sludge) tank or tanks of adequate capacity 
to receive the oil residue that cannot be dealt with otherwise.
* * * * *
    (3) Ships subject to this section must--
    (i) Be provided with a designated pump for disposal that is capable 
of taking suction from the oil residue (sludge) tank(s); and
    (ii) Have no discharge connections to the bilge system, oily bilge 
water holding tank(s), tank top or oily water separators except that 
the tank(s) may be fitted with drains, with manually operated self-
closing valves and arrangements for subsequent visual monitoring of the 
settled water, that lead to an oily bilge water holding tank or bilge 
well, or an alternative arrangement, provided such arrangement does not 
connect directly to the bilge piping system.
* * * * *

[[Page 5935]]

Sec.  155.1035  [Amended]

0
10. In paragraph (j)(10), after the text ``29 CFR 1910.1200,'' add the 
text ``SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5-1,''.


Sec.  155.1040  [Amended]

0
11. In paragraph (k)(10), after the text ``29 CFR 1910.1200,'' add the 
text ``SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5-1,''.


Sec.  155.1045  [Amended]

0
12. In paragraph (j)(6), after the text ``29 CFR 1910.1200,'' add the 
text ``SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5-1,''.


Sec.  155.5035  [Amended]

0
13. In paragraph (j)(10), after the text ``29 CFR 1910.1200,'' add the 
text ``SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5-1,''.

PART 156--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

0
14. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703a, 3715, 6101; 
E.O. 11735, 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793. Section 156.120(bb) is 
also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3703.


0
15. Revise Sec.  156.111 to read as follows:


Sec.  156.111  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
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 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 
U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Vessel Activities (CG-CVC), 2703 Martin 
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, telephone 202-372-
1251, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also 
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.
    (b) International Chamber of Shipping, 12 Carthusian Street, London 
EC1M 6EB, England, telephone +44 20 7417 8844, https://www.marisec.org/.
    (1) Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations, Fourth Edition, 2008, 
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  156.330(c).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, 
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, telephone +44(0)20 7735 7611, https://www.imo.org/.
    (1) Manual on Oil Pollution, Section I: Prevention, Second Edition, 
2011, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  156.410(c) and (f).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), 15th Floor, 
96 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JW, England, telephone +44(0)20 7654 
1200, https://www.ocimf.com/.
    (1) Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, (Petroleum), Fourth Edition, 2005, 
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  156.330(b), Sec.  
156.410(c) and 156.410(f).
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  156.200  [Amended]

0
16. In Sec.  156.200 after the words ``when conducting response 
activities'' add the words ``, or to tank vessels of 150 gross tons or 
more engaged in the transfer of oil cargo between tank vessels at sea 
on or after April 1, 2012.''.
0
17. In Sec.  156.205 revise the definition of ``Lightering or 
Lightering operation'' to read as follows:


Sec.  156.205  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Lightering or Lightering operation means the transfer of a cargo of 
oil in bulk from one oil tanker less than 150 gross tons to another oil 
tanker less than 150 gross tons, or a cargo of hazardous material in 
bulk from one vessel to another, including all phases of the operation 
from the beginning of the mooring operation to the departure of the 
service vessel from the vessel to be lightered, except when that cargo 
is intended only for use as fuel or lubricant aboard the receiving 
vessel.
* * * * *

0
18. Revise Sec.  156.225 to read as follows:


Sec.  156.225  Designation of lightering zones.

    The District Commander is delegated the authority to designate 
lightering zones and their operating requirements, where they are 
necessary for safety or environmental protection. When a lightering 
zone has been designated, lightering and STS Operations in a given 
geographic area may only be conducted within the designated lightering 
zone.


Sec.  156.310  [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  156.310, in the introductory text, after the words 
``Lightering operations'' add the words ``and STS Operations''.
0
20. Revise Sec.  156.330 to read as follows:


Sec.  156.330  Operations.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, or when otherwise 
authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP) or District 
Commander, the master of a vessel lightering or conducting STS 
Operations in a zone designated in this subpart must ensure that all 
officers and appropriate members of the crew are familiar with the 
guidelines in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and that the 
requirements of paragraphs (d) through (l) of this section are complied 
with.
    (b) Lightering and STS operations must be conducted in accordance 
with the Oil Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, (Petroleum) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  156.111) to the maximum extent practicable.
    (c) Helicopter operations must be conducted in accordance with the 
Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  156.111) to the maximum extent practicable.
    (d) The vessel to be lightered, or the discharging vessel engaged 
in an STS Operation, must make a voice warning prior to the 
commencement of lightering activities or STS Operations via channel 13 
CHF and 2182 Khz. The voice warning shall include--
    (1) The names of the vessels involved;
    (2) The vessels' geographical positions and general headings;
    (3) A description of the operations;
    (4) The expected time of commencement and duration of the 
operation; and
    (5) Request for wide berth.
    (e) In the event of a communications failure between the lightering 
vessels, or vessels engaged in STS Operations, or the respective 
persons-in-charge of the transfer, or an equipment failure affecting 
the vessel's cargo handling capability or ship's maneuverability, the 
affected vessel must suspend lightering activities, or STS Operations, 
and must sound at least five short, rapid blasts on the vessel's 
whistle. Lightering activities, or STS Operations, must remain 
suspended until corrective action has been completed.
    (f) No vessel involved in a lightering operation, or STS Operation, 
may open its cargo system until the servicing vessel is securely moored 
alongside the vessel to be lightered (or the vessel transferring oil in 
an STS Operation).
    (g) If any vessel not involved in the lightering operation, STS 
Operation, or support activities approaches within 100 meters of 
vessels engaged in lightering or STS Operation, the vessel engaged in 
lightering or STS Operation shall warn the approaching vessel by

[[Page 5936]]

sounding a loud hailer, ship's whistle, or any other appropriate means.
    (h) Only a lightering tender, a supply boat, or a crew boat, 
equipped with a spark arrestor on its exhaust, or a tank vessel 
providing bunkers, may moor alongside a vessel engaged in lightering 
operations or STS Operations.
    (i) Lightering operations and STS Operations must not be conducted 
within 1 nautical mile of offshore structures or mobile offshore 
drilling units.
    (j) No vessel engaged in lightering activities or STS Operations 
may anchor over charted pipelines, artificial reefs, or historical 
resources.
    (k) All vessels engaged in lightering activities or STS Operations 
must be able to immediately maneuver at all times while inside a 
designated lightering zone. The main propulsion system must not be 
disabled at any time.
    (l) In preparing to moor alongside the vessel to be lightered or 
vessel transferring oil in an STS Operation, a service vessel shall not 
approach the vessel closer than 1000 meters unless the service vessel 
is positioned broad on the quarter of the vessel transferring oil. The 
service vessel must transition to a nearly parallel heading prior to 
closing to within 50 meters of the vessel transferring oil.
0
21. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec. Sec.  156.400 through 156.420, to 
read as follows:

Subpart D--Prevention of Pollution During Transfer of Oil Cargo 
Between Oil Tankers at Sea

Sec.
156.400 Applicability.
156.405 Definitions.
156.410 General.
156.415 Notification.
156.420 Reporting of incidents.


Sec.  156.400  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to oil tankers engaged in the ship-to-ship 
transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers (STS Operations), and to 
their STS Operations conducted on or after April 1, 2012, when at least 
one of the oil tankers is of 150 gross tonnage and above. These rules 
are in addition to the rules of subpart A of this part, as well as the 
rules in the applicable sections of parts 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157 
of this chapter.
    (b) This subpart does not apply to STS Operations--
    (1) If the oil cargo is intended only for use as a fuel or 
lubricant aboard the receiving vessel (bunker operations);
    (2) When at least one of the ships involved in the oil transfer 
operation is a warship or a naval auxiliary or other ship owned or 
operated by a nation and used, at the time of the transfer, in 
government noncommercial service only; or
    (3) When the STS Operations are necessary for the purpose of 
securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea, or for combating 
specific pollution incidents in order to minimize the damage from 
pollution; except that such vessels are subject to the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  156.415(g) and 156.420.


Sec.  156.405  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions specifically stated in this section, 
the definitions in Sec.  154.105 of this chapter apply to this subpart 
except definitions for Tank Barge, Tank Ship and Tank Vessel. 
Definitions specific to this part--
    Authorized Classification Society means a recognized classification 
society that has been delegated the authority to conduct certain 
functions and certifications on behalf of the Coast Guard.
    Flag State means the authority under which a country exercises 
regulatory control over the commercial vessel which is registered under 
its flag. This involves the inspection, certification, and issuance of 
safety and pollution prevention documents.
    Marine environment means--
    (1) The navigable waters of the United States;
    (2) The waters of an area over which the United States asserts 
exclusive fishery management authority; and
    (3) The waters superjacent to the Outer Continental Shelf of the 
United States.
    Oil tanker means a vessel that is constructed or adapted primarily 
to carry crude oil or products in bulk as cargo. This includes a tank 
barge, a tankship, and a combination carrier, as well as a vessel that 
is constructed or adapted primarily to carry noxious liquid substances 
in bulk as cargo and which also carries crude oil or products in bulk 
as cargo.
    STS Operations means the transfer of oil cargo carried in bulk from 
one oil tanker to another at sea, when at least one of the oil tankers 
is of 150 gross tonnage and above.


Sec.  156.410  General.

    (a) Oil tankers subject to this subpart, and each U.S. oil tanker, 
wherever located, subject to this subpart, must carry onboard an STS 
Operations Plan that prescribes how that vessel will conduct STS 
Operations.
    (b) Any oil tanker subject to this subpart must carry onboard an 
STS Operations Plan, prescribing how to conduct STS Operations, no 
later than the date of the first annual, intermediate, or renewal 
survey of the oil tanker, which must be carried out on or after the 
effective date of this final rule.
    (c) The STS Operations Plan must be--
    (1) Written in the working language of the oil tanker's crew;
    (2) Developed using the information contained in the best practice 
guidelines for STS Operations identified in the Manual on Oil Pollution 
and in the Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum) (both documents are 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  156.111); and
    (3) Approved by the vessel's Flag State for oil tankers operated 
under the authority of a country other than the United States. For U.S. 
oil tankers, the STS Operations Plan must be approved by the Commandant 
(CG-CVC-1) or an Authorized Classification Society.
    (d) When chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety 
of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended is applicable to the vessel, the STS 
Operations Plan may be incorporated into an existing required Safety 
Management System.
    (e) Any oil tanker subject to this subpart must comply with the 
vessel's approved STS Operations Plan while engaging in STS Operations.
    (f) The person in overall advisory control of STS Operations must 
be qualified to perform all relevant duties, taking into account the 
qualifications found in the best practice guidelines for STS Operations 
identified in the Manual on Oil Pollution and in the Ship to Ship 
Transfer Guide (Petroleum) (both documents are incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  156.111).
    (g) In addition to any records required by the vessel's approved 
STS Operations Plan, each STS operation must be recorded in the oil 
tanker's Oil Record Book, required by Sec.  151.25 of this chapter.
    (h) All records of STS Operations shall be retained onboard for 3 
years and be readily available for inspection.
    (i) No oil tanker may transfer oil in a port or place subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States, if the oil cargo has been 
transferred by an STS Operation in the marine environment beyond the 
baseline, unless:
    (1) Both oil tankers engaged in the STS Operation have, onboard, at 
the time of transfer all certificates required by this chapter for 
transfer of oil cargos, including a valid Certificate of Inspection or 
Certificate of Compliance, as applicable to any transfer of oil taking 
place in a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States;

[[Page 5937]]

    (2) Both oil tankers engaged in the STS operation have onboard at 
the time of transfer, evidence that each vessel is operating in 
compliance with the National Response System as described in section 
311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)). 
Additionally, the vessels must comply with the Declaration of 
Inspection requirements delineated in Sec.  156.150 and a vessel 
response plan if required under part 155 of this chapter; and
    (3) Both oil tankers engaged in STS Operations have onboard, at the 
time of transfer, an International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) 
Certificate or equivalent documentation of compliance with Annex I, as 
would be required by part 151 of this chapter for vessels in navigable 
waters of the United States. The IOPP Certificate or documentation of 
compliance shall be that prescribed by Sec. Sec.  151.19 and 151.21 of 
this chapter, and shall be effective under the same timetable as 
specified in Sec.  151.19.
    (j) In an emergency, the Captain of the Port (COTP), upon request, 
may authorize a deviation from any requirement in this part if the COTP 
determines that its application will endanger persons, property, or the 
environment.


Sec.  156.415  Notification.

    (a) Except as provided for in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this 
section, the master, owner or agent of each oil tanker subject to this 
subpart planning to conduct STS Operations in the territorial sea or 
exclusive economic zone of the United States must give at least 48 
hours advance notice to the COTP nearest the geographic position chosen 
to conduct these operations. This advance notice must include:
    (1) The oil tanker's name, call sign or official number, and 
registry;
    (2) The cargo type and approximate amount onboard;
    (3) The number of transfers expected, the amount of cargo expected 
to be transferred during each transfer, and whether such transfer will 
be conducted at anchor or underway;
    (4) The date, estimated time of arrival, and geographical location 
at the commencement of the planned STS Operations;
    (5) The estimated duration of STS Operations;
    (6) The name and destination of receiving oil tanker(s);
    (7) Identification of STS Operations service provider or person in 
overall advisory control and contact information; and
    (8) Confirmation that the oil tanker has onboard an approved STS 
Operations Plan.
    (b) If the estimated arrival time of an oil tanker to the reported 
geographic location for the commencement of STS operation changes by 
more than 6 hours, the master, owner, or agent of that oil tanker must 
provide a revised estimated time of arrival to the COTP.
    (c) Where STS Operations are conducted as a result of collision, 
grounding, tank rupture or any similar emergency, the master, owner, or 
agent of a vessel must give immediate notice to the Coast Guard office.
    (d) In addition to the other requirements in this section, the 
master, owner, or agent of a vessel that requires a Certificate of 
Compliance (COC) or other special Coast Guard inspection in order to 
conduct STS Operations must request the COC or other inspection from 
the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) at least 72 
hours prior to commencement of STS Operations.
    (e) The STS Operation advanced notice is in addition to the 
Notification of Arrival requirements in 33 CFR part 160.
    (f) If all of the information specified in paragraph (a) is not 
available 48 hours in advance of a planned STS Operation, the oil 
tanker discharging the oil cargo must notify the COTP at least 48 hours 
in advance that an STS Operation will occur. In such a circumstances, 
the information specified in paragraph (a) must be provided to the COTP 
at the earliest opportunity.
    (g) If STS operations are conducted under exigent circumstances to 
secure the safety of a ship, to save life at sea, or combat specific 
incidents in order to minimize the damage from pollution within the 
territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of the United States, the 
master, owner, or agent of each oil tanker subject this subpart shall 
provide notice with adequate explanation, as soon as practicable, to 
the COTP nearest the geographic position where the exigent STS 
operation took place.


Sec.  156.420  Reporting of incidents.

    (a) Any vessel affected by fire, explosion, collision, grounding, 
or any similar emergency that poses a threat to the vessel(s) engaged 
in STS Operations must report the incident to the nearest Coast Guard 
office.
    (b) The POAC of an STS operation must report, in accordance with 
the procedures specified in Sec.  151.15 of this chapter, any incident 
of discharge of oil into the water.
    (c) Immediately after the addressing of resultant safety concerns, 
all marine casualties must be reported to the nearest COTP, Sector 
Office, Marine Inspection Office, or OCMI in accordance with 46 CFR 
part 4.

PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 
RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK

0
22. The authority citation for part 157 continues 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.


0
23. In Sec.  157.02, add paragraphs (b)(9) and (10) to read as follows:


Sec.  157.02  Incorporation by reference: Where can I get a copy of the 
publications mentioned in this part?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 
prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 4--Requirements for the cargo 
area of oil tankers, Part A--Construction, Regulation 22, ``Pump-room 
bottom protection,'' (Annex I, Regulation 22) incorporation by 
reference approved for Sec.  157.14.
    (10) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 
prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 4--Requirements for the cargo 
area of oil tankers, Part A--Construction, Regulation 23, ``Accidental 
oil outflow performance,'' (Annex I, Regulation 23) incorporation by 
reference approved for Sec.  157.20.
* * * * *

0
24. In Sec.  157.08, add paragraph (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  157.08  Applicability of subpart B.

* * * * *
    (o) Section 157.11(h) applies to every oil tanker delivered on or 
after January 1, 2010, meaning an oil tanker--
    (1) For which the building contract is placed on or after January 
1, 2007;
    (2) In the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is 
laid or which is at a similar stage of construction on or after July 1, 
2007;
    (3) The delivery of which is on or after January 1, 2010; or
    (4) That has undergone a major conversion--
    (i) For which the contract is placed on or after January 1, 2007;
    (ii) In the absence of a contract, the construction work of which 
is begun on or after July 1, 2007; or

[[Page 5938]]

    (iii) That is completed on or after January 1, 2010.

0
25. In Sec.  157.11, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  157.11  Pumping, piping and discharge arrangements.

* * * * *
    (h) Every oil tanker of 150 gross tons or more delivered on or 
after January 1, 2010, as defined in Sec.  157.08(o), that has 
installed a sea chest that is permanently connected to the cargo 
pipeline system, must be equipped with both a sea chest valve and an 
inboard isolation valve. The sea chest must be able to be isolated from 
the cargo piping system by use of a positive means while the tanker is 
loading, transporting, or discharging cargo. This positive means must 
be is installed in the pipeline in such a way as to prevent, under all 
circumstances, the section of pipe between the sea chest valve and the 
inboard valve from being filled with cargo.

0
26. Add Sec.  157.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  157.14  Pump-room bottom protection.

    Each oil tanker of 5,000 tons deadweight or more constructed on or 
after January 1, 2007, must meet the minimum standard of pump room 
bottom protection required by Annex I, Regulation 22 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  157.02).

0
27. Amend Sec.  157.19 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory;
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c) through 
(f), respectively; and
0
c. Add new paragraph (b).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  157.19  Cargo tank arrangement and size.

    (a) With the exception of those vessels listed in paragraph (b) of 
this section, this section applies to:
* * * * *
    (b) This section does not apply to U.S. or foreign oil tankers 
delivered on or after January 1, 2010.
* * * * *

0
28. Add Sec.  157.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  157.20  Accidental oil outflow performance.

    Each oil tanker which is delivered on or after January 1, 2010 must 
meet the minimum standard of accidental oil outflow performance 
required by Annex I, Regulation 23 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  157.02).

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-01925 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P