[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5922-5938]
[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 http://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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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.''

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

    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.

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

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.
* * * * *

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<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to: http://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, http://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, http://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, http://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

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;

    (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

    (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