[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3363-3393]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-35]

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

Part VII

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157

46 CFR Part 162

Pollution Prevention Equipment; Final Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157

46 CFR Part 162

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

Pollution Prevention Equipment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its oil pollution prevention
equipment regulations to make them consistent with new International
Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines and specifications issued under
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) Annex I. These revisions will implement MARPOL Annex I
regulations and are intended to reduce the amount of oil discharged
from vessels and eliminate the use of ozone-depleting solvents in
equipment tests. This interim rule will require all vessels replacing
or installing oil separators and bilge alarms to install equipment that
meets revised standards and it will require newly constructed vessels
carrying oil in bulk to install monitoring systems that meet the
revised standards. We have delayed the implementation of three
paragraphs involving vessels constructed and equipment installed on or
after January 1, 2005. We seek comments on these three paragraphs and
will consider those comments before issuing a final rule.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

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

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

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

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

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

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

III. Regulatory History

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

IV. Background and Purpose

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

A. Types of Equipment

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

B. Authority

    The Coast Guard has authority to issue this regulation. Under the
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Public Law 96-478, sections 2 and
4, 94 Stat. 2297, 2298 (Oct. 21, 1980), 33 U.S.C. 1901 and 1903, the
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is
authorized to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry
out the provisions of the Act and of Annex I (Regulations for the
prevention of pollution by oil) of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol
of 1978 relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78). Under the Act of
August 26, 1983, Public Law 98-89, 97 Stat. 500, 504, 522, subtitle II
of title 46 of the U.S. Code (46 U.S.C.), specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703,
the Secretary in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to
issue

equipment regulations, and related maintenance and training regulations
for vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargo, including oil.
Authority under both of these acts has been delegated to the Coast
Guard under Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(2)(77) and (92)(b).

C. International Standards Being Implemented

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

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes

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

A. Test and Performance

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

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

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

B. Measurement of Oil Content

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

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

C. Calibration

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

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

D. Training

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

E. Operating Requirements

    Commenters raised seven issues regarding operating requirements.
    Issue 38: Regarding proposed 46 CFR 162.050-23(d), one commenter
stated that the clean effluent line of the separator should be at least
90 percent of the influent flow rate for purposes of emulsion breaking.
    Response: We disagree. This recommendation would require our
regulations to be more prescriptive than our performance-based standard
from paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of the Annex to MEPC.107(49) of feeding a
mixture to the separator composed of 6 percent Test Fluid C and 94
percent water by volume such that the emulsified Test Fluid C content
is approximately 3,000 ppm in the test water until a steady flow rate
occurs. We made no changes based on this comment.
    Issue 39: Two commenters suggested adding a new paragraph to
address the minimum service life for which bilge alarms should be
designed. These commenters also raised material compatibility issues.
They stated that the equipment should be suitable for seawater service,
and compatible with oil, fuel, and bilge contaminants such as
surfactants and particulates.
    Response: We do not believe that it is within the scope of this
rulemaking to require manufacturers to state the minimum service life
of their product. Furthermore, the IMO resolutions do not address
service life. As for the material compatibility issues, we believe that
these are addressed in the plan review process specified in existing 46
CFR 162.050-5(a)(4), which requires the submittal of arrangement plans
and piping diagrams in accordance with the requirements of 46 CFR
56.01-10(d). We made no changes based on these comments.
    Issue 40: Responding to proposed 46 CFR 162.050-33, one commenter
suggested adding a new paragraph to incorporate fail-safe design
requirements for bilge-alarm systems. Specifically, they would require:
(1) The bilge alarm to provide a control signal for the ``overboard
discharge control device''; (2) at least four consecutive bilge-alarm
measurements must be below the alarm set-point before sending the
control signal to allow overboard discharge; and (3) when the bilge
alarm cannot obtain a reading due to interference or other causes, this
must be considered a reading above the alarm set-point as it relates to
No. (2).
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees as this suggested change is not
in line with the requirements of MEPC.107(49) which are sufficiently
designed to stop the discharge overboard of oily-mixtures with an oil
content exceeding 15 ppm. We made no changes in response to this
comment.
    Issue 41: One commenter recommended adding a new paragraph (c)(3)
in Sec.  162.050-33 to describe a specific condition that would require
the bilge alarm to produce a warning signal and a signal to actuate
stop valves when ``the concentration of interferences in the sample
(e.g., emulsions, solids, color, air, bulk oil, etc.) may affect the
bilge-alarm measurements.'' Additionally, the commenter stated that
interferences in the sample may cause erroneous bilge alarm
measurements, thus resulting in an inadvertent overboard discharge of
oily waste.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter's intent, we feel that
this situation has been covered by Sec.  162.050-33(c), which calls for
stop valves to be activated when the oil content of the mixture
measured exceeds 15 ppm or the bilge alarm malfunctions, breaks down,
or otherwise fails to operate properly. Further, the proposed and
adopted testing scheme includes tests for emulsions and solids. We made
no changes in response to this comment.

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

F. Simulated Shipborne Environment

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

G. Operating Manual

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

H. Applicability

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

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

I. PPE Alternatives

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

J. Data Recording

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

K. Test Rig

    Commenters raised four issues regarding test rigs.
    Issue 57: One commenter stated that the 30[deg] chisel-edged
chamfer in figure 162.050-17(d), Sample Point, should be around the
outside perimeter instead of the inside perimeter of the sampler inlet
to minimize disturbance of the sampling flow and to be consistent with
MEPC.107(49).
    Response: We agree and have corrected the chamfer illustrated in
Figure 162.050-17(d).
    Issue 58: One commenter recommended requiring the use of a syringe
pump with a screw-type driver in place of the buret for oil injection
at low concentrations to avoid pulsations of oil injections.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. Our figure at 46 CFR 162.050-
19 and MEPC.107(49) figure 5 stipulate ``burets and metering pumps for
injecting known oil ppm's and high oil transients,'' and thus provide
discretion to the testing lab to deliver the oil in the manner of its
choosing. During the review of a facility's application under 46 CFR
162.050-15, we examine information on the facility's test rigs. Any
deviation from the required test rigs must be noted in this
information. We have no evidence of buret injections creating
pulsations of oil injections at low concentrations. We made no changes
in response to this comment.
    Issue 59: One commenter recommended including the use of an inline
disperser as an alternative to the high-shear pump to vary the oil
droplets size distribution.
    Response: The designated testing lab may propose alternative
testing methods to the Marine Safety Center before beginning the tests.
If agreed upon, any deviation from the required test rig must be noted
in the test report or application. We made no changes from the proposed
rule based on this comment.
    Issue 60: One commenter suggested including the specifications of
the tank used for Test Fluid C per Figure 3 and notes 1 through 3 of
paragraph 1.2.4 of Part I of the Annex to MEPC.107(49) as it would
ensure consistent mixing of Test Fluid C by different test facilities.
    Response: The Coast Guard agrees. Our proposed paragraph (b)(2) of
46 CFR 162.050-20 references a worksheet, figure 162.050-20, for
determining Constituents of Test Fluid C. In response to this
commenter's suggestion, we are adding MEPC's Figure 3 to that
worksheet, and have inserted the notes as text in that worksheet.

L. Response Time

    Commenters raised one issue regarding response time.
    Issue 61: One commenter stated that the measuring time in proposed
46 CFR 162.050-33(e) should be changed from 5 seconds to 15 seconds.
The commenter also said the proposed 5 seconds would exclude, from
future installations, bilge alarms that are already in service and have
been proven to provide fail-safe performance.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. The purpose of this regulatory
change is to increase the performance standards of the equipment. The
changes will not require existing equipment MEPC.60(33) to be
retrofitted at this time. Previously installed bilge alarms that were
approved under the MEPC.60(33) requirements and are in good working
order will not have to meet the 5-second response time. However, future
installations of these MEPC.60(33)-approved bilge alarms will not be
permitted. This is in line with the

requirements of MEPC.107(49). We made no changes in response to this
comment.

M. Test Fluid

    Commenters raised four issues regarding test fluid.
    Issue 62: One commenter stated that separators should be tested
with salt-water-mixed test fluids.
    Response: Both 46 CFR 162.050-23 (a)(4), and the IMO resolution,
paragraph 1.2.7 of Part 1 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49), allow the use
of salt water, provided the density of the water used in the tests is
no greater than 1.015 at 20[deg] Celsius. We have decided not to
mandate testing with salt water as this could materially affect the
costs of certification. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 63: One commenter said that turbidity from sources other than
oils--including rust and dirt--may fool the bilge alarm into thinking
it is seeing oil and, because of this, operators are burdened with
removing these other turbidity sources from exposure to the bilge alarm
to permit pumping anything over the side.
    Response: To ensure alignment with the international requirements,
the Coast Guard will require the same three test fluids stipulated in
paragraph 1.2.4 of Part 1 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49). Further, we
believe that the inclusion of Test Fluid C will account for the
equipment's ability to handle particulate matter (including rust) as
well as emulsions. We made no changes in response to this comment.
    Issue 64: One commenter stated that it is impossible to duplicate
emulsion fluid tests in actual sea service. The commenter believes a
minimum 6-month trial run in actual service could be part of the rule
requirement to obtain equipment certification.
    Response: The Coast Guard does not intend to implement a 6-month
testing regime for the purpose of certifying PPE. Such testing would be
inconsistent with the requirements of MEPC.107(49). Furthermore, Test
Fluid C was developed following thorough discussion at IMO and provides
a good representation of common bilge water. We made no changes in
response to this comment.
    Issue 65: One commenter believes that soot in ``reasonable
representative quantities'' should be a component in test fluids, both
in the Coast Guard's proposed fluids and MEPC.107(49) fluids.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. The constituents of Test Fluid
C were developed based on the input of numerous IMO delegations through
discussions over several years. This is believed to be an accurate
facsimile of the fluid that may be encountered on a large percentage of
the vessels currently in operation. The IMO has received several
similar comments and has maintained the same stance regarding changes
to it. The Coast Guard concurs with this stance and will maintain the
Test Fluid C constituents as they are set out by MEPC.107(49) paragraph
1.2.4. We made no changes in response to this comment.

N. Incorporating MEPC.107(49) by Reference

    Commenters raised one issue regarding incorporation by reference.
    Issue 66: One commenter believes that incorporating or referencing
MEPC.107(49) in the proposed rule will lead to an accurate and thorough
understanding of the requirements.
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees because, as discussed in the
preamble of the NPRM (70 FR 67067, November 3, 2005), we believe that
there are elements of MEPC.107(49) that need clarification. The
comments on our proposed rule provide evidence that some aspects of the
resolutions require further clarification. We made no changes from the
proposed rule based on this comment.

O. Test Report

    Commenters raised one issue regarding test reports.
    Issue 67: One commenter said that verification of the stability of
the Test Fluid C emulsion and other testing parameters must be shown in
the test report with documentation to prove conformity.
    Response: We believe that a stable emulsion will be established if
a lab follows the Test Fluid C preparation requirements under 46 CFR
162.050-20. In response to this comment, we have added a requirement in
46 CFR 162.050-9(a)(6), to provide verification that the lab followed
the testing procedures prescribed in 46 CFR subpart 162.050.

P. Cleaning Detergent in Engine Room

    Commenters raised two issues regarding cleaning detergent in the
engine room.
    Issue 68: One commenter believes that any equipment (separators or
bilge alarms) should be certified with qualification about what type of
cleaners can be used aboard vessels with that product or any inability
of that product to handle emulsions. The proposed rule clearly implies
that they could not meet MEPC.107(49) testing protocols. Information
about system performance enhancements such as preferred cleaners, etc.,
belong in their operating manuals, not on their certificates. These
qualifications should be removed from the actual certificates and the
product's actual certification/testing procedures should be re-
verified.
    Response: Detergents are generally known to cause emulsions, and
the IMO resolutions and corresponding Coast Guard implementing
regulations have added an emulsified test fluid to challenge the
equipment. However, the Coast Guard does not plan to add this type of
information to the approval certificate because unlike older technology
represented in the previous standard, MEPC.60(33), under MEPC.107(49)
standards, PPE are expected to handle the range of fluids and emulsions
that are founds in bilges today. Therefore, we are not making a change
from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Issue 69: One commenter stated that separators should be required
to be insensitive to a host of United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) approved detergents that may be used anywhere in the engine room
on a vessel.
    Response: With the possibility of emulsified bilge water always
present the bilge separator must be capable of separating the oil from
the emulsion to produce an effluent with an oil content not exceeding
15 ppm even when detergents are present in the bilge. The bilge
separator should therefore be tolerant of a wide range of detergents,
but at the same time, as noted in paragraph 1.1.3 of the introduction
to the MEPC.107(49) Annex, proper measures should be taken to minimize
the presence of cleaning agents in the bilge. As noted above in
response to issue 63 regarding turbidity, to ensure alignment with the
international requirements, the Coast Guard will require the same three
test fluids stipulated in MEPC.107(49). We believe that the inclusion
of Test Fluid C will account for the equipment's ability to handle
emulsions caused by detergents. We made no changes from the proposed
rule based on this comment.

Q. PPE Design

    Commenters raised one issue regarding PPE design.
    Issue 70: One commenter stated ``the absolute absence of any type
of standardization of OWS [oily water separator] systems makes the
initial investigation confusing, dirty, time consuming and sometimes
plain incorrect.''
    Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. The IMO resolutions and the

corresponding Coast Guard regulations are primarily performance-based
in determining the design of a separator. The commenter's suggestion
would require prescriptive regulations and could further limit the
production of innovative technologies and improvements in the field of
separation technology. We made no changes based on this comment.

R. Oil Categories

    Commenters raised one issue regarding oil categories.
    Issue 71: One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard use its
current category of oils based on American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravity values and require the laboratory conducting the testing of the
oil discharge monitoring equipment (monitoring system) report the
values of the crude oils used as described in the Parameters Tolerance
column of the Crude Oils table in paragraph 1.2.6 of Part 1 of the
Annex to MEPC.108(49). The commenter stated this is in line with the
intent of MEPC.108(49) and the Coast Guard's regulation allowing for
the onboard calibration of the ODME for the type of crude oil or
petroleum product being transported. As an alternative, the commenter
requested the Coast Guard provide Standard Reference Material (SRM)
crude oil and petroleum product samples to the company for testing
purposes or information on where the company can obtain the samples.
    Response: We believe that Table 162.050-27(c)--Oil Type and
Characteristics in the proposed 46 CFR 162.050-27 accomplishes the goal
of this request. Also, 46 CFR 162.050-27(c)(3) allows for the
substitution of an oil with similar properties to those listed in table
162.050-27(c). Further, the testing laboratory is required to report
the properties of the test oils under 46 CFR 162.050-9(a)(5). We made
no changes in response to this comment.

S. Beyond the Scope of This Rulemaking

    Commenters raised two issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Issue 72: We received two comments regarding Oil Record Books
(ORBs). Of those, one commenter requested that we amend the final rule
to mandate training in the proper method of entering entries into the
ORB for anyone expected to operate separators. The other comment stated
the ORBs are not readily available.
    Response: We believe that these requests regarding oil record books
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking seeks to
implement the MEPC PPE guidelines and standards being incorporated into
MARPOL Annex I. Oil record books are not referenced in either
MEPC.107(49) or MEPC.108(49).
    We have forwarded the comment regarding the availability of ORBs to
the appropriate office for their consideration. We made no changes to
this comment.
     Issue 73: We received two comments from the same commenter
regarding operating requirements. The commenter stated that it should
be a requirement to have onboard a complete set of recommended repair
parts for separators. The commenter also said that a complete set (100
percent of installed working elements) of filters, coalescers, filter
media, membranes, etc., should be required for separators to assure
continued operation in the event of severe fouling.
    Response: We feel that this suggestion to require a complete set of
repair parts is beyond the scope of the rulemaking. The application for
certification, 46 CFR 162.050-5, already requires submission of
detailed instructions on maintenance of the unit to be certified.
Repair parts are typically only stipulated for certain systems on board
that materially affect the safe handling or navigation of the vessel.
We made no changes in response to this comment.

T. Changes From Proposed Rule

    In 33 CFR part 155, Oil or Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention
Regulations for Vessels, we have made the following changes from the
proposed rule. As noted in our response to Issue 51, to reflect the
requirements of MEPC.107(49) that has been incorporated into MARPOL
Annex 1 effective January 1, 2007, we have invited comments on our
changes to three paragraphs in Sec. Sec.  155.350, 155.360, and
155.370, and have delayed the implementation of those three paragraphs
pending our review of comments. As discussed in Issues 36 and 37, we
also revised Sec.  155.380, and added paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to
that section. Also, we removed references to ``bilge monitor'' in the
section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec.  155.380.
    In reviewing part 155, we discovered that the IMO Marine
Environmental Protection Committee Circular summary of MARPOL 73/78-
approved equipment referenced in 33 CFR 155.380(b) no longer exists, so
we have changed this reference to include any equipment approved under
MARPOL Annex I. Approval of OWS equipment and bilge alarms under MARPOL
Annex I is offered as an alternative for U.S. uninspected ships and
foreign ships to approval under 46 CFR 162.050. We believe that this
revision will adequately reflect the same level of equipment approval
as the previous requirement. Also, we revised the authority citation
for the part by relocating the reference to 46 U.S.C. 3703.
    In 33 CFR part 157, Rules for the Protection of the Marine
Environment Relating to Tank Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk, we have
revised the format of the incorporation by reference section, Sec.
157.02, so that the material approved for incorporation by reference
may be more easily associated with the section(s) incorporating this
material. As indicated in our response to Issue 1, in part 157 we have
removed the term ``cargo monitor'' to identify the ``monitoring
system.'' As noted in Issue 28, we have revised Sec.  157.12c(e).
Finally for part 157, in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.  157.12f, we
deleted the unnecessary words ``at least all'' when describing the
operations that must be included in a functional test on an oil content
meter and a control section of a monitoring system.
    In 46 CFR part 162, Engineering Equipment, we made many revisions.
We revised the format of the incorporation by reference section, Sec.
162.050-4, so that the incorporated-by-reference-approved material may
be more easily associated with the section(s) incorporating this
material. Also in that section, we discovered that the International
Standards Organization (ISO) 8217 standard incorporated in 46 CFR
162.050-20(a) was revised in 2005. Therefore, we have revised the
reference to this ISO standard in Sec.  162.050-4(c)(1). This ISO
revision changed the ``type'' description for the marine residual fuel
oil required by Sec.  162.050-20(a)(1). This change is due to ISO's
reduction of the temperature at which the viscosity is measured. At the
original test temperature of 100[deg] Celsius, this fuel oil had a
viscosity of 35 (hence the original name: RMG 35). At the new test
temperature of 50[deg] Celsius, this same fuel oil has a viscosity of
380 (hence the new name: RMG 380). The updated ISO 8217 does not affect
the ``type'' description for the marine distillate fuel oil referred to
in Sec.  162.050-20(a)(2).
    As discussed in our response to Issue 1, we replaced the term
``cargo monitor'' in part 162 with the term ``oil content meter.'' The
following table reflects other changes to part 162 made in response to
comments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For reasons stated in our response     . . . we revised the following
       to Issue number . . .                      section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
49................................  162.050-5(a)(6)

67................................  162.050-9(a)(6)
57................................  162.050-17(d)
60................................  162.050-20
5.................................  162.050-20(b)(3)
43................................  162.050-21(e)
18................................  162.050-23(a)(13)
8.................................  162.050-23(b)(1)
3.................................  162.050-27(b) and (c)
10................................  162.050-27(a)(1)
4.................................  162.050-27(e)(4)
28................................  162.050-33(f)
35................................  162.050-33(d)
9.................................  162.050-35(b)(3)
14................................  162.050-35(g)(3)
16................................  162.050-35(g)
45................................  162.050-37(b) and (c)
19 and 26.........................  162.050-39(b) [removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Interim Rule

    We are amending our oil pollution prevention equipment regulations
to make them consistent with new IMO guidelines and specifications in
resolutions MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49), which are incorporated into
MARPOL Annex I regulations 14 (Oil filtering equipment), 18 (Segregated
Ballast Tanks), and 31 (Oil discharge monitoring and control system).
These revisions will implement Annex I regulations and should reduce
the amount of oil discharged from vessels, and eliminate the use of
ozone-depleting solvents in equipment tests.
    This interim rule will require all vessels replacing or installing
oil separators and bilge alarms to install equipment that meets revised
standards and it will require newly-constructed vessels carrying oil in
bulk to install monitoring systems that meet revised standards. Tests
for approval of this equipment have been revised to deal with common
bilge contaminants and eliminate the use of ozone-depleting solvents.
    We have delayed the implementation of three paragraphs involving
equipment installed on or after January 1, 2005. As discussed in our
response to Issue 51, paragraph 1.3.1 of resolution MEPC.107(49) was
incorporated into MARPOL Annex I on January 1, 2007, and makes the
resolution applicable to ships built on or after January 1, 2005, and
to ships that install PPE on or after January 1, 2005. This aspect of
the revised Annex I was not reflected in our proposed rule.
    To implement these incorporated requirements, we have added three
paragraphs--33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4)--to
the interim rule that require vessels built or PPE installed on or
after January 1, 2005, to meet the new PPE requirements. As noted
above, we seek your comments on these three paragraphs which we have
delayed implementing until October 13, 2009, of the interim rule. Based
on your comments, we may revise these paragraphs before issuing a final
rule.
    Since publishing a notice of policy in December 2003 acknowledging
the new MARPOL guidelines (68 FR 75603, December 31, 2003), we have
approved some systems from PPE manufacturers who, in anticipation of
the new MARPOL guidelines, sought Coast Guard approval under testing
standards other than those in the current 46 CFR subpart 162.050. As
that 2003 notice stated, the Coast Guard may, in its discretion,
determine whether alternative standards ensured equivalent performance
characteristics.
    Systems approved under MEPC.60(33) that are installed on vessels
built before January 1, 2005, and are still in good working order will
not be affected by this rule. Systems approved before the effective
date of this rule using MEPC.107(49) guidelines as the alternative will
remain approved. For any system approved after January 1, 2005, using
an alternative other than MEPC.107(49), the approval will expire March
17, 2009.
    As noted in response to Issue 1, we made some nomenclature changes
to better align our terms with those in MEPC.108(49) and in our current
pollution certificate requirements. Related to this nomenclature
change, we have added paragraph 33 CFR 157.12d(a)(4)(viii)(G) to ensure
the control section of the monitoring system is tested in accordance
with the vibration testing requirements described in 46 CFR 162.050-37.
And we also added paragraph 33 CFR 157.12d(a)(7) to ensure each main
component of the monitoring system is designed in accordance with the
applicable requirements contained in subchapters F and J.
    Compliance with the requirements of this interim rule does not
relieve vessel owners and operators of meeting requirements of other
applicable laws such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251-1387 (also known as the Clean Water Act) or related
regulations. This would include compliance with any National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit regulations
that may be promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in
response to a court order to vacate an EPA regulation, 40 CFR 122.3(a),
which identifies discharges--including most incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel--that do not require NPDES permits. See EPA NPDES
General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Vessel notices published June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34296) and December 29,
2008 (73 FR 79473).

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4 for incorporation by reference under
5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect this material at U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the
material are available from the sources listed in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46
CFR 162.050-4.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993, requires a determination whether a regulatory
action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rulemaking is not significant under Executive
Order 12866 and OMB has not reviewed it.
    Public comments on the NPRM are summarized in Part IV of this
preamble. We received no public comments and have made no changes that
would alter our assessment of impacts in the NPRM. We have found no
additional data or information that would change our findings in the
NPRM. We have adopted the assessment in the NPRM for this interim rule.
See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' of the NPRM for the complete
analysis. A summary of the assessment follows.
    We estimated 176 existing vessels and 46 new vessels annually will
be affected by this rule and incur additional costs for installing OWS
and bilge alarms.
    We estimated the annual costs of the OWS and bilge alarms combined
range from $9,000 to $19,000, depending on vessel type and size for
both existing and new vessels. We estimated non-discounted annual costs
for existing vessels at approximately $2.3 million and approximately
$550,000 for new vessels, or about $2.9 million combined. We estimated
the total 10-year present value cost of the rule to be $21 million or
$25 million based on a seven or three

percent discount rate (all values rounded).
    The benefits of this rule are improved environmental conditions
from the use of PPE, which meets higher standards of pollution
prevention. The new OWS equipment will better handle the separation of
emulsified oils, surfactants, and contaminants from water. There is
also a broader range and volume of pollutants that will no longer be
released into the environment because of these new standards. See the
``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of the NPRM for additional details.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule has 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.
    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. We have found no additional data or
information that would change our findings in the NPRM. We have adopted
the certification in the NPRM for this interim rule. See the ``Small
Entity'' section of the NPRM for the complete threshold analysis.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that
this interim rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this interim rule will have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult Mr. Wayne Lundy, Office of Systems
Engineering (CG-5213), Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The paperwork
burden associated with the manufacture, laboratory testing, approval
tests, and marking of pollution prevention equipment is addressed in
the existing collection of information, OMB 1625-0035,
entitled ``Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical and
Engineering Equipment; Construction and Materials.'' The Office of
Management and Budget approved this collection of information on March
17, 2006. It will expire after the 3-year approval period ends on March
31, 2009.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89,
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).)
    The pollution prevention equipment regulations promulgated in this
rule are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States, and
therefore preemption under E.O. 13132 is not an issue.

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 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 effect 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 interim rule uses the following consensus standards that are
not voluntary standards:
     IMO Assembly Resolution A.393(X)--Recommendation on
International Performance and Test Specifications For Oily-Water
Separating Equipment and Oil Content Meters;
     IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII)--Guidelines and
     Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control
Systems for Oil Tankers;
     IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14)--Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers;
     IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.13(19)--Guidelines for Plan Approval and Installation Survey of
Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers and
Environmental Testing of Control Sections Thereof;
     IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49)--Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers.
     International Organization for Standardization Standard
ISO 8217 (2005) Petroleum products--Fuels (class F)--Specification of
marine fuels;
     International Organization for Standardization Standard
ISO 9377-2 (2000), Water Quality--Determination of hydrocarbon oil
index--Part 2: Method Using solvent extraction and Gas Chromatography.
    They are used because the United States is party to MARPOL Annex I
and we must use these standards to effectively implement MARPOL Annex I
regulations. The sections that reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are available are listed in 33 CFR
157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of the Instruction and under section
6(b) of the ``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast
Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency
Policy,'' (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002), from further environmental
documentation. This regulation fits within these categorical exclusions
because it concerns equipment approval and carriage requirements and
implements regulations designed to protect the environment. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

    Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 157

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

46 CFR Part 162

    Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 162 as follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

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

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 155 to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 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.

    Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40,
150, 151, and 153.

0
2. In Sec.  155.350, revise the section heading and add paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  155.350  Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil tank ballast water
discharges on oceangoing ships of less than 400 gross tons.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46
CFR part 162, subpart 162.050, unless the equipment is installed on a
ship constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or
impracticable to meet those current standards.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  155.360, revise the section heading, redesignate paragraph
(a) as (a)(1) and add paragraph (a)(2) 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) * * *
    (2) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46
CFR part 162, subpart 162.050, unless the equipment is installed on a
ship constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or
impracticable to meet those current standards.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  155.370, add paragraph (a)(4) 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) * * *
    (4) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under
paragraph (a) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46 CFR
part 162, subpart 162.050, unless the equipment is installed on a ship
constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or impracticable
to meet those current standards.
* * * * *

0
5. Revise Sec.  155.380 to read as follows:

Sec.  155.380  Oily water separating equipment and bilge alarm approval
standards.

    (a) On U.S. inspected ships, oily water separating equipment and
bilge alarms must be approved under 46 CFR 162.050.
    (b) On U.S. uninspected ships and foreign ships, oily water
separating equipment and bilge alarms must be approved under either 46
CFR 162.050 or MARPOL 73/78 Annex I.

    Note to Sec.  155.380(b): A copy of Annex I to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended
(MARPOL 73/78) may be purchased from the International Maritime
Organization, Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1
75R, United Kingdom, Telex 23588; see also http://www.imo.org.

    (c) A ship that is required to have a bilge alarm may defer
installment and use a previously installed bilge monitor provided the
bilge monitor met Coast Guard approval requirements at the time of its
installation and it does not allow more than a 15 ppm oil content in
water discharge.
    (d) The accuracy of the bilge alarms must be checked at IOPP
Certificate renewal surveys according to the manufacturer's
instructions. Alternatively, the unit may be replaced by a calibrated
bilge alarm. The calibration certificate for the bilge alarm, which
certifies the date of the last calibration check, should be retained
onboard for inspection purposes. The accuracy checks can only be done
by the manufacturer or persons authorized by the manufacturer.
    (e) Ship staff training must include familiarization in the
operation and maintenance of the equipment.
    (f) The routine maintenance of the oily water separating equipment
and the bilge alarm must be clearly defined by the manufacturer in the
associated operating and maintenance manuals. All routine and repair
maintenance must be recorded.

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

0
6. Revise the authority citation for part 157 to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subparts G,
H, and I are also issued under section 4115(b), Pub. L. 101-380, 104
Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546.

0
7. Revise Sec.  157.02 to read as follows:

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

    (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
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. Also, it is available for inspection
at the Coast Guard, Systems Engineering Division (CG-5213), Office of
Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and is
available from the sources indicated in this section.
    (b) International Maritime Organization (IMO)--4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.
    (1) IMCO Assembly Resolution A.393(X), adopted on 14 November 1977,
Recommendation on International Performance and Test Specifications For
Oily Water Separating Equipment and Oil Content Meters (``A.393(x)''),
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.12.
    (2) IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII), Adopted on 19 November
1981, Agenda Item 11, Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers (``A.496(XII)''),
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.12.
    (3) IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14), Adopted on 20 November 1985,
Agenda item 12, Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge
Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers (``A.586(14)''),
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.12.
    (4) IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution MEPC.13
(19), adopted on 9 December 1983, Guidelines for Plan Approval and
Installation Survey of Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for
Oil Tankers and Environmental Testing of Control Sections Thereof
(``MEPC.13(19)''), incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
157.12.
    (5) IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution
MEPC.108(49), Adopted on 18 July 2003, Revised Guidelines and
Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil
Tankers (``MEPC.108(49)''), incorporation by reference approved for
Sec.  157.12.
    (6) IMO Assembly Resolution A.601(15), Provision and Display of
Manoeuvring Information on Board Ships, Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1,
and 3.2 with appendices, adopted on 19 November 1987 (``A.601(15)''),
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.450.
    (7) IMO Assembly Resolution A.744(18), Guidelines on the Enhanced
Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3-1.1.4, 1.2-1.3, 2.1, 2.3-2.6, 3-8, and
Annexes 1-10 with appendices, adopted 4 November 1993 (``A.744(18)''),
incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.430.
    (8) IMO Assembly Resolution A.751(18), Interim Standards for Ship
Manoeuvrability, Annex sections 1.2, 2.3-2.4, 3-4.2, and 5, adopted 4
November 1993 with Explanatory Notes in MSC/Circ. 644 dated 6 June 1994
(``A.751(18)''), incorporation by reference approved for Sec.  157.445.
    (c) Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen
Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9BU, England].
    (1) International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals,
Fourth Edition, Chapters 6, 7, and 10, 1996, incorporation by reference
approved for Sec.  157.435.
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  157.03  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  157.03, remove the words ``cargo monitor'' from paragraph
(2) of the definition of ``clean ballast'', and add, in their place,
the words ``oil discharge monitoring''.

Sec.  157.11  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  157.11 (b)(2)(iii), remove the words ``a cargo monitor''
and add, in their place, the words ``an oil content meter''.

0
10. Revise Sec.  157.12 to read as follows:

Sec.  157.12  Oil discharge monitoring and control system.

    (a) Each vessel must have an oil discharge monitoring and control
system (monitoring system) that is designed for use with each type of
cargo oil that the vessel carries.
    (b) Each oil content meter component of the monitoring system
installed on a U.S. vessel must be approved under 46 CFR part 162,
subpart 162.050. Each oil content meter component of the

monitoring system installed on a foreign vessel must be approved:
    (1) Under 46 CFR part 162, subpart 162.050; or
    (2) As meeting IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
resolution MEPC.108(49) by a country that has ratified the MARPOL 73/
78. Paragraph 1.2.2 of MEPC.108(49) provides, as to equipment installed
in ``oil tankers the keels of which are laid, or which are at a similar
stage of construction, before January 1, 2005,'' for alternative
compliance with IMO resolutions A.393(X), A.496(XII), MEPC.13(19), and
A.586(14). These five resolutions are incorporated by reference (see
Sec.  157.02).
    (c) Each oil discharge monitoring and control system on a U.S.
vessel must be installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  157.12b through
157.12g of this part.

0
11. Add Sec. Sec.  157.12a through 157.12g to read as follows:

Sec.  157.12a  Definitions.

    As used in Sec. Sec.  157.12a through 157.12g--
    Control section means a unit in a monitoring system composed of the
items specified in Sec.  157.12d(a)(4)(viii).
    Control unit means a device that receives automatic signals of oil
content of the effluent ppm, flow rate of discharge m\3\/hour, ship's
speed in knots, ship's position-latitude and longitude, date and time
(GMT, Greenwich Mean Time), and status of the overboard discharge
control. The control unit makes automatic recordings of data as
specified in Sec.  157.12d(h)(2).
    Oil discharge monitoring and control system or monitoring system
means a system that monitors the discharge into the sea of oily ballast
or other oil-contaminated water from the cargo tank areas and comprises
the items specified in Sec.  157.12d(a)(4).
    Overboard discharge control means a device that automatically
initiates the sequence to stop the overboard discharge of the effluent
in alarm conditions and prevents the discharge throughout the period
the alarm condition prevails. The device may be arranged to close the
overboard valves or to stop the relevant pumps, as appropriate.
    PPM means parts of oil per million parts of water by volume.
    Starting interlock means a facility that prevents the initiation of
the opening of the discharge valve or the operation of other equivalent
arrangements before the monitoring system is fully operational when use
of the monitoring system is required by the Convention.

Sec.  157.12b  Implementation requirements.

    Oil discharge monitoring and control systems must be fitted to oil
tankers to which this subpart applies. A monitoring and control system
must employ a control unit and be fitted with a starting interlock and
overboard discharge control.

Sec.  157.12c  Construction, maintenance, security, calibration, and
training.

    (a) The oil discharge monitoring and control system must be
designed to ensure that user access is restricted to essential
controls. Access beyond these controls must be available for emergency
maintenance and temporary repair but must require the breaking of
security seals or activation of another device, which indicates an
entry to the equipment.
    (b) The seals must be of a design that only the manufacturer or the
manufacturer's agent can replace the seals or reset the system
following inspection and permanent repairs to the equipment.
    (c) The accuracy of the monitoring system must be verified during
International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate renewal surveys. The
calibration certificate certifying date of last calibration check must
be retained on board for inspection purposes.
    (d) The monitoring system may have several scales as appropriate
for its intended use. The recording device fitted to a meter which has
more than one scale must indicate the scale which is in use.
    (e) Simple means must be provided aboard ship to check on
instrument drift, repeatability of the instrument reading, and the
ability to re-zero the instrument.
    (f) Ship staff training must include familiarization in the
operation and the maintenance of the equipment.
    (g) The routine maintenance of the monitoring system and
troubleshooting procedures must be clearly defined in the Operating and
Maintenance Manual. All routine maintenance and repairs must be
recorded.

Sec.  157.12d  Technical specifications.

    (a) Oil discharge monitoring and control system. (1) The monitoring
system must be capable of effectively monitoring and controlling the
discharge of any effluent into the sea through those overboard
discharge outlets permitted by Sec.  157.11 that are necessary to
fulfill the operational requirements of the oil tanker.
    (2) The discharge of dirty ballast water or other oil-contaminated
water from the cargo tank areas into the sea through outlets, which are
not controlled by the monitoring system is prohibited.
    (3) The monitoring system must function effectively under all
environmental conditions normally encountered by oil tankers, and must
be designed and constructed to satisfy the specifications for approval
in 46 CFR subpart 162.050. Moreover--
    (i) The system must be designed so a discharge of dirty-ballast or
other oil-contaminated water from the cargo tank areas cannot take
place unless the monitoring system is in the normal operating mode and
the relevant sampling point has been selected;
    (ii) The system should sample the effluent discharge from a minimum
number of discharge outlets and be arranged so that discharge overboard
can take place via only one outlet at a time;
    (iii) Where it is intended that more than one line be used for
simultaneous discharging purposes, one oil content meter, together with
a flow meter, must be installed in each discharge line. These
instruments must be connected to a common processor; and
    (iv) To avoid alarms because of short-term high-oil-concentration
signals (spikes) causing indications of high instantaneous rates of
discharge, the short-term high ppm signal may be suppressed for a
maximum of 10 seconds. Alternatively, the instantaneous rate of
discharge may be continuously averaged during the preceding 20 seconds
or less as computed from instantaneous ppm values of the oil content
meter readings received at intervals not exceeding 5 seconds.
    (4) The monitoring system must comprise--
    (i) An oil content meter to measure the oil content of the effluent
in ppm. The meter must be approved in accordance with the provisions
contained in 46 CFR subpart 162.050 and certified to take into account
the range of cargoes carried;
    (ii) A flow rate indicating system to measure the rate of effluent
being discharged into the sea;
    (iii) A ship speed indicating device to give the ship's speed in
knots;
    (iv) A ship position indicating device to give the ship's position-
latitude and longitude;
    (v) A sampling system to convey a representative sample of the
effluent to the oil content meter;
    (vi) An overboard discharge control to stop the overboard
discharge;
    (vii) A starting interlock to prevent the discharge overboard of
any effluent unless the monitoring system is fully operational; and

    (viii) A control section comprising--
    (A) A processor that accepts signals of oil content in the
effluent, the effluent flow rate, and the ship's speed, and computes
these values into liters of oil discharged per nautical mile and the
total quantity of oil discharged;
    (B) A means to provide alarms and command signals to the overboard
discharge control;
    (C) A recording device to provide a record of data required under
Sec.  157.12d(h)(2);
    (D) A data display to exhibit the current operational data required
under Sec.  157.12d(i);
    (E) A manual override system to be used in the event of failure of
the monitoring system;
    (F) A means to provide signals to the starting interlock to prevent
the discharge of any effluent before the monitoring system is fully
operational; and
    (G) The control section of the monitoring system must be tested in
accordance with the vibration testing requirements described in 46 CFR
162.050-37.
    (5) Each main component of the monitoring system must be fitted
with a name plate, properly identifying the component by assembly
drawing number, type or model number, and serial number, as
appropriate.
    (6) The electrical components of the monitoring system that are to
be installed in an explosive atmosphere must be in compliance with 46
CFR 162.050-25.
    (7) Each main component of the monitoring system must be designed
in accordance with the applicable requirements contained in subchapters
F and J.
    (b) Sampling system. (1) Sampling points must be located so
relevant samples can be obtained from those outlets used for
operational discharges in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section. The sampling probes located in the overboard discharge lines
and the piping system connecting the sampling probes to the oil content
meter must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) The piping and probes must be--
    (i) Of a material resistant to fire, corrosion, and oil; and
    (ii) Of adequate strength and properly jointed and supported.
    (3) The system must have a stop-valve fitted adjacent to each
probe, except that, where the probe is mounted in a cargo line, two
stop-valves must be fitted, in series, in the sample line. One of these
may be the remote controlled sample selector valve.
    (4) Sampling probes must be arranged for easy withdrawal and must,
as far as practicable, be mounted at an accessible location in a
vertical section of the discharge line. Should it be necessary to fit
sampling probes in a horizontal section of the discharge line it must
be ascertained, during the installation survey, that the pipe runs full
of liquid at all times during the discharge of the effluent. Sampling
probes must normally penetrate inside the discharge pipe to a distance
of one quarter the diameter of that pipe.
    (5) Means must be provided for cleaning the probes and piping
system by the provision of permanent clean water flushing arrangements
or an equivalent method. The design of the probes and piping must be
such as to minimize their clogging by oil, oily residue, and other
matter.
    (6) The velocity of the fluid in the piping must be such that,
taking into consideration the length of the piping, the overall
response time must be as short as possible between an alteration in the
mixture being pumped and the alteration in the oil content meter
reading. In no case should the response time, including the response
time of the oil content meter, be more than 40 seconds.
    (7) The location of sampling probes in relation to any point of
flow diversion to a slop tank must be selected with regard to the need
for sampling the oily water in the recirculation mode.
    (8) The arrangements for driving the sampling pump or any other
pumps used in the system must account for the safety requirements of
the space in which the pump is located. Any bulkhead penetration
between a hazardous and a non-hazardous area must be of a design
meeting the requirements of 46 CFR 32.60-20 and 46 CFR subpart 111.105.
    (9) The flushing arrangement must be such that where necessary it
can be utilized for test-running and stabilizing the oil content meter
and correcting for zero setting.
    (10) Sample water returning to the slop tank must not be allowed to
free-fall into the tank. In tankers equipped with an inert gas system,
a water seal meeting the requirements of 46 CFR 32.53-10(b) must be
arranged in the piping leading to a slop tank.
    (11) A valve must be provided for the manual collection of samples
from the inlet piping to the oil content meter at a point downstream of
any sampling pump.
    (c) Flow rate indicating system. (1) A flow meter for measuring the
rate of discharge must be installed in a vertical section of a
discharge line or in any other section of a discharge line as
appropriate, so as to be always filled with the liquid being
discharged.
    (2) A flow meter must employ an operating principle which is
suitable for shipboard use and, where relevant, can be used in large
diameter pipes.
    (3) A flow meter must be suitable for the full range of flow rates
that may be encountered during normal operation. Alternatively,
arrangements such as the use of two flow meters of different ranges or
a restriction of the operational flow rate range may be employed if
necessary to meet this requirement.
    (4) The flow meter, as installed, must have an accuracy of 10 percent, or better, of the instantaneous rate of discharge
throughout the operating range for discharging the effluent.
    (5) Any component part of the flow meter in contact with the
effluent should be of corrosion-resistant and oil-resistant material of
adequate strength.
    (6) The design of the flow metering arrangements must account for
the safety requirements of the space in which such metering
arrangements are located.
    (d) Ship's speed indicating system. The automatic speed signal
required for a monitoring system must be obtained from the ship's speed
indicating device by means of a repeater signal. The speed information
used may be either speed over the ground or speed through the water,
depending upon the speed measuring equipment installed on board.

    Note to paragraph (d): See ``Recommendation on Performance
Standards for Devices to Indicate Speed and Distance,'' Annex to
resolution A.824(19) as amended by resolution MSC.96(72).

    (e) Ship position indicating device. The ship position indicating
device must consist of a receiver for a global navigation satellite
system, a terrestrial radio navigation system, or other means suitable
for use at all times throughout the intended voyage to establish and
update the ship's position by automatic means.
    (f) Overboard discharge control management. The overboard discharge
control must be able to stop the discharge of the effluent into the sea
automatically by either closing all relevant overboard discharge valves
or stopping all relevant pumps. The discharge control arrangement must
be fail-safe so that all effluent discharge is stopped when the
monitoring system is not in operation, at alarm conditions, or when the
monitoring system fails to function.
    (g) Processor and transmitting device. (1) The processor of a
control section must receive signals from the oil content

meter, the flow rate indicating system and the ship's speed indicating
system at time intervals not exceeding 5 seconds and must automatically
compute the following:
    (i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil in liters per nautical
mile; and
    (ii) Total quantity of oil discharged during the voyage in cubic
meters or liters.
    (2) When the limits imposed by Sec.  157.37(a)(3) and (4) are
exceeded, the processor must provide alarms and provide command signals
to the overboard discharge control arrangement, which will cause the
discharge of effluent into the sea to stop.
    (3) The processor must normally include a device for the continuous
generation of time and date information. Alternative arrangements that
ensure the automatic and continuous reception of time and date
information from an external source may be approved by the Marine
Safety Center.
    (4) In the event of power failure the processor must retain its
memory in respect to computation of the total quantity of oil
discharged, time, and date. A printout of data must be obtained when
the monitoring system is operating with manual override, but the
printout of data is not required if, when the power fails, the
monitoring system activates the overboard discharge control to stop the
discharge of effluent.
    (h) Recording devices. (1) The recording device of a control
section must include a digital printer, which may be formatted
electronically. The recorded parameters must be explicitly identified
on the printout. The printout must be legible and must remain so once
removed from the recording device and must be retained for at least 3
years.
    (2) The data to be automatically recorded must include at least the
following:
    (i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of oil (liters per nautical
mile);
    (ii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm);
    (iii) The total quantity of oil discharged (cubic meters or
liters);
    (iv) Time and date (GMT, Greenwich Mean Time);
    (v) Ship's speed in knots;
    (vi) Ship's position--latitude and longitude;
    (vii) Effluent flow rate;(viii) Status of the overboard discharge
control or arrangement;
    (ix) Oil type selector setting, where applicable;
    (x) Alarm condition;
    (xi) Failure, including, but not limited to, fault or no flow; and
    (xii) Override action, including, but not limited to, manual
override, flushing, and calibration. Any information inserted manually
as a result of an override action must be identified as such on the
printout.
    (3) Data required in paragraph (h)(2) of this section must be
printed out or may be stored electronically with printout capability,
with the following minimum frequency:
    (i) When the discharge is started;
    (ii) When the discharge is stopped;
    (iii) At intervals of not more than 10 minutes (except when the
system is in stand-by mode);
    (iv) When an alarm condition develops;
    (v) When normal conditions are restored;
    (vi) Whenever the computed rate of discharge varies by 10 liters
per nautical mile;
    (vii) When zero-setting or calibration modes are selected; and
    (viii) On manual command.