Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 52413 

regulations that will have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Department does not 

believe that this rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, as 

the rule relieves the additional burden 

imposed upon labor organizations 

through the rescission of the regulations 

published on January 21, 2009. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act is not required. The 

Secretary has certified this conclusion 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform 

This rule will not include any Federal 

mandate that may result in increased 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of $100 

million or more, or in increased 

expenditures by the private sector of 

$100 million or more. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no new 

information collection requirements for 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). If the January 21 rule had gone 

into effect, it would have increased the 

burden of reporting under OMB No. 

1215–0188. Under the January 21 rule, 

the total burden hours per Form LM–2 

respondent would have increased by 

approximately 60.06 hours, and the total 

burden hours would have increased by 

274,539. The average cost per Form LM– 

2 respondent would have been 

increased by $1,939 and the total cost 

would have increased by $8,863,038. 

Since this rule rescinds the January 21 

rule, the increases in reporting burden 

under OMB No. 1215–0188 will not 

occur. The Department will seek OMB 

approval of any revisions of the existing 

information collection requirements, in 

accordance with the PRA. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100,000,000 or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of the United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 403 

Labor unions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Final Rule published 

January 21, 2009 amending 29 CFR parts 

403 and 408 (74 FR 3678), for which the 

effective date was delayed on February 

20, 2009 (74 FR 7814) and April 21, 

2009 (74 FR 18132) is withdrawn. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

October 2009. 

Shelby Hallmark, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment 

Standards. 

John Lund, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for LaborManagement Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–24571 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CP–P 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing 

its January 16, 2009, interim rule 

establishing oil pollution prevention 

equipment requirements with one minor 

amendment to the rule’s effective date 

for vessels with equipment installed on 

or after January 1, 2005. The rule 

harmonizes Coast Guard regulations 

with new International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) guidelines and 

specifications issued under the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL) Annex I. It implements these 

MARPOL Annex I regulations and, 

ultimately, is intended to reduce the 

amount of oil discharged from vessels 

and eliminate the use of ozonedepleting solvents in equipment tests. 

All vessels replacing or installing oilywater separators and bilge alarms must 

install equipment that meets these 

revised standards. Newly constructed 

vessels carrying oil in bulk must install 

monitoring systems that meet the 

revised standards. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 12, 2009, except that 

paragraphs 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 

155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4) are 

effective October 13, 2009. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2004–18939 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2004–18939 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Wayne Lundy, Systems 

Engineering Division (CG–5213), Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202–372– 

1379, e-mail Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background and Purpose 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IOPP International Oil Pollution Prevention 

ISO International Organization for 

Standardization 

MARPOL International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection 

Committee 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1On December 15, 2005, the Coast Guard 

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. 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OWS Oily-Water Separator 

PPM Parts Per Million 

§ Section symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Regulatory History 

On November 3, 2005, the Coast 

Guard published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Pollution 

Prevention Equipment’’ in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 67066).1 We received 17 

letters containing 80 comments on the 

proposed rule. The comments did not 

request a public meeting and none was 

held. 

On January 16, 2009, the Coast Guard 

published an interim rule (74 FR 3364) 

that updated references for the 

international standard for pollution 

prevention equipment from the 

International Maritime Organization’s 

Marine Environment Protection 

Committee resolution, MEPC.60(33) to 

the new international standard in 

MEPC.107(49) and addressed the 80 

comments on the NPRM. With the 

interim rule we also sought comment on 

three paragraphs: 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 

155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4), which 

proposed requiring any pollution 

prevention equipment installed on or 

after January 1, 2005, that does not 

comply with MEPC.107(49), which 

became an international requirement on 

January 1, 2005, to be replaced with 

pollution prevention equipment that 

does comply with the MEPC.107(49) 

standard. These three paragraphs were 

not included in the NPRM, and we 

solicited public comment on them in 

the interim rule. We received five 

comments, which are discussed below 

in IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes. 

The interim rule, with the exception 

of the three paragraphs, became 

effective on March 17, 2009. Under the 

interim rule, the three paragraphs 

regarding equipment installed on or 

after January 1, 2005, were set to 

become effective on October 13, 2009. 

Under this final rule, however, the three 

paragraphs as amended by the final rule 

are effective October 13, 2009. The 

Coast Guard is making these paragraphs 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and 

(3) because the three paragraphs relieve 

a restriction otherwise imposed by the 

interim rule that would take effect 

within 30 days of publication of this 

final rule. Specifically, the three 

paragraphs relieve the burden on ship 

owners with equipment installed on or 

after January 1, 2005, from having to 

comply with the rule’s requirements by 

October 13, 2009, and instead add a 

compliance date tied to the vessel’s 

drydock or vessel survey schedule, as 

applicable. Requiring ship owners to 

comply with these requirements on 

October 13, 2009, until an effective date 

thirty days after the publication of this 

final rule would cause unnecessary 

burdens and confusion and, therefore, 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. As such, the Coast 

Guard has determined that it has good 

cause for immediate implementation of 

these three paragraphs. The remaining 

provisions of this final rule become 

effective 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

III. Background and Purpose 

The discussion of the background that 

follows largely repeats the discussion of 

the background and purpose set forth in 

the interim rule. 

This final 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 three types of equipment 

involved in this rulemaking that deal 

with oil, water, and other substances: 

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 of an effluent 

exceeds 15 ppm, and thus stop any 

discharge overboard of oily mixtures 

with an oil content exceeding 15 ppm. 

An oil content meter (hereinafter 

‘‘meter’’) is a piece of equipment in an 

oil discharge monitoring and control 

system (hereinafter ‘‘monitoring 

system’’) on an oil tanker. The system 

processes oil-tanker ballast and tankwashing water and monitors the 

discharge into the sea of oily ballast or 

other oil-contaminated water effluent 

from the cargo tank areas. The meter 

measures the oil content of the effluent 

in ppm. 

B. Authority 

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 of the Department 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 II(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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 52415 

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. 

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 flow meter; 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). 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

In response to our request for 

comments on the three paragraphs—33 

CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 

155.370(a)(4)—in the interim rule, we 

received five comments from three 

commenters. One comment was 

submitted jointly by two commenters 

who generally agree with the interim 

rule, but suggest that the Coast Guard 

adopt a pollution standard stricter than 

the 15 ppm set forth in MARPOL Annex 

I. While the Coast Guard appreciates the 

support for the interim rule, the 

commenters’ suggestion to adopt a 

maximum oil discharge limit lower than 

15 ppm is outside the jurisdiction of the 

Coast Guard. 

The four remaining comments came 

from a manufacturer, and one of his 

comments specifically addressed 33 

CFR 155.350(a)(3), one of the three 

delayed-effective date paragraphs on 

which we sought public comment in the 

interim rule. The three other comments 

sought clarification to other aspects of 

the interim rule. The Coast Guard 

provided the below responses to these 

four comments in direct 

communications to the manufacturer, 

unless noted otherwise. A summary and 

the substance of those communications 

are available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

Regarding 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), the 

commenter asked for clarification on 

when ship owners would have to 

comply with the requirement set forth 

in paragraph (a)(3), which will become 

effective on October 13, 2009. The 

commenter noted that it appears this 

paragraph requires all equipment 

installed after 2004 to be supplied or 

upgraded to satisfy these new 

international standards in 

MEPC.107(49), and asked if this needs 

to be accomplished by October 13. The 

Coast Guard’s initial response in a direct 

communication to the manufacturer, 

which is included in the docket, 

deferred addressing this comment until 

the close of the comment period. 

The Coast Guard recognizes that it 

may not be feasible for ship owners to 

comply with the requirements in 

§ 155.350(a)(3) by October 13, and in 

response to this comment, we are 

adding an implementation period to 

allow ship owners to budget and plan 

for the work required to comply. Under 

revised paragraph (a)(3), a vessel owner 

must install equipment meeting the new 

requirements in MEPC.107(49) by one of 

two dates, as set forth in new 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii): either 

the date of the vessel’s first drydock 

following October 13, 2009, or for those 

vessels going into international service 

for the first time since January 2005, the 

date of its first survey prior to receiving 

its International Oil Pollution 

Prevention (IOPP) certificate. The Coast 

Guard is making the same change to 

paragraphs 155.360(a)(2) and 

155.370(a)(4). 

The manufacturer’s second comment 

requested clarification on the interim 

rule’s affect on his backlog of equipment 

that complies with the older 

international standard, MEPC.60(33), 

and is ordered but not yet installed. The 

commenter noted that the interim rule 

may preclude the installation of any 

MEPC.60(33) equipment after March 17, 

2009. 

The Coast Guard’s response to this 

comment is that equipment that has not 

been physically installed must comply 

with the current regulations, i.e., the 

MEPC.107(49) standard. 

The commenter’s third comment 

asked for clarification of whether, under 

the interim rule, bilge alarms replaced 

after March 17, 2009, on separators 

installed prior to January 1, 2005, must 

be replaced with bilge alarms complying 

with the revised 46 CFR 162.050 

specifications. The Coast Guard notes 

this comment concerns what is meant 

by the term ‘‘good working order.’’ 

After March 17, 2009, if a bilge alarm 

approved to MEPC.60(33) needs to be 

replaced, then it may be replaced by a 

bilge alarm approved to MEPC.60(33), 

but only for separators approved to 

MEPC.60(33) that were installed on the 

ship prior to January 1, 2005. This is 

allowed in recognition of the need for 

compatibility between the separator and 

bilge alarm, as well the relative ease to 

replace a bilge alarm. Separators 

approved to MEPC.60(33) that were 

installed on the ship prior to January 1, 

2005, may continue to be used as long 

as they are maintained in good working 

order, which includes basic or routine 

maintenance and repair of such 

separators as well as replacement of 

components and consumables. If, 

however, a separator approved to 

MEPC.60(33) needs to be replaced, 

regardless of when it was installed on 

the ship, then it must be replaced with 

a separator approved to MEPC.107(49). 

In this case, the separator approved to 

MEPC.107(49) must also have a bilge 

alarm approved to MEPC.107(49). 

Finally, the commenter’s fourth 

comment sought confirmation that the 

definition of the term ‘‘expired’’ as used 

in the preamble to the interim rule (74 

FR 3375) has the same meaning as 

‘‘expired’’ on the United States Coast 

Guard Maritime Information Exchange 

Web site, Approved Equipment 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52416 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2 ‘‘EXPIRED—Product’s approval has expired, and 

the approval holder has not notified us whether it 

should be extended or terminated. Pending 

resolution of its status, the product is no longer 

approved for production. Items manufactured prior 

to expiration of the approval are considered 

APPROVED.’’ 

Definitions. http://cgmix.uscg.mil/ 

Equipment/Definitions.aspx.2

The Coast Guard response to this 

comment is that a bilge alarm or 

separator installed on a ship on or after 

January 1, 2005, but not having approval 

under MEPC.107(49), is subject to the 

requirements of 33 CFR 155.350, 

155.360, and 155.370, (see 74 FR 3363 

and 74 FR 6358), namely the 

requirement to be replaced by 

equipment approved under 

MEPC.107(49) unless it is determined to 

be unreasonable or impracticable. Bilge 

alarms and separators installed prior to 

January 1, 2005, having a Certificate of 

Approval issued by the Coast Guard, 

can remain installed on the ship as long 

as they are maintained in good working 

order. Please note: A Certificate of 

Approval is issued by the Coast Guard 

to a manufacturer usually for a period 

of five years. This five-year period 

primarily affects the manufacturer and 

not the ship. Equipment of a type 

approved by the Coast Guard that is 

manufactured during this five year 

period in accordance with the terms of 

the certificate may be installed on a ship 

in order to meet the applicable 

requirements for approved equipment. 

There is no requirement, however, that 

equipment be removed when the 

Certificate of Approval expires. 

Discussion of Final Rule 

This rule finalizes the amendments 

set forth in the interim rule. A full 

discussion of the provisions of this rule 

may be found in the ‘‘Discussion of 

Interim Rule’’ section of the interim 

rule. 74 FR 3364, at 3375. We are 

making only one minor change to the 

interim rule in the final rule by adding 

implementation periods in 33 CFR 

155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 

155.370(a)(4), as discussed above. 

V. 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. Copies of 

the material are available from the 

sources listed in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 

CFR 162.050–4. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

Public comments on the interim rule 

are summarized in Part IV of this 

preamble. The Coast Guard received no 

public comments, and have made no 

changes, that would alter our 

assessment of impacts in the interim 

rule. We have found no additional data 

or information that would change our 

findings in the interim rule. We have 

adopted the assessment in the interim 

rule as final. A summary 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: $9,000 for vessels 

below 400 gross tons; $13,000 for 

vessels 400 gross tons or more and less 

than 10,000 gross tons; and, $19,000 for 

vessels 10,000 gross tons and over. 

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. These pollutants will no longer 

be released into the environment 

because of these standards. See the 

assessments in the interim rule and 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 interim rule, 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 interim rule. We 

have adopted the certification in the 

interim rule for this final rule. See the 

‘‘Small Entity’’ sections of the interim 

rule and the NPRM for additional 

details. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. 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), Office of Design and 

Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast 

Guard, telephone 202–372–1379, e-mail 

Wayne.M.Lundy@uscg.mil. 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 renewed its 

approval of this collection of 

information on May 27, 2009. It will 

expire after the 3-year approval period 

ends on May 31, 2012, unless renewed 

again. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 52417 

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 final 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 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(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. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
52418 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR parts 155 and 157 and 

46 CFR part 162, which was published 

at 74 FR 3377 on January 16, 2009, as 

amended by the correction published at 

74 FR 6358 on February 9, 2009, is 

adopted as a final rule with the 

following changes: 

TITLE 33—NAVIGATION AND 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 155 

continues 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 

Public Law 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. 

■ 2. In § 155.350, revise paragraph (a)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 by the date set forth in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this 

section, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

(i) A ship entering international 

service for the first time since 2004, 

must comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section by the 

date of its initial survey prior to 

receiving its International Oil Pollution 

Prevention (IOPP) certificate. 

(ii) Any ship, other than a ship 

described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section, must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section by the date of the ship’s first 

drydock after October 13, 2009. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 155.360, revise paragraph (a)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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) * * * 

(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 by the date set forth in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

(i) A ship entering international 

service for the first time since 2004, 

must comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section by the 

date of its initial survey prior to 

receiving its International Oil Pollution 

Prevention (IOPP) certificate. 

(ii) Any ship, other than a ship 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 

section, must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section by the date of the ship’s first 

drydock after October 13, 2009. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 155.370, revise paragraph (a)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 by the date set forth in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this 

section, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

(i) A ship entering international 

service for the first time since 2004, 

must comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the 

date of its initial survey prior to 

receiving its International Oil Pollution 

Prevention (IOPP) certificate. 

(ii) Any ship, other than a ship 

described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section, must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (4) of this 

section by the date of the ship’s first 

drydock after October 13, 2009. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E9–24670 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 370 

[Docket No. RM 2008–7] 

Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of 

Sound Recordings Under Statutory 

License 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

are issuing final regulations for the 

delivery and format of reports of use of 

sound recordings for the statutory 

licenses set forth in sections 112 and 

114 of the Copyright Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 12, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or 

Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by 

telephone at (202) 707–7658 or e-mail at 

crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 6, 2006, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges (‘‘Judges’’) issued 

interim regulations published in the 

Federal Register for the delivery and 

format of reports of use of sound 

recordings for the statutory licenses set 

forth in sections 112 and 114 of the 

Copyright Act. 71 FR 59010. The goal of 

those interim regulations was to 

establish format and delivery 

requirements for reports of use so that 

royalty payments to copyright owners 

pursuant to section 112 and 114 licenses 

could be made from April 1, 2004, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES