5922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

a note to 5 U.S.C. 601), as amended, 

requires the FAA to comply with small 

entity requests for information or advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within its jurisdiction. A 

small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section at the beginning of the preamble. 

To find out more about SBREFA on the 

Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/

regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_

act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, 

Ethiopia. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 is 

amended to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 87—[Removed] 

■ 2. Remove SFAR No. 87 from part 91. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 

40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), in 

Washington, DC, on January 27, 2015. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02193 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0194] 

RIN 1625–AB57 

MARPOL Annex I Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule the Coast 

Guard is updating our regulations to 

harmonize U.S. regulations with 

international conventions regarding oil 

pollution. We are amending the 

regulations covering Title 33: 

Navigation and Navigable Waters to 

align with recent amendments to Annex 

I of the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 

1978, which were adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization’s 

Marine Environment Protection 

Committee during its 52nd, 54th, 55th, 

and 59th sessions. This final rule also 

amends sections of the Vessel Response 

Plan regulations to include the Safety of 

Life at Sea Material Safety Data Sheets 

as an equivalent hazardous 

communications standard. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 5, 

2015. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on May 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2010–0194 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

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

USCG–2010–0194 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, 

and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LCDR William Nabach, Office of 

Operating and Environmental Standards 

(CG–OES–2), Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1386, email 

William.A.Nabach@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background 

A. MARPOL 73/78 

B. SOLAS 1974 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. STS Operations 

B. Oil Record Book 

C. SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets 

D. Other Issues Raised in Comments 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COI Collection of Information 

COTP Captain of the Port 

FR Federal Register 

GHS Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

HCS Hazard Communication Standard 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

MARPOL 73/78 International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 

relating to that Convention 

MSC IMO Maritime Safety Committee 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets 

MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection 

Committee 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine 

Forum 

OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

OSHA Occupation Safety and Health 

Administration 

POAC Person in Overall Advisory Control 

PSC Port state control 

§ Section symbol 

SDS Safety Data Sheets 

SOLAS 1974 International Convention for 

the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 

STBL Ship to be Lightered 

SS Service Ship 

STS Ship-to-Ship transfer 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Regulatory History 

On April 9, 2012, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled MARPOL 

Annex I Amendments in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 21360). The Coast Guard 

also published a notice on July 26, 2012 

(77 FR 43741) extending the public 

comment period for an additional 60 

days so that the public had time to 

review the Regulatory Assessment that 

was added to the docket shortly after the 

NPRM was published. 

We received 12 comment letters with 

31 discrete comments on the proposed 

rule. No public meeting was requested 

and none was held. 

III. Background 

Protection of the marine environment 

and maritime safety are two of the 

primary missions of the Coast Guard. 

Specific Coast Guard regulations are 

designed to minimize the amount of 

pollution produced by ships at sea and 

to protect mariners. Many of the Coast 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5923 

Guard’s pollution control regulations 

implement the International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol 

of 1978, relating to that Convention 

(MARPOL 73/78). Similarly, many 

mariner safety regulations incorporate 

provisions from the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 

as amended (SOLAS 1974), to which the 

U.S. is also a signatory nation. 

A. MARPOL 73/78 

MARPOL 73/78 is an international 

agreement prepared under the direction 

of the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), a United Nations 

specialized agency with responsibility 

for the safety and security of shipping 

and the prevention of marine pollution 

by ships. It is the main international 

convention covering prevention of 

pollution of the marine environment by 

ships from either operational or 

accidental causes. 

MARPOL 73/78 is a combination of 

two international agreements adopted in 

1973 and 1978 and revised by 

subsequent amendments. The 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

adopted on November 2, 1973 (1973 

Convention), covered pollution by oil, 

chemicals, harmful substances in 

packaged form, sewage, and garbage. 

The Protocol of 1978, which amended 

the 1973 Convention, was adopted in 

February 1978, in response to a spate of 

tanker accidents that occurred in 1976 

and 1977. MARPOL 73/78 entered into 

force on October 2, 1983. Annex I of 

MARPOL 73/78, Regulations for the 

Prevention of Pollution by Oil (Annex I) 

contains provisions intended to 

minimize both operational and 

accidental oil pollution from vessels. 

Annex I is implemented in U.S. law 

through the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (APPS) (Pub. L. 96–478, Oct. 

21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2297), codified at 33 

U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Under 33 U.S.C. 

1902, 1903, and Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 

0170.1, the Coast Guard has the 

authority to draft regulations to 

implement the MARPOL 73/78 and the 

amendments thereunder, with respect to 

U.S. vessels and foreign vessels within 

U.S. navigable waters or exclusive 

economic zone. The Coast Guard 

implements MARPOL 73/78 through 

regulations in 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 

156, and 157. 

Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 are 

made through the resolution drafting 

and adoption process within the Marine 

Environment Protection Committee 

(MEPC) of IMO. The United States takes 

part in revising and updating MARPOL 

73/78 by sending delegates to MEPC. 

These delegates negotiate with delegates 

of other signatory nations to support the 

U.S. position regarding pollution from 

ships. 

Since the last revision of Coast Guard 

regulations implementing Annex I in 

2001, (66 FR 55571), there have been 

numerous amendments to the 

international standards. This means that 

the Coast Guard regulations in the CFR 

and the provisions of Annex I are not 

currently aligned. The MEPC revised 

Annex I in the following resolutions: 

• MEPC.117(52) (October 15, 2004): 

This resolution revised all of Annex I 

and adopted new Annex I Regulations 

22 and 23. Regulation 22 requires that 

every tanker of 5,000 deadweight tons or 

more, constructed on or after January 1, 

2007, meet minimum standards of 

pump-room bottom protection, while 

Regulation 23 requires that every tanker 

delivered on or after January 1, 2010, 

must meet the standard for accidental 

oil outflow performance. MEPC.117(52) 

became effective January 1, 2007. 

• MEPC.141(54) (March 24, 2006): 

This resolution adopted Annex I 

Regulation 12A, which contains 

requirements for the protected location 

of oil fuel tanks and performance 

standards for accidental oil fuel outflow 

for all ships delivered on or after August 

1, 2010. This resolution became 

effective August 1, 2007. 

• MEPC.154(55) (October 13, 2006): 

In this resolution, the MEPC adopted 

the Southern South African Waters as a 

special area, which prohibits the 

discharge of bilge water and oil in the 

defined area. This resolution entered 

into force on March 4, 2008. 

• MEPC.186(59) (July 17, 2009): This 

resolution adopted a new Chapter 8 

(consisting of Regulations 40, 41, and 

42) to Annex I to prevent pollution 

during transfer of oil cargo between oil 

tankers at sea. In addition, it added a 

requirement for a Ship-to-Ship transfer 

(STS) operations plan. This entered into 

force on January 1, 2011, and applies to 

STS Operations in which at least one of 

the involved oil tankers is of 150 gross 

tons or more. 

• MEPC.187(59) (July 17, 2009): This 

resolution amended Annex I 

Regulations 1, 12, 13, 17, and 38 by 

altering definitions relating to oil 

residue, and by adding requirements to 

Regulation 12 that ships over 400 gross 

tons contain sludge tanks that meet 

certain specifications. It also amended 

International Oil Pollution Prevention 

Certificate Forms A and B to include a 

section regarding the means for 

retention and disposal of oil residues, 

and added new recordkeeping 

requirements prescribing entries in the 

Oil Record Book for bunkering of fuel or 

bulk lubricating oil or any failure of oil 

filtering equipment. This resolution 

entered into force on January 1, 2011. 

With this final rule, and as required 

by the APPS, the Coast Guard aligns our 

regulations in 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 

156, and 157 with international 

standards in Annex I regarding oil 

pollution from ships. Aligning the U.S. 

domestic regulations with international 

standards decreases the risk that U.S. 

vessels will be subject to Port State 

Control (PSC) enforcement measures 

while engaged in international trade. 

On August 27, 2007, we published a 

notice (72 FR 49013), announcing our 

policy for resolving conflicts between 

our regulations and the Annex I 

amendments. The policy remains in 

effect via 33 U.S.C. 1903 until our 

regulations are aligned with the 

amendments to MARPOL 73/78. Our 

goal in this rulemaking is to align the 

regulations in the CFR with those in 

Annex I, and thus promote consistent 

and homogenous enforcement of Annex 

I through revisions to 33 CFR parts 151, 

155, 156, and 157. 

B. SOLAS 1974 

In addition to revisions to MARPOL 

73/78, we have not yet integrated some 

revisions to the SOLAS 1974 agreement 

into 46 CFR part 197. The Coast Guard 

represents the United States as a 

signatory nation of SOLAS 1974, which 

specifies standards for the safe 

operation of ships at sea. Under 46 

U.S.C. 3306, 46 U.S.C. 3703, and 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard 

has authority to prescribe necessary 

rules and regulations to implement the 

provisions of SOLAS 1974. These 

sections include authority over the 

inspection of vessels and the carriage of 

liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. The 

Coast Guard implements SOLAS 1974, 

in part, through regulations in 46 CFR 

part 197. 

Like MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS 1974 is 

amended by resolution of an IMO 

Committee, in this case the Maritime 

Safety Committee (MSC). In resolution 

MSC.150(77), the 77th Session of the 

MSC urged that beginning in June 2003, 

governments ensure the supply and 

carriage of Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDS) for Annex I cargoes and marine 

fuels. The 83rd session of MSC 

amended SOLAS 1974 by adding 

Regulation 5–1 to Chapter VI, stating 

that ‘‘Ships carrying Annex I cargoes, as 

defined in Appendix I to Annex I of 

[MARPOL 73/78], and marine fuel oils 

shall be provided with a MSDS prior to 

the loading of such cargoes based on the 

recommendations developed by IMO.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

The 86th session of the MSC further 

amended the SOLAS 1974 into clear 

and concise language to ensure a 

common understanding and 

unambiguous implementation of SOLAS 

Regulation VI/5–1. SOLAS Regulation 

VI/5–1 entered into force internationally 

on July 1, 2009. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

As stated previously, the Coast Guard 

received 12 comment letters in response 

to the NPRM, consisting of 31 discrete 

comments. Those comments provided 

detailed and informative perspective on 

the proposed rule and the associated 

economic analysis, and have been 

instrumental in developing this final 

rule. In this section, we discuss the 

comments by grouping them generally 

into four categories: (a) The 

implementation of MARPOL Annex I 

Regulations 40–42 (STS Operations and 

Lightering); (b) The changes to the Oil 

Record Book; (c) The proposal to 

incorporate a requirement to carry 

MSDS on board; and (d) A general 

category for other comments. In each 

section, we describe the proposal from 

the NPRM, the comments received, and 

the changes, if any, made to the final 

rule in light of those comments. 

A. STS Operations 

One of the primary proposed actions 

in the NPRM was to incorporate the new 

regulations governing the STS of oil 

stored as cargo. The existing 33 CFR 

part 156 already contained regulatory 

requirements for lightering operations, 

but the scope of what is considered 

‘lightering’ under the current 

regulations in Part 156 and the scope of 

what is defined as ‘STS Operations’ in 

MARPOL Annex I are slightly different. 

For that reason, as discussed extensively 

in the preamble to the NPRM, we 

proposed to include two sets of 

requirements in Part 156, one that 

would set out the requirements for STS 

Operations as described by MARPOL, 

and one that would cover the remaining 

lightering operations. To that end, we 

included requirements for both in Part 

156. 

We received several comment letters 

discussing the proposal to separate the 

two requirements. These letters 

contained a series of discrete comments 

on numerous aspects of the proposed 

changes. The Coast Guard appreciates 

these comments and has incorporated 

them into the finalized version of the 

rule where warranted. The specific 

issues addressed in the comments are 

laid out below. 

1. Conforming Edits to Part 156, 

Subparts B and C 

Several commenters stated that with 

the separation of what had previously 

been called lightering operations into 

two distinct categories, ‘‘lightering’’ and 

‘‘STS Operations,’’ the proposed 

regulatory changes omitted some 

necessary conforming edits to subparts 

B and C. They made several 

recommendations intended to ensure 

that certain existing requirements that 

should apply to STS Operations are not 

inadvertently omitted. In response to 

those suggestions, we have reexamined 

the proposed text of Part 156 and made 

changes that we believe will accurately 

encompass the changes described in the 

NPRM. 

The NPRM proposed to reorganize 

Part 156 slightly to reflect the 

dichotomy between lightering and STS 

Operations. The existing regulatory text 

contains Subpart B, ‘‘Special 

Requirements for Lightering of Oil and 

Hazardous Material Cargoes,’’ and 

subpart C, ‘‘Lightering Zones and 

Operational Requirements for the Gulf 

of Mexico,’’ both of which simply apply 

the current definition of lightering 

operations. However, as the comments 

pointed out, with the addition of STS 

Operations as a separate operation, 

certain conforming edits to the 

terminology and applicability in those 

sections need to be made to ensure the 

sections apply to the appropriate 

operations. 

Two commenters stated that the 

difference between lightering and STS 

Operations is confusing, and that the 

two terms had historically meant the 

same thing. While we sympathize with 

the confusion, MARPOL Annex I 

applies only to transfers of oil, and only 

when one of the vessels at issue is 150 

GT or larger. While this definition is 

similar to lightering, it is not identical. 

We have endeavored to make the 

regulatory differences between 

lightering and STS Operations clear in 

this rule, and the commenters have 

proposed some ways in which we can 

do this, specifically by adjusting the 

language throughout subparts B and C of 

part 156 to specifically indicate where 

the sections apply to lightering and STS 

Operations. In this final rule, we have 

made numerous conforming edits in 

these parts to better indicate which 

requirements apply to the various types 

of operations. These edits make clear 

that the requirements of subpart C apply 

to STS Operations as well continue to 

apply to lightering. 

Two commenters recommended that 

§ 156.225, ‘‘Designation of Lightering 

Zones,’’ be modified to refer to 

lightering and STS Operations. This 

section currently reads, ‘‘[w]hen a 

lightering zone has been designated, 

lightering operations in a given 

geographic area may only be conducted 

within the designated lightering zone.’’ 

However, the specific rules in effect in 

lightering zones and prohibited areas 

are not intended to be used in lightering 

operations only, but apply to STS 

Operations as well. For that reason, we 

are adopting the commenters’ 

recommendation to include a reference 

to STS Operations in the text of 

§ 156.225. 

Two commenters also recommended 

that an applicability section be added to 

Subpart C. Subpart C lists various 

geographic areas and accompanying 

lightering zones, as well as prohibited 

areas where lightering operations are 

forbidden due to environmental and 

safety concerns. In the NPRM, we 

inadvertently did not include an 

editorial change to § 156.310, 

‘‘Prohibited areas,’’ that would have 

included STS Operations in the list of 

prohibited operations. Thus, in response 

to the commenters, we are adding a 

reference to STS Operations in that 

section. As stated above, we have also 

made numerous edits throughout 

subpart C to make clear that the 

operational requirements apply to STS 

Operations as well as lightering 

operations. 

2. Qualifications of the POAC— 

§ 156.410 

One comment we received suggested 

that we alter the wording in paragraph 

156.410(f), which relates to the 

responsibilities of the person in overall 

advisory control (POAC) of an STS 

Operation. The proposed text, based on 

MARPOL Annex I Regulation 41, 

paragraph 4, states that the POAC shall 

be qualified to perform all relevant 

duties, taking into account the 

qualifications found in the best practice 

guidelines from the IMO Manual on oil 

pollution. The commenter suggested 

that we add language emphasizing that 

the appointment of the POAC himself is 

equally important. 

While we agree that it is important 

that a qualified POAC be appointed, the 

existing proposed regulatory text 

already requires this type of 

appointment. We do not agree that there 

is a reason to deviate from the existing 

text of the MARPOL Annex I language 

in this matter. 

3. Notification Requirements for STS 

Operations—§ 156.415 

Two commenters raised objections to 

a provision in § 156.415(a) requiring a 

48-hour advance notification of STS 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5925 

Operations. The commenters stated that 

this is not current practice, and that 

such a notice period would be 

impracticable and/or could lead to very 

high additional costs associated with 

under-utilization of service ships (SS). 

One commenter stated that scheduling 

oil transfer operations requires absolute 

flexibility, and that as a result of 

weather conditions, logistical delays, 

channel closures, terminal delays, or 

other issues can require changing the 

identified SS at the last minute. The 

commenter also stated that it is common 

practice to nominate and clear at least 

three vessels for each STS Operation to 

ensure that a suitable vessel is available 

when the ship to be lightered (STBL) 

arrives at the designated STS Operation 

location. In light of these facts, the 

commenters recommended that the 

Coast Guard limit the advance notice 

required for the SS to 24 hours, while 

maintaining the 48-hour requirement for 

the STBL. 

The requirement for a 48-hour 

advance notification derives specifically 

from the text of Regulation 42, 

‘‘Notification,’’ of Annex I. Paragraph 1 

of that regulation reads: 

Each oil tanker subject to this chapter that 

plans STS operations within the territorial 

sea, or the exclusive economic zone of a 

Party to the present Convention shall notify 

that Party not less than 48 hours in advance 

of the scheduled STS operations. Where, in 

an exceptional case, all of the information 

specified in paragraph 2 is not available not 

less than 48 hours in advance, the oil tanker 

discharging the oil cargo shall notify the 

Party to the present Convention, not less than 

48 hours in advance that an STS operation 

will occur and the information specified in 

paragraph 2 shall be provided to the Party at 

the earliest opportunity. 

Given the unambiguous requirement of 

a 48-hour notice period in Annex I, we 

are maintaining that requirement. 

However, we do realize that while 

Regulation 42 requires the 48-hour 

period, it does provide for an exception 

for instances in which some details of 

the transfer, including information 

about the SS, are not available 48 hours 

in advance of the STS Operation. This 

exception was not reflected in the 

proposed regulatory text, but we are 

including it in the final rule as 

§ 156.415(f). That text will permit an oil 

tanker to delay transmitting the required 

information to the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) until the information is 

available, as long as the known 

information about the transfer is 

provided at least 48 hours in advance of 

the STS Operation. 

This change will address the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

flexibility required to conduct STS 

Operations without incurring supply 

chain interruptions, idle time, or 

compromising on-time performance. 

Instead, the STBL must transmit only as 

much information required by 

§ 156.415(a) as is known at least 48 

hours before the scheduled STS 

Operation. The remaining information 

must be transmitted when the final 

details have been worked out in 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

Final Rule. While the text of Regulation 

42 indicates that such subsequent 

notification would be used ‘‘in an 

exceptional case,’’ we expect that in 

some areas where oil cargo is frequently 

transferred, the use of this supplemental 

notification procedure would be used 

commonly. 

One commenter stated that, because 

each SS needs to be reviewed by the 

customer for requisite approval under 

their vetting approval system before 

conducting an STS Operation, it is 

common practice to nominate at least 

three vessels for each STS Operation to 

ensure that a suitable, approved vessel 

will be available when the STLB arrives 

at the designated position for the STS 

Operation. In such a case, where details 

of multiple contingent operations need 

to be tentatively worked out, the Coast 

Guard would expect that these 

contingent details be transmitted to the 

COTP at least 48 hours prior to the STS 

Operation in accordance with paragraph 

(a). Once final details have been worked 

out, they must be transmitted to the 

COTP in accordance with paragraph (f) 

of this Final Rule. 

The modification of the strict 48-hour 

advance notice requirement also causes 

us to re-evaluate the provision, which in 

the NPRM was proposed § 156.415(g), 

that required the master, owner, or agent 

of each oil tanker planning to conduct 

STS Operations in a designated 

lightering zone to provide 24 hours 

advance notice to the nearest COTP, 

rather than the 48-hour period for other 

U.S. waters. One commenter pointed 

out that only a very small percentage of 

STS Operations conducted in the U.S. is 

conducted in the designated lightering 

zones. Furthermore, the commenter 

noted that the lightering zones were 

intended to be used primarily by singlehulled vessels, and that most STS 

Operations are performed by doublehulled tankers that are not required to 

make use of lightering zones. Based on 

this information, as well as the reduced 

notification requirements with the 

addition of the new § 156.415(f) we have 

re-evaluated whether the different 

notification standards for lightering 

zones and other zones within the U.S. 

are necessary. 

Upon review, we also note that the 

basis for the 24-hour notification 

requirement in proposed paragraph (g) 

appears to be erroneous. In the NPRM, 

we stated that ‘‘[t]he proposed 

regulatory text [in § 156.415(g)] differs 

from Regulation 42 for oil tankers 

planning to conduct STS Operations in 

designated lightering areas, where a 24- 

hour advance notice of STS Operations 

to the nearest COTP specified in the 

existing § 156.215 would be used 

instead of the 48-hour notice specified 

in Regulation 42’’ (77 FR at 21364). 

However, on a second look, § 156.215, 

which governs pre-arrival notices for 

lightering operations, is not exclusive to 

lightering zones, but applies to arrival at 

a lightering location or zone. Nor do we 

see any reason to apply that lightering 

requirement to STS Operations in lieu 

of the 48-hour requirement in Annex I. 

While several commenters supported 

the proposal to allow a 24-hour 

notification requirement, in lieu of a 48- 

hour one, in lightering zones, they 

requested that the 24-hour requirement 

be extended to all STS Operations in the 

U.S. While we agree with the 

commenter that there should be no 

difference in the notice requirements 

based on whether the STS Operation 

takes place in a lightering zone, we are 

obligated to implement the 48-hour 

requirement from Annex I. However, 

because we are adding the ability to 

provide information relating to the SS in 

a supplemental notification, in 

accordance with the new § 156.415(f), 

we believe that this will provide even 

more flexibility than the proposed 24- 

hour notice requirement. For these 

reasons, we are not incorporating the 

proposed § 156.415(g) into the final rule. 

4. Reporting of Oil Discharges— 

§ 156.420 

Two commenters discussed the Coast 

Guard’s proposal, in § 156.420(b), that 

would require the receiving vessel to 

report an incident of a discharge of oil 

during STS Operations. The 

commenters suggested that the Coast 

Guard instead require the responsible 

party, that is, the party that caused the 

discharge, to notify the Coast Guard of 

the event. One commenter also made an 

alternative suggestion, which is that 

either party sighting oil discharge in the 

water should report the sighting to the 

Coast Guard, although such a report 

would not constitute an assumption of 

responsibility for the incident. 

In proposing the language for 

§ 156.420, the Coast Guard had used the 

language from § 156.220 as a model. 

Section 156.220 requires that the 

‘‘service vessel,’’ that is, the SS in a 

lightering operation, report the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

discharge of oil or hazardous material. 

To maintain consistency, we proposed 

to require that the SS in an STS 

Operation be subject to the same 

requirement. 

The objections to this proposal were 

based upon the concept that reporting 

the discharge would imply that the 

reporting party is responsible for the 

discharge, and therefore, a requirement 

to report the discharge is tantamount to 

an admission of responsibility for the 

incident. We note that because the 

responsibility for reporting was 

proposed to be placed on the SS at all 

times, it was not meant to assume that 

the receiving vessel would be 

responsible for all discharges. The 

purpose of the notification requirements 

in subparts B and D of part 156 is not 

to assign responsibility, but rather to 

ensure immediate notification to the 

Coast Guard of any discharges to allow 

us to provide a timely response. 

Nonetheless, we are modifying the 

language of this section to remove any 

indication that the notification implies 

responsibility for a discharge incident. 

We believe that the alternative 

recommendation proposed by one 

commenter offers the best regulatory 

structure. This recommendation was 

that the Person in Overall Advisory 

Control (POAC) of the STS Operation 

should be required to make the report. 

Such a report would not constitute an 

admission of responsibility for the spill 

by either party involved. This 

requirement would ensure that a timely 

report is made and allow the Coast 

Guard to mount a rapid response to the 

incident if necessary. 

Two alternative suggestions from 

commenters were not adopted for 

various reasons. One suggestion was 

that the responsible party would be 

required to report the discharge. This 

was rejected because delays in assigning 

responsibility could delay the reporting 

of the incident. Another suggestion was 

that both parties should be required to 

report the incident. This was rejected 

because the extra report is superfluous 

and the requirement could result in 

unnecessary burden from reporting. We 

believe that having the POAC report the 

incident, without assigning 

responsibility, is the best approach. 

5. Editorial Changes to Subpart D of Part 

156 

In addition to the substantive 

changes, we are making some editorial 

changes to Subpart D of part 156. One 

commenter noted that proposed 

§ 156.415(a)(3) and (a)(6) are 

duplicative. We agree and are removing 

paragraph (a)(6). Additionally, we 

noticed that there was no paragraph (b) 

in § 156.415, which we have corrected. 

That section has been renumbered 

accordingly. 

6. Incorporation by Reference 

Two commenters suggested that 

industry standards incorporated by 

reference should be incorporated 

without specific reference to the date 

and edition. They noted that some of the 

standards are updated regularly, and 

thus would become out of date if they 

were updated after publication of this 

final rule. 

We are not accepting the commenters’ 

proposals. The Administrative 

Procedure Act requires that the Coast 

Guard provide notice and solicit 

comments before substantively altering 

its regulation, a requirement that applies 

to the adoption of standards 

incorporated by reference (See 5 U.S.C. 

553). While we will endeavor to 

promptly update the regulations if we 

determine that the incorporation of new 

standards will be beneficial, such 

actions will be undertaken in 

accordance with the applicable legal 

requirements. 

B. Oil Record Book 

After publication of the NPRM, we 

included a proposed version of the Oil 

Record Book in the docket (USCG– 

2010–0194–0015) that would 

incorporate some of the changes to the 

Code of Federal Regulations proposed in 

this rule. One commenter provided a 

series of suggested changes to the 

proposed Oil Record Book. 

Additionally, since the publication of 

the NPRM, the Coast Guard has 

considered how to integrate additional 

IMO guidance and policy 

considerations. Since these 

deliberations are still ongoing, we are 

not publishing an updated version of 

the Oil Record Book in conjunction with 

this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will 

consider comments received on the 

subject when deliberating future 

updates. 

C. SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets 

Several commenters raised a variety 

of issues relating to the Coast Guard’s 

proposal to require vessels subject to the 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) carry 

SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDSs), as defined under 

MSC.286(86). MSDSs and Safety Data 

Sheets (SDSs) are a widely used system 

for cataloging information on chemicals, 

chemical compounds, and chemical 

mixtures. The data sheets include a 

variety of information about the 

physical characteristics of the 

substance, such as toxicity, 

flammability, and explosiveness. These 

documents may also include 

instructions for the safe use of and 

potential hazards associated with a 

particular material or product, such as 

specific firefighting measures to be used 

with the substance. Most data sheets are 

formatted as charts divided into sixteen 

sections that seek to provide the reader 

with quick access to information 

regarding the hazardous substance they 

might encounter. These data sheets are 

required by U.S. regulations and 

international conventions anywhere 

chemicals are being used or transported. 

SOLAS was published in 1974 and 

entered into force with the United States 

as a party in 1980. This Convention 

sought to address a broad array of safety 

issues ranging from lifeboat 

requirements to safety of navigation 

schemes to be implemented by nations 

as port state control measures. Under 

SOLAS, amendments to the technical 

appendices are considered to be tacitly 

accepted by the parties to the 

convention if the amendment is adopted 

without sufficient objections from 

nations party to the convention, and the 

SOLAS MSDS recommendations are 

contained in one such appendix. The 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO), a specialized agency of the 

United Nations, serves to oversee and 

amend SOLAS as part of the IMO’s 

mission to enhance the safety and 

security of shipping and the prevention 

of marine pollution by ships. 

The Maritime Safety Committee, 

which is a sub-committee of the IMO, 

developed SOLAS MSDS provisions as 

an amendment to SOLAS. In 2009, the 

MSC adopted the amendments to 

chapter VI ‘‘Carriage of Cargoes’’ of 

SOLAS 1974 (MSC.239(83)). Those 

amendments included Regulation 5–1 

requiring that vessels carrying oil or oil 

fuel, as defined in regulation 1 of 

MARPOL 73/78 be provided with a 

SOLAS MSDS. In June of 2009, the MSC 

adopted resolution MSC.286(86), which 

contains an appendix providing a model 

MSDS with requirements for each 

section entitled ‘‘Recommendations for 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for 

MARPOL Annex I Oil Cargo and Oil 

Fuel.’’ These amendments became 

effective on January 1, 2011. 

In the NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed implementing the SOLAS 

MSDS requirements for Annex I cargoes 

and fuels for U.S. vessels and all vessels 

operating in the navigable waters of the 

U.S. to which the SOLAS requirements 

apply. We stated that by aligning the 

U.S. regulations with international 

standards, compliant U.S. vessels would 

encounter fewer difficulties when 

engaged in international trade. We also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5927 

1OSHA published a final rule on hazard 

communications in the Federal Register (77 FR 

17574, March 6, 2012), which modified its Hazard 

Communication Standard to align with the GHS. It 

did so to enhance the effectiveness of the HCS 

which ensures that employees are apprised of the 

chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, 

and to reduce the incidence of chemical-related 

occupational illnesses and injuries. In addition to 

OSHA, several other agencies were active during 

the development of a harmonized SDS format for 

the GHS, including the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

and Department of Transportation. While the Coast 

Guard was not active in the GHS development 

process, we believe that the harmonized format still 

contains a highly effective means to reduce the 

incidence of chemical-related injuries. 

proposed, in Appendices A and B of 46 

CFR 197, Subpart D, a non-mandatory 

example of an MSDS for marine use, 

taken from MSC.286(86). Because we 

proposed to apply a SOLAS requirement 

only to vessels to which SOLAS already 

applied, we did not believe that vessels 

would incur any additional costs as a 

result of these changes. This lack of 

anticipated costs was why this proposal 

was given brief treatment in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis. 

Multiple commenters disputed this 

analysis, and suggested that we had 

erred in assuming that all vessels 

indicated would already comply with 

the proposed requirements. The 

commenters stated that the proposed 

requirements, including the items in the 

non-mandatory Appendices, differed 

from the standard SDSs used by many 

industries in the U.S. and around the 

world, and that compliance with the 

proposed Coast Guard regulations 

would be costly and redundant. 

The commenters argued that the 

SOLAS MSDSs that were proposed in 

the NPRM are similar, but not identical 

to, widely-used SDSs promulgated by 

the United Nations’ Globally 

Harmonized System of Classification 

and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), as 

well as the Hazard Communication 

Standard (HCS) regulations recently 

promulgated by the Occupational 

Health and Safety Administration 

(OSHA) of the Department of Labor 

under 29 CFR 1910.1200, and that a 

requirement to use SOLAS MSDSs 

would create an expensive, redundant 

requirement that offered little or no 

marginal safety benefit.1 In general, 

petroleum industry companies prepare 

SDSs to meet the legal requirements of 

the countries in which they market and 

distribute materials. According to the 

commenters, the legal requirements of 

such countries are moving toward an 

internationally harmonized system—the 

GHS, because uniform content is 

designed to improve effective hazard 

communication. 

Commenters also raised concerns 

about the proposed requirement to post 

MSDSs in the working language of the 

crew, as translation of complex and 

highly technical MSDSs into various 

languages could have significant costs. 

Finally, one commenter suggested that 

the Coast Guard had not adequately 

justified the proposed requirement for 

MSDSs. 

Based on these comments, we have 

reconsidered the proposed requirement 

to label harmful chemicals in this 

rulemaking. Considering the widespread 

use of the OSHA HCS and the GHSstandard SDSs, and the extensive 

guidance available regarding those 

formats, we have decided not to finalize 

the proposed requirement for an MSDS 

from MSC.286(86). 

However, we note that regulations 

requiring information on the ‘‘name, 

description, physical and chemical 

characteristics, health and safety 

hazards, and spill and firefighting 

procedures for the oil cargo aboard the 

vessel’’ are part of the existing Vessel 

Response Plan requirements in 33 CFR 

155.1035(j)(10), 33 CFR 155.1040(k)(10), 

33 CFR 155.1045(j)(6), and 33 CFR 

155.5035(j)(10). Currently, we consider 

SDSs compliant with 29 CFR 1910.1200 

(OSHA-compliant) to meet these 

requirements. In this final rule, we are 

adding language to sections 155.1035, 

155.1040, 155.1045, and 155.5035 that 

shows we consider the SOLAS MSDS to 

meet the requirements found in the 

response plan regulations. Therefore, we 

are amending those documents 

mentioned as appropriate in meeting 

those regulations to include the SOLAS 

MSDS as defined by MSC.286(86). We 

note that this does not constitute a 

requirement to use SOLAS MSDSs, but 

does explicitly permit their use in 

providing the required information per 

the VRP regulations. 

We believe that providing this option 

will give maximum flexibility to 

industry while making the hazard 

information available to maritime 

personnel. Furthermore, we consider 

the use of the SOLAS 74 MSC. 286(86) 

format, which contains low reporting 

threshold quantities of benzene, 

hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur, to provide 

maritime personnel with clear, concise 

and accurate information on the health 

and environmental effects of toxic 

substances carried on board. 

Furthermore, we are removing the 

proposed requirement that the MSDS 

must be provided in English, as well as 

the working language of the crew. We 

believe that introducing a regulatory 

requirement that differs, even slightly, 

from the widely-used Safety Data Sheets 

could present unneeded difficulties 

with little safety benefits. While we still 

believe that we should incorporate a 

requirement for safety data sheets into 

our regulations, we will consult with 

OSHA and other agencies to integrate a 

standard for maritime SDSs in any 

future rulemakings. 

We also received one comment that 

argued that the NPRM was procedurally 

flawed with regard to the proposed 

MSDS requirement, an argument that 

we believe is based on several 

misperceptions of the proposal. 

Specifically, the commenter argued that 

the proposal to require an MSDS was 

vague, unconstitutional, and would 

create uncertainties and liability if 

finalized. We disagree with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

proposal. 

The vagueness argument was based 

on the idea that the information 

contained in MSC.286(86) did not 

provide guidance on what should be 

inserted into an MSDS for a topic on 

which no information is available. Thus, 

an operator might leave the space blank, 

insert a statement that no information is 

available, or perform certain research or 

chemical analysis. This uncertainty, 

according to the commenter, rendered 

the proposed section unconstitutionally 

vague, as it failed to give sufficient 

guidance to those subject to it and those 

who would enforce it. In response, we 

would note that while questions about 

the interpretation or enforcement of a 

proposal are appropriate to ask, the 

mere fact that questions exist does not 

constitute unconstitutional vagueness. 

The commenter also argued that the 

proposed section is an ex post facto rule 

due to the July 1, 2011 date given with 

regard to carriage of MSDSs. We believe 

that the commenter has misinterpreted 

the proposal, and note that the proposal 

would not become effective until after 

publication of a final rule. We believe 

that the confusion may stem from the 

language in proposed § 197.820(a), 

which read ‘‘Each vessel subject to 

SOLAS 1974 must carry a Material 

Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each 

Annex I cargo and ship fuel carried in 

bulk after January 1, 2011.’’ While the 

date listed would have a delaying effect 

if the final rule had been made effective 

before January 1, 2011, it would not 

create a retroactive requirement. 

Finally, the commenter also stated 

that the NPRM would unfairly expose 

shipping and transport interests to a 

significant risk of tort liability, as 

regulatory standards can be viewed as 

setting a minimum level of care, and 

that these uncertainties would be 

further exacerbated if the Coast Guard 

were to adopt the SDS requirements in 

proposed § 197.820. It is unclear 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

specifically to what risk the commenter 

was referring. Regardless, we are aware 

of no basis to conclude that displaying 

a safety data sheet, whether or not it is 

required by regulation, negates the 

responsibility to exercise reasonable 

care. 

D. Other Issues Raised in Comments 

We received several additional 

comments to the NPRM that are 

discussed in this section. One 

commenter supported the proposed 

rule, stating that the harmonization of 

U.S. regulations and international 

conventions will hopefully prevent 

accidents such as oil spills in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Another commenter 

supported the proposed rule, noting that 

increased fuel tank protection can help 

prevent oil spills. An additional 

commenter expressed support that the 

Oil Record Book requirements, fuel tank 

protection standards, STS Operations 

guidelines, pump room protections, and 

oil outflow performance requirements 

would all help to reduce pollution at 

sea. We appreciate these supportive 

comments and believe that the 

requirements implemented by this final 

rule will help to prevent oil pollution at 

sea. 

In the NPRM, we included a 

discussion regarding the possibility of 

requiring non-oceangoing ships of 400 

gross tons or larger to install oily bilge 

water holding tanks. We asked a series 

of questions regarding their use on 

vessels, costs, and alternatives to 

holding tanks. While we did not receive 

specific economic data, one commenter 

did include a discussion regarding the 

necessity of oily bilge water retention 

tanks and oily water separators and the 

effect on the maritime environment. The 

comment noted that in cases where 

bilge water is treated with an oily water 

separator, it can still contain other 

substances that are environmentally 

harmful if discharged overboard. These 

substances include volatile organic 

compounds, semi-volatile organics, 

salts, and contaminants such as soaps, 

detergents, and degreasers that can 

bypass the oily water separator system. 

The commenter recommended that an 

emulsion breaking bilge water cleaning 

system can alleviate these problems, but 

would also require the use of a storage 

tank. 

Given the lack of economic data 

regarding the bilge water holding 

systems, as well as the additional 

information regarding oily water 

separators, we are not including in this 

final rule a provision to require nonoceangoing ships to have oily bilge 

water holding tanks. However, we do 

intend to continue this research and 

may propose a more detailed program 

for handling bilge discharge depending 

on the information collected in the 

future. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material in §§155.140, 

156.111, and 157.02 for incorporation 

by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 

CFR part 51. Copies of the material are 

available from the sources listed in that 

section. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes or executive 

orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. 

This final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

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

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. Nonetheless, we developed an 

analysis of the costs and benefits of this 

final rule to ascertain its probable 

impacts on industry. This regulatory 

assessment (‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’) is 

available in the docket where indicated 

in section A of this preamble. A 

summary of the Regulatory Analysis 

follows: 

The proposed rule contains 

provisions to codify the 2004, 2006 and 

2009 Amendments to Annex I in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. These 

provisions are designed to harmonize 

U.S. regulations with international 

standards. 

In the NPRM (77 FR 21360, April 9, 

2012), detailed descriptions of the 

proposed CFR changes are described in 

Section V. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes of this preamble. A summary of 

the regulatory analysis is shown in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS

Category Summary (harmonization) 

Total Affected Population * .............. ∼4,029 current and future U.S. flag ships with 1,768 U.S. current owners or operators. 

Costs (7% discount rate) ................ $2.9 mil (annualized), $20.3 mil (10-year). 

Unquantified Benefits ...................... Compliance with internationally enforced standards where non-compliance could result in Port State Control interventions and detentions or delays. 

General reduction of the risk of oil discharges in the marine environment. 

33 CFR 151.25 improves the availability of information on certain processes and equipment. 

33 CFR 151.360–370 prevents the direct discharge of oily sludge residue and indirect discharge through 

oily bilge water. 

33 CFR 151.400–420 helps to ensure STS Operations are conducted safely and that an apparatus is in 

place to mitigate environmental damage. 

* The total affected population shown in this table refers to the sum of the affected population for each individual requirement. An individual 

ship may be subject to multiple requirements. If there is no overlap of requirements, the affected population would be a maximum of 4,029 new 

and existing ships. If there is overlap of requirements, the total affected population could be less. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5929 

1. The Affected Population 

The individual provisions of the 

proposed rule affect different 

populations of U.S. flag ships. A 

summary of the affected population is 

shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—AFFECTED POPULATIONS U.S. FLAG SHIPS

Provision Population affected 

Current 

affected 

population 

New ships 

delivered 

during the 10- 

year period of 

analysis 

Total number 

of ships 

Additional Oil Record Book entry requirements.All inspected ships bunkering fuel or lubricating oil.1,672 273 1,945 

Valve separating the sludge tank drains from 

the bilge system.

Oceangoing Ships 400 gross tons and over 1,044 225 1,269 

Preparation of STS Operations Plans and 

STS Reporting.

Tankers and Tank ships ................................ 512 303 815 

Source: USCG MISLE database. 

2. Costs 

While some of the provisions in this 

final rule reflect existing industry 

standards that have been implemented 

in advance of internationally agreed 

upon dates, the remaining provisions 

will generate costs for owners and 

operators of affected ships. 

The recurring costs represent 

additional operating expenses for 

required Oil Record Book entries and 

recordkeeping; for the continuing costs 

of plan revisions, training, and 

notifications associated with Ship-toShip (STS) oil-transfer operations plans 

(STS Operations Plans). 

The non-recurring costs are of two 

types: The cost of required equipment 

and its installation, including various 

valves and drain modifications; and the 

cost of the initial preparation and 

training required to implement STS 

Operations Plans. 

The primary cost estimate of the 

proposed rule is displayed in Table 3 

and results in a total cost of $24.2 

million (undiscounted) for the ten year 

period of analysis. This cost estimate 

was prepared assuming no ships 

currently comply with any of the 

provisions of the proposed rule. In 

present value terms, the total cost 

estimate is $19.8 million using a 3- 

percent discount rate and $20.3 million 

using a 7-percent discount rate. 

Annualized costs are $2.3 million per 

year at 3 percent and $2.9 million per 

year at 7 percent. 

TABLE 3—COSTS SUMMARY BY YEAR ($ MILLIONS) TO U.S. FLAG SHIPS

Undiscounted 

Discounted 

7 percent 3 percent 

Year 1 .............................................................................................................................. $10.1 $9.6 $9.8 

Year 2 .............................................................................................................................. 1.3 1.2 1.2 

Year 3 .............................................................................................................................. 1.4 1.2 1.2 

Year 4 .............................................................................................................................. 1.5 1.2 1.1 

Year 5 .............................................................................................................................. 1.5 1.2 1.1 

Year 6 .............................................................................................................................. 1.6 1.2 1.1 

Year 7 .............................................................................................................................. 1.6 1.2 1.1 

Year 8 .............................................................................................................................. 1.7 1.2 1.1 

Year 9 .............................................................................................................................. 1.7 1.2 1.1 

Year 10 ............................................................................................................................ 1.8 1.2 1.0 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 24.2 20.3 19.8 

Annualized ....................................................................................................................... ............................ 2.9 2.3 

Please refer to Appendices B through 

E in the Regulatory Analysis for the 

annual costs. Costs are broken out by 

section and by population. 

Table 4 displays the unit costs per 

vessel and outlines the per vessel costs 

for the provisions. 

TABLE 4—UNIT COSTS (UNDISCOUNTED) FOR U.S. FLAG SHIPS

Section Description Per ship costs 

33 CFR 151.25 ......................................... Oil Recordkeeping books ............................................................................................. $443 

33 CFR 155.360 ....................................... Oceangoing Ships 400 GT to 10,000 Gross Tons—Valves ........................................ 5,400 

33 CFR 155.370 ....................................... Oceangoing Ships above 10,000 Gross Tons—Valves .............................................. 7,549 

33 CFR 155.400–420 ............................... STS Operations Plans ................................................................................................. 5,409 

STS Training ................................................................................................................ 2,148 

STS Notifications .......................................................................................................... 16 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5930 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2U.S. Coast Guard MISLE data, 2001 to 2010, oil 

spilled from U.S. flagged, SOLAS vessels. 

3. Benefits 

The benefits of the proposed rule 

include harmonization and compliance 

with internationally enforced standards 

and the reduction of risks of oil 

pollution, as well as improved mariner 

safety. 

Functional benefits of each provision 

of the proposed rule are shown in Table 

5. 

TABLE 5—FUNCTIONAL BENEFITS

Provision Beneficial impact on oil spill risk reduction 

33 CFR 151.25—This provision would establish new recordkeeping requirements for the Oil Record Book: A requirement to make an entry 

for the bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating oil; a requirement to make 

an entry for any failure of oil filtering equipment; and a requirement 

to make an entry for any failure of the oil discharge monitoring and 

control system.

This provision will reduce the risk of oil spills by improving the availability of information on certain processes and equipment. For example, the additional entry for the bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating 

oil would help to track the use and disposal of oil and oil residues. 

The other two additional entries would capture equipment failures for 

all ships with an Oil Record Book. 

33 CFR 155.360–370 This provision requires that these ships have a 

separate designated pump for the oil residue tank (sludge tank) and 

that this sludge disposal system (pump and tank) must be segregated from the bilge system except for manually operated drains 

with visual monitoring of settled water that lead to an oily bilge water 

tank or a bilge well. Any nonconformity would require a ship in this 

group to purchase and install appropriate equipment.

This provision will reduce the risk of oil spills by ensuring segregation 

of oily sludge residue from the bilge system. These measures prevent the direct discharge of oily sludge residue and the indirect discharge through oily bilge water. 

33 CFR 156.400–420 This provision requires that oil tankers transferring oil cargoes between ships at sea (Ship-to-Ship (STS) transfers 

of oil) have an STS Operations Plan meeting specific IMO standards.

This provision will reduce the risk of oil spills by requiring that oil tankers engaging in STS Operations provide the relevant MARPOL 73/78 

party with 48 hours’ notice of STS Operations. This includes information regarding the location, time, and duration of the STS Operations, 

oil type and quantity, identification of the STS Operations service 

provider, and confirmation that there is a compliant STS Operations 

Plan. Providing this information helps to ensure that STS Operations 

are conducted safely and that an apparatus is in place to mitigate 

environmental damage should a spill occur. 

The purpose of the proposed rule is 

to harmonize Coast Guard regulations 

with new provisions of MARPOL 73/78 

to which the United States is a 

signatory. Compliance with these 

Conventions is, in itself, a benefit to all 

ships on international routes because 

the failure to comply with these 

international standards for pollution 

prevention and safety would subject the 

non-compliant ship to PSCs. Coast 

Guard incorporation of these provisions 

is also a requirement of U.S. law, APPS 

33 U.S.C. 1901–1915 (2002), which 

implements and codifies the MARPOL 

agreements into U.S. law. Thus, this 

rulemaking seeks to reduce regulatory 

uncertainty. 

Port State Controls may include 

detention of a ship in a foreign port 

until the identified deficiencies are 

rectified. Delays of this type can be 

costly to the owner/operator of a ship. 

For example, the Paris Memorandum on 

Port State Control Annual Report (Paris 

Memorandum) for 2009 indicated that 

27 oil tankers were detained worldwide 

under PSCs; 17 of these tankers (63 

percent) were detained for violations of 

Annex I. With charter rates for oil 

tankers averaging $31,700 per day, even 

short delays under PSCs can result in 

substantial costs. None of these 

deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels 

because of the adherence to 

international standards enforced by the 

Coast Guard. With this proposed rule 

the Coast Guard intends to ensure that 

no ambiguities exist between MARPOL 

73/78 and the regulatory requirements 

of the CFR. 

The Paris Memorandum for 2009, the 

latest year for which there are data, also 

indicated that 3,764 ships that were 

inspected worldwide under PSCs had 

deficiencies regarding Annex I 

requirements. Additionally, 15,800 

ships were found deficient regarding 

safety and firefighting standards 

(SOLAS requirements). As with oil 

tankers (noted above) none of these 

deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels 

because of the adherence to 

international standards enforced by the 

Coast Guard. 

We examined the risk reduction using 

a break even analysis of the oil spill 

amount that would need to be prevented 

in order for the benefits to equal the 

total regulatory cost of this rule. From 

historical data,2 we determined there 

was an average of 5,583 barrels of oil 

spilled annually from U.S. flagged 

SOLAS ships over the 2001–2010 

period. To calculate the annual 

monetary value of remediating damages 

from oil spills, we used a cost of 

$10,700 per barrel of oil based on an 

analysis of expenditures from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

Consequently, the costs of oil spill 

damages averaged $59.7 million per 

year (undiscounted) over the 2001–2010 

period. Please refer to the Regulatory 

Analysis for further details. 

The 7 percent annualized cost of this 

rule is $2.89 million. With average 

annual costs of oil spill damages of 

$59.7 million (undiscounted), the 

provisions would have to reduce the 

volume of oil spills by 4.85 percent 

($2.89 million/$59.7 million) in order to 

achieve a breakeven. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

A Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis discussing the impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities is 

available in the docket by following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this preamble. A summary of the 

analysis follows. There are an estimated 

1,768 U.S. entities that would be 

affected by this proposed rule and these 

entities operate a maximum of 3,228 

existing ships. We chose a random 

sample of 296 entities and evaluated 

these against the applicable standard for 

determining whether the entity was 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5931 

small (i.e., SBA size standards for 

businesses and RFA standards for 

governments and not-for-profits). Table 

6 provides the size determinations of 

the sample population. 

TABLE 6—NUMBER OF ENTITIES

IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE

Entities below the threshold 113 

Entities above the threshold 78 

Government below the 

threshold ........................... 1 

TABLE 6—NUMBER OF ENTITIES IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE— 

Continued 

Government above the 

threshold ........................... 4 

N/A ........................................ 100 

Total ............................... 296 

We analyzed revenue impacts for the 

implementation year as that is the 

highest impact on small entities. First 

year costs include costs for additional 

required Oil Record Book entries, 

equipment purchase and installation 

costs, costs associated with the STS 

Operations Plan preparation and crew 

training, and the additional notification 

to the Coast Guard that an STS 

Operation will occur. 

This proposed rule has many 

provisions that would affect different 

types of vessels and therefore, 

businesses’ revenue impacts would vary 

according to the number and type of 

vessel owned. Table 7 provides the list 

of per vessel cost by provision. 

TABLE 7—POTENTIAL VESSEL COST

Section Description Per ship costs 

33 CFR 151.25 ......................................... Oil Recordkeeping Books ............................................................................................ $443 

33 CFR 155.360 ....................................... Oceangoing Ships 400 GT to 10,000 Gross Tons—Valves ........................................ 5,400 

33 CFR 155.370 ....................................... Oceangoing Ships above 10,000 Gross Tons—Valves .............................................. 7,549 

33 CFR 155.400–420 ............................... STS Plans .................................................................................................................... 5,409 

STS Training ................................................................................................................ 2,148 

STS Notifications .......................................................................................................... 16 

To measure the impact on small 

entities we distinguished which 

provision each entities subscribed to 

and then attributed the per company 

costs based on those provisions. In other 

words, the per ship cost ranged from 

$443 (recordkeeping costs only) to 

$8,016 (recordkeeping and STS 

Operation costs) depending on which 

provision(s) the entity fell under. Table 

8 provides the percent impacts on 

revenue that the provision(s) will have 

on entities. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED PERCENT OF

THE REVENUE IMPACT OF THE FINAL

RULE

Impact range Number of 

entities Percent 

<1% .................. 90 80 

1%–< 3% .......... 14 12 

3% or greater .... 9 8 

Sum ........... 113 100 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities and we requested public 

comments on this certification. We 

received one comment on the economic 

analysis of the 48-hour notification. 

However, because we modified the 48- 

hour notification to allow for more than 

one notification, we deemed this cost as 

an additional collection of information 

rather than a significant change in 

industry practice or a significant cost 

burden to industry. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

This final rule would not require a 

new Collection of Information (COI) 

request under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) but 

would increase the burden hours under 

three existing collections of information. 

1. Information Collection Request: 

OMB control number 1625–0009 (Oil 

Record Book for Ships). 

Title: Oil Record Book for Ships [33 

CFR part 151.25]. 

Summary of the Information 

Collection Request: The Coast Guard 

uses the information recorded in the Oil 

Record Book to verify sightings of actual 

violations of the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships (APPS), to 

determine the level of compliance with 

MARPOL 73/78, and as a means of 

reinforcing the discharge provisions. 

The actual recording of discharge 

information reinforces the intent of the 

regulations. Unless this information is 

recorded, the Coast Guard would have 

to rely solely on actual sightings of oil 

discharges for enforcement. Violation of 

the law may go undetected resulting in 

continued pollution of the sea by oil. 

The Coast Guard would have no method 

of determining the level of compliance 

with regulations. 

Use of Information: The Coast Guard 

uses the information recorded in the Oil 

Record Book to verify sightings of actual 

violations of the APPS, to determine the 

level of compliance with MARPOL 73/ 

78, and as a means of reinforcing the 

discharge provisions. 

Description of the Respondents: Oil 

tankers and tank barges of 150 gross 

tons and above; ships of 400 gross tons 

and above other than oil tankers 

(including freight barges equipped to 

discharge oil or oil mixtures); manned 

fixed or floating drilling rigs, except 

those that are not equipped to discharge 

oil or oil mixtures, or rigs that are in 

compliance with the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit; and manned fixed or floating 

drilling platforms over 400 gross tons, 

primarily Mobile Offshore Drilling Units 

(MODUs) over 400 gross tons. 

Number of Respondents: The number 

of respondents is 1,672. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Frequency of Response: The 

frequency of response is occasional 

reports for recordkeeping and reporting. 

Burden of Response: The increase in 

burden hours is from the current 

estimated 540 entries per ship per year 

for oil tankers and tank barges to 762 

entries per year; and from 180 entries 

per ship per year for non-oil ships to 

254 entries per year. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

rule will increase the total annual 

burden by approximately 8,314 hours to 

28,535 hours. The current annual 

burden for this collection is 20,221 

hours. 

2. Information Collection Request: 

OMB control number 1625–0041 

(MARPOL Related Documents STS 

Operations Plan) 

Title: Various International 

Agreement Pollution Prevention 

Certificates and Documents, and 

Equivalency Certificates [33 CFR 156. 

400–420 Subpart D—Prevention of 

Pollution During Transfer of Oil Cargo 

Between Oil Tankers at Sea]. 

Summary of the Information 

Collection Request: This rule will 

modify an existing collection of 

information. The Coast Guard is 

requiring oil tankers and tank barges of 

150 gross tons and above, that engage in 

transfers of oil at sea, to comply with an 

international agreement (MARPOL 

Annex I) to which the U.S. is a 

contracting party. These requirements 

would add a new subsection that will 

reduce the possibility of an accidental 

oil spill/discharge during a STS oiltransfer operation. 

Use of Information: This is procedural 

information that each ship involved in 

STS operations must follow in order to 

be in compliance with the new Chapter 

8 of the 2009 Amendments to MARPOL. 

Description of the Respondents: Oil 

tankers of 150 gross tons and above and 

each other U.S. ship of 400 gross tons 

and above; that engages on international 

voyages to ports or off-shore terminals 

under the jurisdiction of other parties to 

MARPOL 73/78. This ICR will apply to 

oil tankers and tank barges who engage 

in STS operations. 

Number of Respondents: The total 

number of respondents in this COI is 

1,556, of which this rule will affect a 

subset of 512 ships. 

Frequency of Response: The 

frequency of response is a non-recurring 

burden for the initial preparation of an 

STS Operations Plan and the recurring 

annual burden for updates to the plan 

and familiarization (training) of 

responsible persons. 

Burden of Response: The rule will 

increase the total annual burden by a 

non-recurring requirement of 

approximately 69,120 hours for 

preparation of the STS Operations Plan 

and a recurring burden of approximately 

2,048 hours. The current annual burden 

for this collection is 2,738 hours. 

3. Information Collection Request: 

OMB control number 1625–0042 (Shipto-Ship Operations, 48-hour Advanced 

Notification). 

Title: Requirements for Lightering of 

Oil and Hazardous Material Cargoes 

Summary of the Information 

Collection Request: This rule would 

modify an existing collection of 

information, found in Title 33 CFR 

156.200–330. These provisions will add 

a new section 156.400 which requires 

oil tankers and tank barges of 150 gross 

tons and above, that engage in transfers 

of oil at sea, to comply with an 

international agreement (MARPOL 

Annex I) to which the U.S. is a 

contracting party and in order to reduce 

the possibility of an accidental oil spill/ 

discharge during a STS oil-transfer 

operation. 

Use of Information: The purpose of 

this collection is to inform the local 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port of the 

time and place of an STS Operation. 

Description of the Respondents: This 

ICR will apply to oil tankers and tank 

barges who engage in lightering or 

transfers of dangerous cargoes at sea. 

This ICR will add tank barges of 150 

gross tons and above, that engage in STS 

operations. 

Number of Respondents: The number 

of respondents affected by this rule will 

be 512 ships, a subset of the current 779 

respondents. 

Frequency of Response: The 

frequency of response is a recurring 

annual burden for notifications 

regarding transfers of oil. 

Burden of Response: The rule will 

increase the total annual burden by a 

recurring burden of approximately 133 

hours. The current annual burden for 

this collection is 217 hours. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this final rule under that Order and have 

determined that it is consistent with the 

fundamental federalism principles and 

preemption requirements described in 

Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is 

explained below. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has long 

recognized the field preemptive impact 

of the Federal regulatory regime for 

inspected vessels. See, e.g., Kelly v. 

Washington ex rel Foss Co., 302 U.S. 1 

(1937) and the consolidated cases of 

United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. 

Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 113–116 (2000). 

Therefore, Coast Guard regulations 

issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1903 and 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas of 

design, construction, alteration, 

operation, hulls, fittings, equipment, 

appliances, propulsion machinery, 

auxiliary machinery, piping, and 

material safety labeling have preemptive 

effect over State regulation in these 

fields, regardless of whether the Coast 

Guard has issued regulations on the 

subject or not, and regardless of the 

existence of conflict between the State 

and Coast Guard regulation. For this 

reason, we do not believe that this rule 

has Federalism implications. 

In the NPRM, we invited affected 

State and local governments and their 

representative national organizations to 

indicate their desire for participation 

and consultation in this rulemaking 

process by submitting comments on the 

proposed rule. We also noted we would 

document the extent of our consultation 

with State and local officials that submit 

comments, summarize the nature of 

concerns raised by State or local 

governments and our response, and 

state the extent to which the concerns 

of State and local officials have been 

met. We did not receive any comments 

from State or local governments. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5933 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule uses the following voluntary 

consensus standards: 

1. Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, 

Petroleum; 

2. Manual on Oil Pollution, Section I: 

Pollution; and 

3. Guide to Helicopter/Ship 

Operations. 

The sections that reference these 

standards and the locations where these 

standards are available are listed in 33 

CFR 155.140, 33 CFR 156.111, and 33 

CFR 157.02. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction 

and under section 6(a) and (b) of the 

‘‘Appendix to National Environmental 

Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for 

Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final 

Agency Policy’’ (67 FR 48244, July 23, 

2002). This rule involves regulations 

which are editorial or procedural; 

Regulations concerning vessel operation 

safety standards; and congressionally 

mandated regulations. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 151 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

33 CFR Part 155 

Alaska, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Oil 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

33 CFR Part 156 

Hazardous substances, Incorporation 

by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control. 

33 CFR Part 157 

Cargo vessels, Incorporation by 

reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 as 

follows: 

PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL, 

NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, 

GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR 

COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST 

WATER 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 151 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1903, 1908; 46 

U.S.C. 6101; Pub. L. 104–227 (110 Stat. 

3034); E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 151.05 as follows: 

■ a. Designate in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘Oil-like NLS’’ and ‘‘Oil 

tanker’’; 

■ b. Revise the definition for ‘‘Oil 

residue’’; and 

■ c. Add definitions in alphabetical 

order for ‘‘Oil residue (sludge)’’, ‘‘Oil 

residue (sludge) tank’’, ‘‘Oily bilge 

water’’, and ‘‘Oily bilge water holding 

tank’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 151.05 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Oil residue means oil cargo residue. 

Oil residue (sludge) means the 

residual waste oil products generated 

during the normal operation of a ship 

such as those resulting from the 

purification of fuel or lubricating oil for 

main or auxiliary machinery, separated 

waste oil from oil filtering equipment, 

waste oil collected in drip trays, and 

waste hydraulic and lubricating oils. 

Oil residue (sludge) tank means a tank 

which holds oil residue (sludge) from 

which sludge may be disposed directly 

through the standard discharge 

connection or any other approved 

means of disposal. 

* * * * * 

Oily bilge water means water which 

may be contaminated by oil resulting 

from things such as leakage or 

maintenance work in machinery spaces. 

Any liquid entering the bilge system 

including bilge wells, bilge piping, tank 

top or bilge holding tanks is considered 

oily bilge water. 

Oily bilge water holding tank means a 

tank collecting oily bilge water prior to 

its discharge, transfer or disposal. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 151.13, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 151.13 Special areas for Annex I of 

MARPOL 73/78. 

(a) For the purposes of §§ 151.09 

through 151.25 of this subpart, the 

special areas are the Mediterranean Sea 

area, the Baltic Sea area, the Black Sea 

area, the Red Sea area, the Gulfs area, 

the Gulf of Aden, the Antarctic area, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

North West European waters, the Oman 

area of the Arabian Sea, and the 

Southern South African Waters, which 

are described in § 151.06 of this subpart. 

The discharge restrictions are effective 

in the Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, 

Black Sea, and the Antarctic area. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 151.25, revise paragraphs (d)(3) 

and (4), add paragraphs (d)(5) and (6), 

revise paragraphs (e)(9) and (10), and 

add paragraph (e)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 151.25 Oil Record Book. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Disposal of oil residue; 

(4) Discharge overboard or disposal 

otherwise of bilge water that has 

accumulated in machinery spaces; 

(5) Bunkering of fuel or bulk 

lubricating oil; and 

(6) Any failure, and the reasons for, of 

the oil filtering equipment. 

(e) * * * 

(9) Closing of valves necessary for 

isolation of dedicated clean ballast tanks 

from cargo and stripping lines after slop 

tank discharge operations; 

(10) Disposal of oil residue; and 

(11) Any failure of, and the reasons 

for, the oil discharge monitoring and 

control system. 

* * * * * 

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 155 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j), 1903; 

46 U.S.C. 3703; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 

CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 

through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 

155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) are also 

issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Section 

155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of 

Pub. L. 101–380. Sections 155.1110 through 

155.1150 also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735. 

■ 6. In § 155.140, add paragraph (d)(6) 

to read as follows: 

§ 155.140 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 

2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 

prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 

3—Requirements for machinery spaces 

of all ships, Part A-Construction, 

Regulation 12A, ‘‘Oil fuel tank 

protection’’, incorporation by reference 

approved for § 155.250 (Annex I, 

Regulation 12A). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 155.250 to read as follows: 

§ 155.250 Oil fuel tank protection. 

Each ship with an aggregate oil fuel 

capacity of 600 cubic meters or more 

that is delivered on or after August 1, 

2010, must meet the minimum standard 

of oil fuel tank protection required by 

Annex I, Regulation 12A (incorporated 

by reference, see § 155.140). 

■ 8. In § 155.360, revise paragraph 

(a)(1), add paragraph (a)(3), revise 

paragraph (b) introductory text, and add 

paragraph (b)(3) 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)(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, no person may 

operate an oceangoing ship of 400 gross 

tons and above but less than 10,000 

gross tons, excluding a ship that carries 

ballast water in its fuel oil tanks, unless 

it is fitted with approved 15 parts per 

million (ppm) oily-water separating 

equipment for the processing of oily 

mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank 

ballast. 

* * * * * 

(3) Any ship certified under the 

International Code of Safety for HighSpeed Craft engaged on a scheduled 

service with a turn-around time not 

exceeding 24 hours and covering also 

non-passenger/cargo-carrying relocation 

voyages for these ships need not be 

provided with oil filtering equipment. 

These ships must be fitted with an oily 

bilge water holding tank having a 

volume adequate for the total retention 

onboard of the oily bilge water. All oily 

bilge water must be retained onboard for 

subsequent discharge to reception 

facilities. 

(b) No person may operate a ship 

under this section unless it is fitted with 

an oil residue (sludge) tank or tanks of 

adequate capacity to receive the oil 

residue that cannot be dealt with 

otherwise. 

* * * * * 

(3) Ships subject to this section 

must— 

(i) Be provided with a designated 

pump for disposal that is capable of 

taking suction from the oil residue 

(sludge) tank(s); and 

(ii) Have no discharge connections to 

the bilge system, oily bilge water 

holding tank(s), tank top or oily water 

separators except that the tank(s) may be 

fitted with drains, with manually 

operated self-closing valves and 

arrangements for subsequent visual 

monitoring of the settled water, that 

lead to an oily bilge water holding tank 

or bilge well, or an alternative 

arrangement, provided such 

arrangement does not connect directly 

to the bilge piping system. 

* * * * * 

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

introductory text, add paragraph (a)(5), 

revise paragraph (b) introductory text, 

and add paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 155.370 Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil 

tank ballast water discharges on 

oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross tons and 

above and oceangoing ships of 400 gross 

tons and above that carry ballast water in 

their fuel oil tanks. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(5) of this section, no person may 

operate an oceangoing ship of 10,000 

gross tons and above, or any oceangoing 

ship of 400 gross tons and above, that 

carries ballast water in its fuel oil tanks, 

unless it has— 

* * * * * 

(5) Any ship certified under the 

International Code of Safety for HighSpeed Craft engaged on a scheduled 

service with a turn-around time not 

exceeding 24 hours and covering also 

non-passenger/cargo-carrying relocation 

voyages for these ships need not be 

provided with oil filtering equipment. 

These ships must be fitted with an oily 

bilge water holding tank having a 

volume adequate for the total retention 

onboard of the oily bilge water. All oily 

bilge water must be retained onboard for 

subsequent discharge to reception 

facilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) No person may operate a ship 

under this section unless it is fitted with 

an oil residue (sludge) tank or tanks of 

adequate capacity to receive the oil 

residue that cannot be dealt with 

otherwise. 

* * * * * 

(3) Ships subject to this section 

must— 

(i) Be provided with a designated 

pump for disposal that is capable of 

taking suction from the oil residue 

(sludge) tank(s); and 

(ii) Have no discharge connections to 

the bilge system, oily bilge water 

holding tank(s), tank top or oily water 

separators except that the tank(s) may be 

fitted with drains, with manually 

operated self-closing valves and 

arrangements for subsequent visual 

monitoring of the settled water, that 

lead to an oily bilge water holding tank 

or bilge well, or an alternative 

arrangement, provided such 

arrangement does not connect directly 

to the bilge piping system. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5935 

§ 155.1035 [Amended] 

■ 10. In paragraph (j)(10), after the text 

‘‘29 CFR 1910.1200,’’ add the text 

‘‘SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5–1,’’. 

§ 155.1040 [Amended] 

■ 11. In paragraph (k)(10), after the text 

‘‘29 CFR 1910.1200,’’ add the text 

‘‘SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5–1,’’. 

§ 155.1045 [Amended] 

■ 12. In paragraph (j)(6), after the text 

‘‘29 CFR 1910.1200,’’ add the text 

‘‘SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5–1,’’. 

§ 155.5035 [Amended] 

■ 13. In paragraph (j)(10), after the text 

‘‘29 CFR 1910.1200,’’ add the text 

‘‘SOLAS 74 regulation VI/5–1,’’. 

PART 156—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 156 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 

U.S.C. 3703a, 3715, 6101; E.O. 11735, 3 CFR 

1971–1975 Comp., p. 793. Section 

156.120(bb) is also issued under 46 U.S.C. 

3703. 

■ 15. Revise § 156.111 to read as 

follows: 

§ 156.111 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish notice of 

change in the Federal Register and the 

material must be available to the public. 

All approved material is available for 

inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, 

Office of Vessel Activities (CG–CVC), 

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20593, telephone 202– 

372–1251, and is available from the 

sources listed below. It is also available 

for inspection at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) International Chamber of 

Shipping, 12 Carthusian Street, London 

EC1M 6EB, England, telephone +44 20 

7417 8844, http://www.marisec.org/. 

(1) Guide to Helicopter/Ship 

Operations, Fourth Edition, 2008, 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 156.330(c). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), 4 Albert 

Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United 

Kingdom, telephone +44(0)20 7735 

7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Manual on Oil Pollution, Section 

I: Prevention, Second Edition, 2011, 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 156.410(c) and (f). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Oil Companies International 

Marine Forum (OCIMF), 15th Floor, 96 

Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JW, 

England, telephone +44(0)20 7654 1200, 

http://www.ocimf.com/. 

(1) Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, 

(Petroleum), Fourth Edition, 2005, 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 156.330(b), § 156.410(c) and 

156.410(f). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 156.200 [Amended] 

■ 16. In § 156.200 after the words 

‘‘when conducting response activities’’ 

add the words ‘‘, or to tank vessels of 

150 gross tons or more engaged in the 

transfer of oil cargo between tank 

vessels at sea on or after April 1, 2012.’’. 

■ 17. In § 156.205 revise the definition 

of ‘‘Lightering or Lightering operation’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 156.205 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Lightering or Lightering operation 

means the transfer of a cargo of oil in 

bulk from one oil tanker less than 150 

gross tons to another oil tanker less than 

150 gross tons, or a cargo of hazardous 

material in bulk from one vessel to 

another, including all phases of the 

operation from the beginning of the 

mooring operation to the departure of 

the service vessel from the vessel to be 

lightered, except when that cargo is 

intended only for use as fuel or 

lubricant aboard the receiving vessel. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Revise § 156.225 to read as 

follows: 

§ 156.225 Designation of lightering zones. 

The District Commander is delegated 

the authority to designate lightering 

zones and their operating requirements, 

where they are necessary for safety or 

environmental protection. When a 

lightering zone has been designated, 

lightering and STS Operations in a 

given geographic area may only be 

conducted within the designated 

lightering zone. 

§ 156.310 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 156.310, in the introductory 

text, after the words ‘‘Lightering 

operations’’ add the words ‘‘and STS 

Operations’’. 

■ 20. Revise § 156.330 to read as 

follows: 

§ 156.330 Operations. 

(a) Unless otherwise specified in this 

subpart, or when otherwise authorized 

by the cognizant Captain of the Port 

(COTP) or District Commander, the 

master of a vessel lightering or 

conducting STS Operations in a zone 

designated in this subpart must ensure 

that all officers and appropriate 

members of the crew are familiar with 

the guidelines in paragraphs (b) and (c) 

of this section and that the requirements 

of paragraphs (d) through (l) of this 

section are complied with. 

(b) Lightering and STS operations 

must be conducted in accordance with 

the Oil Ship to Ship Transfer Guide, 

(Petroleum) (incorporated by reference, 

see § 156.111) to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(c) Helicopter operations must be 

conducted in accordance with the Guide 

to Helicopter/Ship Operations 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 156.111) to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(d) The vessel to be lightered, or the 

discharging vessel engaged in an STS 

Operation, must make a voice warning 

prior to the commencement of lightering 

activities or STS Operations via channel 

13 CHF and 2182 Khz. The voice 

warning shall include— 

(1) The names of the vessels involved; 

(2) The vessels’ geographical positions 

and general headings; 

(3) A description of the operations; 

(4) The expected time of 

commencement and duration of the 

operation; and 

(5) Request for wide berth. 

(e) In the event of a communications 

failure between the lightering vessels, or 

vessels engaged in STS Operations, or 

the respective persons-in-charge of the 

transfer, or an equipment failure 

affecting the vessel’s cargo handling 

capability or ship’s maneuverability, the 

affected vessel must suspend lightering 

activities, or STS Operations, and must 

sound at least five short, rapid blasts on 

the vessel’s whistle. Lightering 

activities, or STS Operations, must 

remain suspended until corrective 

action has been completed. 

(f) No vessel involved in a lightering 

operation, or STS Operation, may open 

its cargo system until the servicing 

vessel is securely moored alongside the 

vessel to be lightered (or the vessel 

transferring oil in an STS Operation). 

(g) If any vessel not involved in the 

lightering operation, STS Operation, or 

support activities approaches within 

100 meters of vessels engaged in 

lightering or STS Operation, the vessel 

engaged in lightering or STS Operation 

shall warn the approaching vessel by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

sounding a loud hailer, ship’s whistle, 

or any other appropriate means. 

(h) Only a lightering tender, a supply 

boat, or a crew boat, equipped with a 

spark arrestor on its exhaust, or a tank 

vessel providing bunkers, may moor 

alongside a vessel engaged in lightering 

operations or STS Operations. 

(i) Lightering operations and STS 

Operations must not be conducted 

within 1 nautical mile of offshore 

structures or mobile offshore drilling 

units. 

(j) No vessel engaged in lightering 

activities or STS Operations may anchor 

over charted pipelines, artificial reefs, or 

historical resources. 

(k) All vessels engaged in lightering 

activities or STS Operations must be 

able to immediately maneuver at all 

times while inside a designated 

lightering zone. The main propulsion 

system must not be disabled at any time. 

(l) In preparing to moor alongside the 

vessel to be lightered or vessel 

transferring oil in an STS Operation, a 

service vessel shall not approach the 

vessel closer than 1000 meters unless 

the service vessel is positioned broad on 

the quarter of the vessel transferring oil. 

The service vessel must transition to a 

nearly parallel heading prior to closing 

to within 50 meters of the vessel 

transferring oil. 

■ 21. Add subpart D, consisting of 

§§ 156.400 through 156.420, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart D—Prevention of Pollution 

During Transfer of Oil Cargo Between 

Oil Tankers at Sea 

Sec. 

156.400 Applicability. 

156.405 Definitions. 

156.410 General. 

156.415 Notification. 

156.420 Reporting of incidents. 

§ 156.400 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart applies to oil tankers 

engaged in the ship-to-ship transfer of 

oil cargo between oil tankers (STS 

Operations), and to their STS 

Operations conducted on or after April 

1, 2012, when at least one of the oil 

tankers is of 150 gross tonnage and 

above. These rules are in addition to the 

rules of subpart A of this part, as well 

as the rules in the applicable sections of 

parts 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157 of this 

chapter. 

(b) This subpart does not apply to STS 

Operations— 

(1) If the oil cargo is intended only for 

use as a fuel or lubricant aboard the 

receiving vessel (bunker operations); 

(2) When at least one of the ships 

involved in the oil transfer operation is 

a warship or a naval auxiliary or other 

ship owned or operated by a nation and 

used, at the time of the transfer, in 

government noncommercial service 

only; or 

(3) When the STS Operations are 

necessary for the purpose of securing 

the safety of a ship or saving life at sea, 

or for combating specific pollution 

incidents in order to minimize the 

damage from pollution; except that such 

vessels are subject to the requirements 

of §§ 156.415(g) and 156.420. 

§ 156.405 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions 

specifically stated in this section, the 

definitions in § 154.105 of this chapter 

apply to this subpart except definitions 

for Tank Barge, Tank Ship and Tank 

Vessel. Definitions specific to this 

part— 

Authorized Classification Society 

means a recognized classification 

society that has been delegated the 

authority to conduct certain functions 

and certifications on behalf of the Coast 

Guard. 

Flag State means the authority under 

which a country exercises regulatory 

control over the commercial vessel 

which is registered under its flag. This 

involves the inspection, certification, 

and issuance of safety and pollution 

prevention documents. 

Marine environment means— 

(1) The navigable waters of the United 

States; 

(2) The waters of an area over which 

the United States asserts exclusive 

fishery management authority; and 

(3) The waters superjacent to the 

Outer Continental Shelf of the United 

States. 

Oil tanker means a vessel that is 

constructed or adapted primarily to 

carry crude oil or products in bulk as 

cargo. This includes a tank barge, a 

tankship, and a combination carrier, as 

well as a vessel that is constructed or 

adapted primarily to carry noxious 

liquid substances in bulk as cargo and 

which also carries crude oil or products 

in bulk as cargo. 

STS Operations means the transfer of 

oil cargo carried in bulk from one oil 

tanker to another at sea, when at least 

one of the oil tankers is of 150 gross 

tonnage and above. 

§ 156.410 General. 

(a) Oil tankers subject to this subpart, 

and each U.S. oil tanker, wherever 

located, subject to this subpart, must 

carry onboard an STS Operations Plan 

that prescribes how that vessel will 

conduct STS Operations. 

(b) Any oil tanker subject to this 

subpart must carry onboard an STS 

Operations Plan, prescribing how to 

conduct STS Operations, no later than 

the date of the first annual, 

intermediate, or renewal survey of the 

oil tanker, which must be carried out on 

or after the effective date of this final 

rule. 

(c) The STS Operations Plan must 

be— 

(1) Written in the working language of 

the oil tanker’s crew; 

(2) Developed using the information 

contained in the best practice guidelines 

for STS Operations identified in the 

Manual on Oil Pollution and in the Ship 

to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum) 

(both documents are incorporated by 

reference, see § 156.111); and 

(3) Approved by the vessel’s Flag 

State for oil tankers operated under the 

authority of a country other than the 

United States. For U.S. oil tankers, the 

STS Operations Plan must be approved 

by the Commandant (CG–CVC–1) or an 

Authorized Classification Society. 

(d) When chapter IX of the 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended is 

applicable to the vessel, the STS 

Operations Plan may be incorporated 

into an existing required Safety 

Management System. 

(e) Any oil tanker subject to this 

subpart must comply with the vessel’s 

approved STS Operations Plan while 

engaging in STS Operations. 

(f) The person in overall advisory 

control of STS Operations must be 

qualified to perform all relevant duties, 

taking into account the qualifications 

found in the best practice guidelines for 

STS Operations identified in the 

Manual on Oil Pollution and in the Ship 

to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum) 

(both documents are incorporated by 

reference, see § 156.111). 

(g) In addition to any records required 

by the vessel’s approved STS 

Operations Plan, each STS operation 

must be recorded in the oil tanker’s Oil 

Record Book, required by § 151.25 of 

this chapter. 

(h) All records of STS Operations 

shall be retained onboard for 3 years 

and be readily available for inspection. 

(i) No oil tanker may transfer oil in a 

port or place subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States, if the oil cargo has 

been transferred by an STS Operation in 

the marine environment beyond the 

baseline, unless: 

(1) Both oil tankers engaged in the 

STS Operation have, onboard, at the 

time of transfer all certificates required 

by this chapter for transfer of oil cargos, 

including a valid Certificate of 

Inspection or Certificate of Compliance, 

as applicable to any transfer of oil taking 

place in a port or place subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5937 

(2) Both oil tankers engaged in the 

STS operation have onboard at the time 

of transfer, evidence that each vessel is 

operating in compliance with the 

National Response System as described 

in section 311(j) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1321(j)). Additionally, the vessels must 

comply with the Declaration of 

Inspection requirements delineated in 

§ 156.150 and a vessel response plan if 

required under part 155 of this chapter; 

and 

(3) Both oil tankers engaged in STS 

Operations have onboard, at the time of 

transfer, an International Oil Pollution 

Prevention (IOPP) Certificate or 

equivalent documentation of 

compliance with Annex I, as would be 

required by part 151 of this chapter for 

vessels in navigable waters of the 

United States. The IOPP Certificate or 

documentation of compliance shall be 

that prescribed by §§ 151.19 and 151.21 

of this chapter, and shall be effective 

under the same timetable as specified in 

§ 151.19. 

(j) In an emergency, the Captain of the 

Port (COTP), upon request, may 

authorize a deviation from any 

requirement in this part if the COTP 

determines that its application will 

endanger persons, property, or the 

environment. 

§ 156.415 Notification. 

(a) Except as provided for in 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the 

master, owner or agent of each oil tanker 

subject to this subpart planning to 

conduct STS Operations in the 

territorial sea or exclusive economic 

zone of the United States must give at 

least 48 hours advance notice to the 

COTP nearest the geographic position 

chosen to conduct these operations. 

This advance notice must include: 

(1) The oil tanker’s name, call sign or 

official number, and registry; 

(2) The cargo type and approximate 

amount onboard; 

(3) The number of transfers expected, 

the amount of cargo expected to be 

transferred during each transfer, and 

whether such transfer will be conducted 

at anchor or underway; 

(4) The date, estimated time of arrival, 

and geographical location at the 

commencement of the planned STS 

Operations; 

(5) The estimated duration of STS 

Operations; 

(6) The name and destination of 

receiving oil tanker(s); 

(7) Identification of STS Operations 

service provider or person in overall 

advisory control and contact 

information; and 

(8) Confirmation that the oil tanker 

has onboard an approved STS 

Operations Plan. 

(b) If the estimated arrival time of an 

oil tanker to the reported geographic 

location for the commencement of STS 

operation changes by more than 6 hours, 

the master, owner, or agent of that oil 

tanker must provide a revised estimated 

time of arrival to the COTP. 

(c) Where STS Operations are 

conducted as a result of collision, 

grounding, tank rupture or any similar 

emergency, the master, owner, or agent 

of a vessel must give immediate notice 

to the Coast Guard office. 

(d) In addition to the other 

requirements in this section, the master, 

owner, or agent of a vessel that requires 

a Certificate of Compliance (COC) or 

other special Coast Guard inspection in 

order to conduct STS Operations must 

request the COC or other inspection 

from the cognizant Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI) at least 72 

hours prior to commencement of STS 

Operations. 

(e) The STS Operation advanced 

notice is in addition to the Notification 

of Arrival requirements in 33 CFR part 

160. 

(f) If all of the information specified 

in paragraph (a) is not available 48 

hours in advance of a planned STS 

Operation, the oil tanker discharging the 

oil cargo must notify the COTP at least 

48 hours in advance that an STS 

Operation will occur. In such a 

circumstances, the information 

specified in paragraph (a) must be 

provided to the COTP at the earliest 

opportunity. 

(g) If STS operations are conducted 

under exigent circumstances to secure 

the safety of a ship, to save life at sea, 

or combat specific incidents in order to 

minimize the damage from pollution 

within the territorial sea or exclusive 

economic zone of the United States, the 

master, owner, or agent of each oil 

tanker subject this subpart shall provide 

notice with adequate explanation, as 

soon as practicable, to the COTP nearest 

the geographic position where the 

exigent STS operation took place. 

§ 156.420 Reporting of incidents. 

(a) Any vessel affected by fire, 

explosion, collision, grounding, or any 

similar emergency that poses a threat to 

the vessel(s) engaged in STS Operations 

must report the incident to the nearest 

Coast Guard office. 

(b) The POAC of an STS operation 

must report, in accordance with the 

procedures specified in § 151.15 of this 

chapter, any incident of discharge of oil 

into the water. 

(c) Immediately after the addressing of 

resultant safety concerns, all marine 

casualties must be reported to the 

nearest COTP, Sector Office, Marine 

Inspection Office, or OCMI in 

accordance with 46 CFR part 4. 

PART 157—RULES FOR THE 

PROTECTION OF THE MARINE 

ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO TANK 

VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK 

■ 22. The authority citation for part 157 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 

3703a (note); Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subparts G, 

H, and I are also issued under section 

4115(b), Pub. L. 101–380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub. 

L. 104–55, 109 Stat. 546. 

■ 23. In § 157.02, add paragraphs (b)(9) 

and (10) to read as follows: 

§ 157.02 Incorporation by reference: 

Where can I get a copy of the publications 

mentioned in this part? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 

2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 

prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 

4—Requirements for the cargo area of 

oil tankers, Part A—Construction, 

Regulation 22, ‘‘Pump-room bottom 

protection,’’ (Annex I, Regulation 22) 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.14. 

(10) MARPOL Consolidated Edition 

2011, Annex I, Regulations for the 

prevention of pollution by oil, Chapter 

4—Requirements for the cargo area of 

oil tankers, Part A—Construction, 

Regulation 23, ‘‘Accidental oil outflow 

performance,’’ (Annex I, Regulation 23) 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.20. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. In § 157.08, add paragraph (o) to 

read as follows: 

§ 157.08 Applicability of subpart B. 

* * * * * 

(o) Section 157.11(h) applies to every 

oil tanker delivered on or after January 

1, 2010, meaning an oil tanker— 

(1) For which the building contract is 

placed on or after January 1, 2007; 

(2) In the absence of a building 

contract, the keel of which is laid or 

which is at a similar stage of 

construction on or after July 1, 2007; 

(3) The delivery of which is on or 

after January 1, 2010; or 

(4) That has undergone a major 

conversion— 

(i) For which the contract is placed on 

or after January 1, 2007; 

(ii) In the absence of a contract, the 

construction work of which is begun on 

or after July 1, 2007; or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) That is completed on or after 

January 1, 2010. 

■ 25. In § 157.11, add paragraph (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 157.11 Pumping, piping and discharge 

arrangements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Every oil tanker of 150 gross tons 

or more delivered on or after January 1, 

2010, as defined in § 157.08(o), that has 

installed a sea chest that is permanently 

connected to the cargo pipeline system, 

must be equipped with both a sea chest 

valve and an inboard isolation valve. 

The sea chest must be able to be isolated 

from the cargo piping system by use of 

a positive means while the tanker is 

loading, transporting, or discharging 

cargo. This positive means must be is 

installed in the pipeline in such a way 

as to prevent, under all circumstances, 

the section of pipe between the sea 

chest valve and the inboard valve from 

being filled with cargo. 

■ 26. Add § 157.14 to read as follows: 

§ 157.14 Pump-room bottom protection. 

Each oil tanker of 5,000 tons 

deadweight or more constructed on or 

after January 1, 2007, must meet the 

minimum standard of pump room 

bottom protection required by Annex I, 

Regulation 22 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 157.02). 

■ 27. Amend § 157.19 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through 

(e) as paragraphs (c) through (f), 

respectively; and 

■ c. Add new paragraph (b). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 157.19 Cargo tank arrangement and size. 

(a) With the exception of those vessels 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section, 

this section applies to: 

* * * * * 

(b) This section does not apply to U.S. 

or foreign oil tankers delivered on or 

after January 1, 2010. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Add § 157.20 to read as follows: 

§ 157.20 Accidental oil outflow 

performance. 

Each oil tanker which is delivered on 

or after January 1, 2010 must meet the 

minimum standard of accidental oil 

outflow performance required by Annex 

I, Regulation 23 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 157.02). 

Dated: January 16, 2015. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01925 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037; FRL–9921–80– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS45 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers Production 

Area Sources Wastewater Limit 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to amend the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers 

Production Area Sources. This direct 

final rule withdraws the total non-vinyl 

chloride organic hazardous air pollutant 

(TOHAP) process wastewater emission 

standards for new and existing 

polyvinyl chloride and copolymers 

(PVC) area sources. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

30, 2015 without further notice, unless 

the EPA receives adverse comment by 

March 13, 2015. If the EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

amendments in the final rule will not 

take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0037. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0037, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0037. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

We request that you also send a 

separate copy of each comment to the 

contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES