3364 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 155 and 157 

46 CFR Part 162 

[Docket No. USCG–2004–18939] 

RIN 1625–AA90 

Pollution Prevention Equipment 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 

its oil pollution prevention equipment 

regulations to make them consistent 

with new International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) guidelines and 

specifications issued under the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL) Annex I. These revisions 

will implement MARPOL Annex I 

regulations and are intended to reduce 

the amount of oil discharged from 

vessels and eliminate the use of ozonedepleting solvents in equipment tests. 

This interim rule will require all vessels 

replacing or installing oil separators and 

bilge alarms to install equipment that 

meets revised standards and it will 

require newly constructed vessels 

carrying oil in bulk to install monitoring 

systems that meet the revised standards. 

We have delayed the implementation of 

three paragraphs involving vessels 

constructed and equipment installed on 

or after January 1, 2005. We seek 

comments on these three paragraphs 

and will consider those comments 

before issuing a final rule. 

DATES: Effective dates: This interim rule 

is effective March 17, 2009, with the 

exception of paragraphs 33 CFR 

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

155.370(a)(4), which are effective 

October 13, 2009. 

Comment date: Comments on 

paragraphs 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 

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

reach the Docket Management Facility 

on or before April 16, 2009. 

Incorporation by reference: The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulations is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of March 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2004–18939 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. For instructions 

on submitting comments, see the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this interim rule, 

call Mr. Wayne Lundy, Systems 

Engineering Division (CG–5213), Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202–372– 

1379. If you have questions on viewing 

or submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting comments 

B. Viewing comments and documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Regulatory History 

IV. Background and Purpose 

A. Types of Equipment 

B. Authority 

C. International Standards Being 

Implemented 

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. Test and Performance 

B. Measurement of Oil Content 

C. Calibration 

D. Training 

E. Operating Requirements 

F. Simulated Shipborne Environment 

G. Operating Manual 

H. Applicability 

I. PPE Alternatives 

J. Data Recording 

K. Test Rig 

L. Response Time 

M. Test Fluid 

N. Incorporating MEPC.107(49) by 

Reference 

O. Test Report 

P. Cleaning Detergent in Engine Room 

Q. PPE Design 

R. Oil Categories 

S. Beyond the Scope of This Rulemaking 

T. Changes from Proposed Rule 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2004–18939), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2004–18939’’ in the Docket ID box, 

press Enter, and then click on the 

balloon shape in the Actions column. If 

you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

this rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert USCG– 

2004–18939 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID column. If you do not have 

access to the internet, you may view the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3365 

docket online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

II. Abbreviations 

API .................................................................... American Petroleum Institute 

CFC 113 ............................................................ Chlorofluorocarbon-113 

CFR ................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS .................................................................. Department of Homeland Security 

EPA ................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency 

FR ..................................................................... Federal Register 

GC Method ....................................................... Replacement hydrocarbon-gas chromatography method 

GMT .................................................................. Greenwich Mean Time 

IMO ................................................................... International Maritime Organization 

IOPP .................................................................. International Oil Pollution Prevention 

IR method ......................................................... Freon-infrared spectrophotometer method 

ISO .................................................................... International Organization for Standardization 

MARPOL .......................................................... International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MEPC ................................................................ Marine Environment Protection Committee 

NARA ............................................................... National Archives and Records Administration 

NEPA ................................................................ National Environmental Policy Act 

NPDES .............................................................. National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards 

NPRM ............................................................... Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA ............................................................. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OCIMF .............................................................. Oil Companies International Marine Forum 

OMB ................................................................. Office of Management and Budget 

ORB .................................................................. Oil Record Book 

OWS ................................................................. Oily-Water Separator 

PPM .................................................................. Parts Per Million 

§ ........................................................................ Section symbol 

SRM .................................................................. Standard Reference Material 

UL ..................................................................... Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 

U.S.C ................................................................. United States Code 

USDA ................................................................ United States Department of Agriculture 

III. Regulatory History 

On November 3, 2005, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Pollution Prevention 

Equipment’’ in the Federal Register (70 

FR 67066). We received 17 letters 

containing 80 comments on the 

proposed rule. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

On December 15, 2005, we published 

a correction notice in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 74259). The NPRM, as 

published, contained the phrase ‘‘must 

be limited’’ at two points, once in the 

preamble and once in the regulatory 

text. We deleted that phrase because it 

was inserted by error and could have 

confused readers. 

IV. Background and Purpose 

This interim rule will implement 

international standards for oil pollution 

prevention equipment designed for 

ships and oil tankers. These standards 

address the testing, certification, and 

approval for oil pollution prevention 

equipment, including discharge 

monitors, which will help prevent oily 

discharges from a ship into the water. 

A. Types of Equipment 

There are two types of equipment 

involved in this rulemaking that deal 

with oil, water, and other substances 

that collect in the machinery space 

bilges of ships: 

A bilge separator (also referred to as 

oily-water separator), is designed to 

produce an effluent from the bilge of 

ships with oil content of 15 parts per 

million (ppm) or less; and 

A bilge alarm is designed to activate 

an automatic stopping device when the 

oil content concentration exceeds 15 

ppm, and thus stop any discharge 

overboard of oily-mixtures with an oil 

content exceeding 15 ppm. 

This rulemaking also involves 

equipment used on tankers to process 

oil-tanker ballast and tank-washing 

water. The oil discharge monitoring and 

control system (‘‘monitoring system’’) 

monitors the discharge into the sea of 

oily ballast or other oil-contaminated 

water from the cargo tank areas. This 

monitoring system contains an oil 

content meter (hereinafter ‘‘meter’’) that 

measures the oil content of the effluent 

in ppm. 

B. Authority 

The Coast Guard has authority to 

issue this regulation. Under the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships, Public 

Law 96–478, sections 2 and 4, 94 Stat. 

2297, 2298 (Oct. 21, 1980), 33 U.S.C. 

1901 and 1903, the Secretary of the 

Department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating is authorized to prescribe any 

necessary or desired regulations to carry 

out the provisions of the Act and of 

Annex I (Regulations for the prevention 

of pollution by oil) of the International 

Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified 

by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that 

Convention (MARPOL 73/78). Under 

the Act of August 26, 1983, Public Law 

98–89, 97 Stat. 500, 504, 522, subtitle II 

of title 46 of the U.S. Code (46 U.S.C.), 

specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703, the 

Secretary in which the Coast Guard is 

operating is authorized to issue 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3366 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

equipment regulations, and related 

maintenance and training regulations 

for vessels carrying liquid bulk 

dangerous cargo, including oil. 

Authority under both of these acts has 

been delegated to the Coast Guard under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1(2)(77) and (92)(b). 

C. International Standards Being 

Implemented 

This rulemaking implements 

revisions to the international oil 

pollution prevention standards for ships 

in MARPOL Annex I, specifically 

regulations 14, 18, and 31. Under 

Article 38 of the Convention on the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO), the IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee (Committee) is 

designated to consider IMO matters 

involving the prevention and control of 

marine pollution from ships. 

In 1992, during its 33rd session, the 

Committee adopted a resolution, 

MEPC.60(33), containing guidelines and 

specifications for pollution prevention 

equipment for machinery space bilges of 

ships. In 2003, recognizing the 

advancement of technology since 1992, 

the Committee adopted resolution 

MEPC.107(49), which contained new 

guidelines and specifications that 

superseded those adopted in 1992. 

The MEPC.107(49) changed the fluids 

used to test pollution prevention 

equipment so they would more closely 

represent the bilge wastes encountered 

on vessels. Emulsified oil in water, 

surfactants (for example, detergents), 

and other contaminants are typically 

found in bilge water. Under 

MEPC.107(49), the bilge separator must 

be capable of separating the oil from the 

emulsion to produce an effluent with an 

oil content not exceeding 15 ppm. 

The MEPC.107(49) also changed the 

method by which oil content is 

measured in effluent samples during the 

approval process. Past methods 

permitted the use of ozone-depleting 

solvents, specifically carbon 

tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113). 

Both an international treaty and United 

States laws call for phasing out the use 

of these solvents. See the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer (‘‘Montreal Protocol’’), 

Sept. 16, 1987, 26 I.L.M. 1550, and Title 

VI of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671– 

7671q. Accordingly, MEPC.107(49) 

specifies a different test method that 

does not use ozone-depleting solvents. 

The MEPC.107(49) guidelines and 

specifications were incorporated into 

Annex I after the 2004 adoption of 

resolution MEPC.117(52), which led to 

the revision of MARPOL Annex I. On 

January 1, 2007, the revised Annex I 

came into force. Resolution 

MEPC.107(49) is incorporated into 

Regulation 14 (Oil filtering equipment) 

of the revised Annex I. 

Additionally, in 2003, the Committee 

also adopted resolution MEPC.108(49), 

which revised guidelines and 

specifications for oil discharge 

monitoring and control systems for oil 

tankers constructed after 2004. These 

new guidelines and specifications were 

incorporated into Regulations 18 

(Segregated Ballast Tanks) and 31 (Oil 

discharge monitoring and control 

system) of the revised Annex I and 

apply to oil content meters as part of oil 

discharge monitoring and control 

systems installed on tankers constructed 

after 2004. Because of revisions to 

MARPOL Annex II, effective January 1, 

2007, neither resolution MEPC.108(49) 

nor the resolution it is replacing, 

A.586(14), are referenced in Annex II. 

The new MEPC.108(49) guidelines 

and specifications call for: 

• Only one category of a monitoring 

system to apply to all tankers of 150 

gross tonnage and above; 

• The monitoring system to be able to 

record position (latitude and longitude) 

from a vessel-position indicating device, 

allowing more accurate input of speed 

parameters; 

• Greater control of oil mixture 

discharges by tightening the accuracy 

requirements for both the oil content 

meter and the flowmeter; and 

• A more objective specification for 

identifying crude oils: Simply by 

number and assigned characteristics and 

parameters—such as density, viscosity, 

and cloud point—rather than 

geographical denominations used in 

Resolution A.586(14). 

See IMO Subcommittee on Ship 

Design and Equipment Report to the 

Maritime Safety Committee, DE 46/32 at 

12 & 13 (April 4, 2003). 

V. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

In response to our NPRM, we received 

a total of 80 comments reflected in the 

73 issues presented below. 

A. Test and Performance 

Commenters raised 18 issues 

regarding the testing and performance of 

PPE. 

Issue 1: One commenter stated that 

the paragraph 1.2.15, Shutoff test in the 

Annex to MEPC.108(49) for the oil 

content meter (‘‘meter’’), should be 

renamed the ‘‘Dry Operation While 

Energized Test’’ and that to ensure that 

our regulation achieves its apparent 

purpose—allowing observation of the 

reaction of a non-lubricated meter, the 

shutoff time should be increased to at 

least 24 hours. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

The duration of shutoff we specify in 46 

CFR 162.050–27(k) matches 

MEPC.108(49): 8 hours. This simulates 

a short period of inactivity of the meter, 

and thus we believe the current title is 

accurate. Adding 1 to 2 days to this test 

is not necessary. Our shutdown and 

restart test in 46 CFR 162.050–27(n) 

maintains the existing 1-week shutdown 

requirement. 

While we did not change the title of 

the Shutoff test, this and other 

comments demonstrated the need to 

better align our terms with 

MEPC.108(49) as well as our current 

pollution certificate requirements in 33 

CFR part 151, subpart A. In aligning 

with MEPC.108(49), we have removed 

the term ‘‘cargo monitor’’ because it can 

be interpreted either as a oil content 

meter or oil discharge monitoring and 

control system (‘‘monitoring system’’). 

In 33 CFR part 157, we no longer use 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ to identify the 

‘‘monitoring system.’’ Also, in 46 CFR 

part 162, we have replaced the term 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ with the term ‘‘oil 

content meter.’’ In defining ‘‘oil content 

meter’’, we used the same definition for 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ in the proposed rule, 

except that we removed a reference to 

a recordkeeping function. To ensure 

uniformity in the CFR parts involved, 

we made nomenclature changes in some 

sections or paragraphs that were not 

included in the proposed rule: 

§§ 155.380(a) and (b), 157.03 ‘‘clean 

ballast’’ definition paragraph (2), 

157.11(b)(2)(iii), 157.37(a)(6), (c) and 

(d), 157.43(a) and (b), 162.050–5(a)(8), 

162.050–7(i), 162.050–11(a) and (b)(8), 

and 162.050–19(a) and (c). 

Issue 2: After discussing the 8-hour 

shutoff test in paragraph 2.2.8 of the 

Annex to MEPC.107(49), which was 

reflected in § 162.050–35(e) of our 

proposed rule, one commenter said that 

the 46 CFR subpart 162.050 test protocol 

requiring bilge alarms to be shutoff for 

7 days should be retained as the true 

‘‘ShutOff’’ test. 

Response: The current requirement in 

§ 162.050–35(i), Test No. 7A , specifies 

that the bilge alarm be shutoff for 1 

week and then tested. We have retained 

this useful 1-week shutoff test in 

§ 162.050–35(i) of the interim rule and 

renamed it ‘‘Test No. 8A Shutdown and 

Restart Test.’’ We have also retained the 

8-hour shutoff test appearing in 

§ 162.050–35(e), Test No. 4A Shutoff 

Test, of the proposed rule. We made no 

changes from the proposed rule based 

on this comment. 

Issue 3: One commenter stated that 

the ‘‘Calibration and Zero Test’’, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3367 

paragraph 1.2.5 of the Annex to 

MEPC.108(49), uses ‘‘calibration’’ for 

what we would classify as ‘‘capability,’’ 

and that this test should be run as a 

comparative test with the influent and 

effluent sampled as the cargo monitor 

(monitoring system) output display is 

read and recorded. The commenter also 

stated the value of the influent and 

effluent should be within ±10 parts per 

million (ppm) of the cargo monitor 

display at the time of sampling. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees 

with the commenter. We believe that 

this test constructs a calibration curve 

up to the maximum capability of the 

equipment. The fact that this test also 

establishes the capability of the unit is 

secondary to its intended purpose. 

However, this comment has revealed 

that this testing requirement was 

insufficiently written in the NPRM as it 

did not specifically mention the 

creation of a calibration curve. The 

regulatory text in 46 CFR 162.050–27(b) 

and (c) has been revised to correct this 

omission. 

Regarding the ±10 ppm comment, this 

was addressed in proposed § 162.050– 

7(i)(2) (Approval procedures), which we 

did not change in the interim rule. 

Issue 4: One commenter said that the 

‘‘Oil Fouling and Calibration Shift 

Test’’, paragraph 1.2.9 of the Annex to 

MEPC.108(49), should be a comparative 

test with the only other requirement 

being that the monitoring system be 

capable of being cleaned or self-cleaned 

from the influent. The commenter also 

noted that using the test stand’s current 

configuration may allow heavy oil to 

permeate the fittings on the test stand 

plumbing and cause fluctuations in the 

influent concentration. 

Response: This comment made us 

realize that we should have included a 

sentence from MEPC.108(49) in our 

proposed rule. To correct this omission, 

we have redesignated § 162.050–27(e)(4) 

as (e)(5) and inserted a new paragraph 

(e)(4) that reads: ‘‘If it is necessary to 

clean the meter after each oil-fouling 

test for it to return to a zero reading, this 

fact and the time required to clean and 

recalibrate the meter must be noted and 

recorded in the test report.’’ Regarding 

the permeation of heavy oil in the test 

stand setup, we note this comment, but 

are adhering to MEPC.108(49) test stand 

specifications. Observations such as 

these should be included in the lab 

report. 

Issue 5: One commenter suggested 

revising § 162.050–20(b)(2) to include a 

specific dilution ratio or stating that the 

amount of water added must be 

accounted for in the volume added 

under paragraph § 162.050–20(b)(3). 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees 

with this suggestion. We believe that the 

overall ratio for fluid C (for the testing 

of oily water separators and bilge 

alarms) is dictated by paragraph (a)(3) of 

§ 162.050–20. In paragraph (b)(2), the 

proposed regulations call for the mixing 

of the surfactant with water in a ‘‘small 

container.’’ We believe that the amount 

of water needed to make the surfactant 

solution is insignificant compared to the 

amount of water required for paragraph 

(b)(3). We have amended the regulatory 

text, however, to clarify that the amount 

of water that may be used to comply 

with paragraph (b)(2) must be the 

minimum required for the creation of a 

complete surfactant solution. 

Issue 6: One commenter stated that a 

new paragraph should be added near 

§ 162.050–23(a) that bars changing 

filters, manually cleaning filters, or 

replacing consumable items during or 

between the tests. 

Response: We agree with the concern 

expressed by the commenter, but note 

that the existing 46 CFR 162.050– 

23(a)(11) prohibits maintenance of the 

separator during or between the tests. In 

the interim rule, this paragraph has been 

redesignated as (a)(10). We made no 

changes from the proposed rule based 

on this comment. 

Issue 7: One commenter said that the 

Coast Guard should consider influent 

concentrations tests of 200 ppm and 

1,000 ppm because common separator 

technologies, such as gravity 

coalescence, generally have an easier 

time separating higher concentrations of 

oil in water. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

While gravity coalescence may 

demonstrate better performance at the 

stated concentrations, it would be 

difficult to stipulate optimum 

concentrations for each method without 

making the test regime overly 

prescriptive. Therefore, we made no 

changes from the proposed rule based 

on this comment. 

Issue 8: One commenter asked if the 

concentration stated in § 162.050– 

23(b)(1) should be constant throughout 

Test 1A or vary between 5,000 and 

10,000 ppm. If the concentration should 

be constant, the commenter 

recommended setting a specific 

concentration. If not, then require that 

the same user-selected concentration 

also be used in Test 1B. 

Response: The recognized lab must 

select a concentration within a range of 

5,000 to 10,000 ppm. The selected 

concentration must remain consistent 

throughout the test. We have made a 

slight revision in the text of § 162.050– 

23(b)(1) to make this point clearer. The 

same test run for test fluid B could be 

at a different concentration within the 

same range, but again we have decided 

to leave this selection to the discretion 

of the test lab. 

Issue 9: One commenter stated that 

calibration and zeroing should be 

allowed only at the onset of the bilge 

alarm tests if the manufacturer 

recommends it. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

We revised § 162.050–35(b)(3) to remove 

the calibration and re-zeroing 

requirement between tests. This 

requirement should not have been 

included in the proposed rule. 

Issue 10: One commenter said that a 

new paragraph (a)(4) should be added to 

§ 162.050–35 and read as follows: ‘‘No 

maintenance, including replacement of 

parts, may be performed on a bilge 

alarm during or between the tests 

described in this section.’’ The 

commenter also added that because this 

applies to separator approval tests, it 

should apply to bilge alarms too. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees 

with the need for a revision, but we 

have revised a different paragraph. We 

added a sentence—‘‘No maintenance, 

including replacement of parts, may be 

performed on a meter during or between 

the tests described in this section.’’—to 

§ 162.050–27(a)(1). These requirements 

must be complied with for bilge alarm 

approval tests under a new § 162.050– 

35(a)(1). 

Issue 11: One commenter suggested 

adding new steps in the calibration and 

zero test between paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3) in § 162.050–35 to ensure the bilge 

alarm makes the correct decision of 

allowing or disallowing overboard 

discharge. Another commenter 

recommended adding new steps in the 

calibration and zero drift test between 

paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) in 

§ 162.050–35 to ensure the bilge alarm 

makes the correct decision of allowing 

or disallowing overboard discharge. 

Response: In both cases, the Coast 

Guard disagrees. Tests for the 

concentration that triggers the alarm and 

how long the alarm takes to be triggered 

are already contained in § 162.050–35(d) 

(ppm level sample pressure or flow test) 

and (h) (response time test). The results 

of these two tests will indicate whether 

the bilge alarm activates an automatic 

stopping device when it should and 

thus stop the discharge overboard of 

oily mixtures with an oil content 

exceeding 15 ppm. Therefore, we did 

not make the requested changes. 

Issue 12: One commenter stated that 

the pass/fail criteria for the test in 

§ 162.050–35(c) is unclear. 

Response: The criteria for approval of 

a bilge alarm for certification are 

contained in 46 CFR 162.050–7(j) and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3368 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

include an accuracy standard of 15 ppm 

±5 ppm. We made no changes based on 

this comment. 

Issue 13: One commenter 

recommended testing the bilge alarm at 

the minimum and maximum design 

pressure or flow rate instead of one half 

and at twice the maximum design 

pressure or flow rate. They stated testing 

the bilge alarm at twice the maximum 

design pressure does not provide useful 

information and may damage the unit. 

Response: While the recommendation 

appears to provide a sound alternative, 

we have maintained the current 

language of § 162.050–35(d) because it is 

consistent with paragraph 2.2.7 of the 

Annex for MEPC.107(49). Further, this 

test has been used internationally for 

several years, and we are not aware of 

any bilge alarms damaged by this test. 

We made no changes from the proposed 

rule based on this comment. 

Issue 14: One commenter asked if the 

purpose of the last phase of Test No. 6A 

in proposed § 162.050–35(g)(3) was to 

collect samples of clean water. If not, 

then the procedure requires 

clarification. 

Response: The purpose of this last 

phase is not to collect samples of clean 

water. To provide clarification, we have 

revised paragraph (g)(3) to better align it 

with paragraph 2.2.10 of the Annex to 

MEPC.107(49). 

Issue 15: One commenter 

recommended adding language to start 

Test No. 7A in § 162.050–35(h) with a 

0 ppm injection until the bilge alarm 

stabilizes and diverts flow ‘‘overboard,’’ 

followed by the 40 ppm injection. 

Furthermore, the commenter stated if 

you start at 40 ppm, the actuation point 

for the alarm may not be observed. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

We believe that the requirement in the 

preceding test in § 162.050–35(g)(3) 

accomplishes the initial conditions the 

commenter seeks by adding a 0 ppm 

injection in § 162.050–35(h) for Test No. 

7A and, as specified in § 162.050–35(a), 

these tests must be performed in 

sequence. We made no changes from the 

proposed rule based on this comment. 

Issue 16: One commenter said that 

Test No. 6A in § 162.050–35(g) should 

be titled ‘‘Calibration and Zero Drift 

Test’’ to distinguish it from Test No. 1A 

in the same section. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

We have revised the test name to ‘‘Test 

No. 6A Calibration and Zero Drift Test.’’ 

Issue 17: One commenter stated that 

the lab representative conducting the 

test should verify and state on the test 

report all parameters of the testing, 

including the test’s start and end time. 

The report should include verification 

and documentation that all test fluids 

were in conformity with those specified 

and that test fluid C was a ‘‘stable’’ 

emulsion. This should apply to the tests 

for both the monitoring system and the 

separator. Any unit submitted without 

testing all three fluids concurrently 

should be rejected. 

Response: The Coast Guard believes 

that the information currently required 

in test reports by 46 CFR 162.050–9 is 

sufficient for a determination of whether 

MEPC PPE standards have been met. We 

also believe that the regulations, as 

proposed and adopted in this interim 

rule, are clear that the three test fluids 

should be tested for both the separator 

and bilge alarm, in order, and as one 

continual series of tests, without pause, 

as far as practicable. We made no 

changes based on this comment. 

Issue 18: One commenter said that the 

15 ppm bilge alarm device functions as 

a key component in the overall 

performance of the separating 

equipment. Therefore, these 15 ppm 

bilge alarm devices should also be 

included in the separator testing 

procedure so the accuracy can be 

measured against the chemical analysis 

of the clean water discharge. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees 

that all bilge alarms should always be 

tested with separators, however, 

separators with integral bilge alarms 

should be tested as one unit. Therefore, 

we have added new paragraph 

§ 162.050–23(a)(13) stating: ‘‘If a 

separator has an integral bilge alarm, the 

separator must be tested with the bilge 

alarm installed.’’ 

B. Measurement of Oil Content 

Commenters raised eight issues 

regarding the measurement of oil 

content. 

Issue 19: One commenter suggested 

eliminating § 162.050–39(b) to better 

conform with IMO resolutions 

MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49) 

because the infrared spectrophotometer 

assay mentioned in that paragraph is not 

permitted in the current IMO 

regulations. The commenter also 

believes the reagent used in the infrared 

spectrophotometer assay is no longer 

available in its pure, unused form. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

We do not believe that any laboratories 

would benefit from a phasing-out of the 

test permitted under § 162.050–39(b). 

Therefore, this paragraph has been 

removed consistent with our stated goal 

of eliminating the use of ozonedepleting reagents required by the test 

in § 162.050–39(b). 

Issue 20: One commenter asked if the 

Coast Guard knows the ‘‘error bar’’ for 

the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) method given the 

different ways it may be performed. The 

commenter suggested adding the error 

bar to the 15 ppm value so as not to 

preclude a separator whose ‘‘real’’ 

performance is 15 ppm or less. Another 

commenter stated the Coast Guard 

should ensure that the replacement 

hydrocarbon-gas chromatography (GC) 

method provides results comparable to 

the freon-infrared spectrophotometer 

(IR) method, and apply an adjustment 

factor to the ISO results if warranted. 

One commenter said that the MEPC 

requires the use of ISO 9377–2 to 

determine oil content of separator and 

bilge alarm samples. The commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard use 

EPA’s Method 1664A as the method of 

verification. If the ISO method is still 

the chosen method, the commenter 

recommended that § 162.050–39 

reference the petroleum hydrocarbon 

extraction method used in 40 CFR part 

136 to maintain consistent results. 

Response: The Coast Guard does not 

have an ‘‘error bar’’ for the ISO 9377– 

2 method. We believe that conducting a 

comparison test of the GC method with 

the IR method is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. However, we welcome 

the results of any such comparison. 

Should verifiable results show an 

adjustment factor is needed, the Coast 

Guard would request that the United 

States bring this to the attention of the 

IMO for consideration of amendments to 

MEPC.107(49). We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 21: One commenter said the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Method 8015M should be used 

instead of the ISO 9377–2 method. The 

commenter stated the EPA method more 

closely represents the method that 

should be used, but understands ISO 

9377–2 is an international standard and 

that the use of one nation’s method 

might not be as universally accepted. 

Response: At this point, the Coast 

Guard does not have enough data to 

ensure the EPA method is equivalent. It 

is our desire to remain consistent with 

the IMO resolution. However, if a 

designated lab or manufacturer desires 

to use the EPA method in lieu of ISO 

9377–2, they must show that it delivers 

equivalent results. Under 46 CFR 

159.001–7, if an alternative method 

produces equivalent or better 

performance, we may accept oil-inwater analysis results based on that 

method. We made no changes from the 

proposed rule based on this comment. 

Issue 22: One commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard have 

discussions with the EPA regarding 

changes to ISO 9377–2 because 40 CFR 

part 136 calls for the use of Method 

1664A to report oil, grease, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3369 

petroleum hydrocarbons under National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination 

Standards (NPDES) permits. 

Response: The United States has a 

responsibility to implement MARPOL 

Annex I as revised. This includes 

issuing regulations for approving oil 

pollution prevention equipment for 

vessels covered by MARPOL Annex I. In 

fulfilling this responsibility, the Coast 

Guard believes maintaining consistency 

with the IMO resolution is the best 

approach. Therefore, we made no 

changes in response to this comment. 

Issue 23: One commenter 

recommended that the Coast Guard use 

EPA Method 1664 for hardware 

approval until the implications of using 

different measurement techniques for 

hardware approval and enforcement are 

resolved. 

Response: As a Party to MARPOL 

Annex I, we have an obligation to 

implement the revised Annex. The 

Coast Guard believes that maintaining 

consistency with the IMO resolution is 

the best way to meet that obligation. We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 24: One commenter stated that 

the NPRM language should facilitate 

inclusion of alternate methods in the 

future. The commenter offered to work 

with the Coast Guard in defining a 

method that falls within the guidelines 

of ISO 9377–2, but is more specific. 

Response: The Coast Guard currently 

has the regulatory authority to allow the 

use of alternative methods that 

demonstrate equivalent performance 

characteristics, under 46 CFR 159.007– 

1 and 159.005–7. Therefore, if a 

designated lab or manufacturer 

demonstrates an alternative method 

with equal or better oil-in-water 

analysis, then that analysis may be 

proposed in the lab’s application to the 

Coast Guard for further consideration. 

We made no changes from the proposed 

rule in response to this comment. 

Issue 25: One commenter asked if 

§ 162.050–7(h)(2) means a 15 ppm 

separator will fail to receive Coast 

Guard approval if one or more samples 

are greater than 15 ppm as measured by 

ISO 9377–2. The commenter believes 

that an approved separator should pass 

the 15 ppm limit test for all conditions 

including emulsions since an emulsion 

is a key aspect of the MEPC.107(49) test. 

Response: The commenter’s 

interpretation is correct. The only 

difference from the existing text is that 

we have eliminated the words ‘‘In the 

case of a 15 ppm separator’’ because this 

distinction is no longer necessary. We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 26: The EPA suggested that we 

establish a reasonable, but specific date 

for discontinuation of the IR assay. 

Response: As noted above, the Coast 

Guard removed § 162.050–39(b) from 

the rule. That paragraph would have 

permitted the continued use of IR 

assays, in place of the ISO 9377–2 GC 

method, so long as reagents for the IR 

assay remained available. By removing 

paragraph (b), we eliminated an 

inconsistency between our proposed 

rule and the revised MARPOL Annex I. 

C. Calibration 

Commenters raised 10 issues 

regarding calibration. 

Issue 27: One commenter stated that 

the NPRM does not include procedures 

for sealing, breaking, and re-sealing oil 

content meter seals and recommended 

identifying procedures and personnel 

authorized to perform such tasks. 

Response: As indicated in proposed 

33 CFR 157.12c, a manufacturer’s 

representative should conduct the 

breaking of meter seals during 

calibration and repair work. The 

procedures for routine maintenance and 

troubleshooting must be clearly defined 

in the Operating and Maintenance 

Manual and such work must be 

recorded. We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 28: One commenter stated that 

there are no valid reasons to restrict 

access to all basic meter check-and-test 

features. The commenter said that 

imposing these limitations would most 

likely lead to an unacceptable level of 

equipment operational disruptions in 

cases where simple testing/adjusting (rezeroing) would rectify minor problems. 

The commenter recommended aligning 

with MEPC.107(49) on this issue. 

Response: On December 15, 2005, we 

corrected the language in proposed 33 

CFR 157.12c(e) (see 70 FR 74259), and 

we have since revised the language in 

46 CFR 162.050–33(f) so both better 

align with the MEPC resolutions. Access 

for re-zeroing the instrument, checking 

for instrument drift, and checking the 

repeatability of the instrument reading 

will not be limited or require the 

breaking of a seal. But also consistent 

with the MEPC resolutions, 33 CFR 

157.12c(a) and 46 CFR 162.050–33(f) 

specify that access beyond these 

controls would require the braking of a 

seal of activation of another device 

which indicates an entry to the 

equipment. 

Issue 29: A commenter found the 

requirement in paragraph 4.2.5 of 

MEPC.107(49) that ‘‘[i]t should not be 

necessary to calibrate the 15 ppm Bilge 

Alarm on board ship’’ confusing and 

challenging because the calibration 

requires traceability, recordkeeping, 

expiration dates, due dates, and the use 

of calibration standards that effectively 

demonstrate traceability. 

Response: The Coast Guard believes 

that paragraph 4.2.5 ensures that the 

reliability of the bilge alarm is tested 

and requires that the bilge alarm should 

be installed on the vessel in a calibrated 

condition. This paragraph also allows 

for onboard checking of the calibration 

per the manufacturer’s instructions 

which, in 46 CFR 162.050–5(a)(6), we 

require to be submitted as part of the 

manufacturer’s application for approval 

of a bilge alarm. In 46 CFR 162.050– 

35(b), we specify that the bilge alarm 

must be calibrated and zeroed using the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

While we have made no changes 

based on this comment, as noted in our 

response below to Issue 36, we have 

added paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 155.380. 

That paragraph requires a check of the 

equipment during the International Oil 

Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate 

surveys. This calibration certificate 

must be retained onboard. We made no 

changes based on this comment. 

Issue 30: One commenter stated that 

the Coast Guard should require action if 

a bilge alarm fails an onboard 

calibration test. 

Response: This rulemaking 

incorporates the MEPC.107(49) changes 

relating to equipment design and 

testing. We feel that changing the 

current regulation to address equipment 

performance after installation is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. However, 

we believe that the current IOPP survey 

regime assures the proper operation of 

the equipment prior to issuance/ 

endorsement of the certificate. Basically, 

if an installed bilge alarm fails to 

calibrate, then the vessel would no 

longer be in compliance with MARPOL 

IOPP requirements. We made no 

changes in response to this comment. 

Issue 31: One commenter stated that 

the regulation should address how drift 

repeatability and re-zeroing affect 

calibration. 

Response: We believe that the full 

suite of tests, as prescribed, will give a 

good indication of the equipment’s 

ability to maintain accuracy. In addition 

to the readings from the instrument, 

samples are taken and analyzed. Any 

variance between the reading and the 

sample concentration would be noted in 

the report. We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 32: Citing industry norms that 

calibration intervals never extend 

beyond 2 years, one commenter said 

that calibration intervals for bilge alarms 

should be no more than 2 years. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3370 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Currently, under 33 CFR 

151.17, the Coast Guard requires that 

PPE remains in satisfactory condition 

for the service intended and is checked 

during the annual IOPP surveys. We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 33: One commenter stated that 

the calibration test for bilge alarms in 

paragraph 2.2.5 of the Annex to 

MEPC.107(49), implemented through 46 

CFR 162.050–35, should be adjusted so 

that a highly accurate and traceable 

input is used or renamed for what it is 

really doing—determining the stability 

of the meter and its sensors against 

varying oil types. 

Response: The Coast Guard does not 

believe that a change is necessary. This 

test ensures the proper calibration of the 

bilge alarm using all three test fluids. 

We do not see a need to alter the name 

of the test. 

Issue 34: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule seems to shift the 

burden of calibration from shipboard 

operations to the manufacturer. 

Furthermore, the commenter stated that 

there should be a recognized standard 

for calibration because there must be a 

calibration process used by mariners 

operating meters and separators. 

Response: Resolution MEPC.107(49) 

does not dictate a specific calibration 

standard. Furthermore, the Coast Guard 

believes that the calibration is for the 

meter only and not the main body of 

electronics to interpret the signal from 

the meter. The standard of calibration of 

the instrument (not the sensor) will be 

at the discretion of the third party the 

ship owner uses. We made no changes 

in response to this comment. 

Issue 35: One commenter believes that 

the following wording in proposed 46 

CFR 162.050–33 is unclear and 

somewhat contradictory to 

MEPC.107(49): ‘‘calibrating the bilge 

alarm must not be necessary once 

installed on board the vessel, however, 

on board testing in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instruction is 

permitted.’’ 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

We have revised this portion of 

§ 162.050–33(d) to read: ‘‘calibrating the 

bilge alarm must not be necessary once 

installed onboard the vessel; however, 

onboard testing in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s operating instructions is 

permitted for the purposes of checking 

instrument drift and repeatability of the 

instrument reading, as well as the 

ability to re-zero the instrument.’’ 

Issue 36: One commenter said that the 

same statement, ‘‘calibrating the bilge 

alarm must not be necessary once 

installed on board the vessel,’’ must be 

clarified to reflect that calibration may 

be performed by the manufacturer or 

qualified personnel at an onshore 

facility. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

We have added paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 

155.380 to implement the requirements 

of MEPC.107(49) paragraph 4.2.11. This 

change will restrict calibration checks to 

the manufacturer or persons authorized 

by the manufacturer. It would be up to 

the manufacturer to prescribe where the 

calibration check may be conducted. 

D. Training 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding training. 

Issue 37: One commenter stated that 

the Coast Guard (and IMO) must ensure 

that new separating equipment is 

thoroughly field tested, standardized, 

and properly supported by mandatory 

‘‘factory’’ training for any person 

expected to use it. Another commenter 

requested amending the final rule to 

mandate formal safety and vocational 

training in equipment operation and 

maintenance. 

Response: The purpose and scope of 

this rulemaking is to issue PPE design, 

installation, and testing regulations that 

implement the revised MARPOL Annex 

I. The Coast Guard believes this interim 

rule achieves that goal. For clarification, 

however, we are adding paragraphs (e) 

and (f) to 33 CFR 155.380 regarding 

training and maintenance, respectively. 

E. Operating Requirements 

Commenters raised seven issues 

regarding operating requirements. 

Issue 38: Regarding proposed 46 CFR 

162.050–23(d), one commenter stated 

that the clean effluent line of the 

separator should be at least 90 percent 

of the influent flow rate for purposes of 

emulsion breaking. 

Response: We disagree. This 

recommendation would require our 

regulations to be more prescriptive than 

our performance-based standard from 

paragraph 1.2.11.1 of the Annex to 

MEPC.107(49) of feeding a mixture to 

the separator composed of 6 percent 

Test Fluid C and 94 percent water by 

volume such that the emulsified Test 

Fluid C content is approximately 3,000 

ppm in the test water until a steady flow 

rate occurs. We made no changes based 

on this comment. 

Issue 39: Two commenters suggested 

adding a new paragraph to address the 

minimum service life for which bilge 

alarms should be designed. These 

commenters also raised material 

compatibility issues. They stated that 

the equipment should be suitable for 

seawater service, and compatible with 

oil, fuel, and bilge contaminants such as 

surfactants and particulates. 

Response: We do not believe that it is 

within the scope of this rulemaking to 

require manufacturers to state the 

minimum service life of their product. 

Furthermore, the IMO resolutions do 

not address service life. As for the 

material compatibility issues, we 

believe that these are addressed in the 

plan review process specified in 

existing 46 CFR 162.050–5(a)(4), which 

requires the submittal of arrangement 

plans and piping diagrams in 

accordance with the requirements of 46 

CFR 56.01–10(d). We made no changes 

based on these comments. 

Issue 40: Responding to proposed 46 

CFR 162.050–33, one commenter 

suggested adding a new paragraph to 

incorporate fail-safe design 

requirements for bilge-alarm systems. 

Specifically, they would require: (1) The 

bilge alarm to provide a control signal 

for the ‘‘overboard discharge control 

device’’; (2) at least four consecutive 

bilge-alarm measurements must be 

below the alarm set-point before 

sending the control signal to allow 

overboard discharge; and (3) when the 

bilge alarm cannot obtain a reading due 

to interference or other causes, this must 

be considered a reading above the alarm 

set-point as it relates to No. (2). 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees 

as this suggested change is not in line 

with the requirements of MEPC.107(49) 

which are sufficiently designed to stop 

the discharge overboard of oily-mixtures 

with an oil content exceeding 15 ppm. 

We made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 41: One commenter 

recommended adding a new paragraph 

(c)(3) in § 162.050–33 to describe a 

specific condition that would require 

the bilge alarm to produce a warning 

signal and a signal to actuate stop valves 

when ‘‘the concentration of 

interferences in the sample (e.g., 

emulsions, solids, color, air, bulk oil, 

etc.) may affect the bilge-alarm 

measurements.’’ Additionally, the 

commenter stated that interferences in 

the sample may cause erroneous bilge 

alarm measurements, thus resulting in 

an inadvertent overboard discharge of 

oily waste. 

Response: While we agree with the 

commenter’s intent, we feel that this 

situation has been covered by 

§ 162.050–33(c), which calls for stop 

valves to be activated when the oil 

content of the mixture measured 

exceeds 15 ppm or the bilge alarm 

malfunctions, breaks down, or 

otherwise fails to operate properly. 

Further, the proposed and adopted 

testing scheme includes tests for 

emulsions and solids. We made no 

changes in response to this comment. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3371 

Issue 42: Regarding 46 CFR 162.050– 

33(h), one commenter requested a 

definition of ‘‘operating status.’’ 

Additionally, the commenter wondered 

if ‘‘operating status’’ includes recording 

if the separator is on/off or in manual/ 

automatic mode. Finally, the commenter 

also asked about the recording of 

separator valve positions and alarm 

conditions. 

Response: Resolution MEPC.107(49) 

does not define operating status, 

however, a separator would likely have 

few operating conditions. These would 

include ‘‘manual’’ or ‘‘automatic’’ 

modes, ‘‘off,’’ and a cleaning or wateronly flush cycle. 

The bilge alarm must record when an 

alarm occurred, i.e., the ‘‘alarm 

condition,’’ with the date and time. 

While the resolution does not state that 

the ppm at the time the alarm occurred 

must be recorded, anything over 15 ppm 

should be prevented from going 

overboard. Neither the IMO resolutions 

nor Coast Guard regulations address the 

recording of valve positions; however, 

the option may be provided by 

manufacturers. We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 43: One commenter stated that 

there should be specifications 

mandating that the separators operate 

‘‘essentially’’ unattended even in 

manned engine rooms. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion and have 

amended 46 CFR 162.050–21(e) to align 

with MEPC.107(49) by removing 

reference to ‘‘unattended machinery 

space.’’ 

Issue 44: One commenter stated that 

separators should be required to start in 

the recirculation mode before entering a 

filtering phase. 

Response: We believe that this change 

is too divergent from MEPC.107(49). 

Operationally, we believe that it is the 

function of the bilge alarm to cause the 

recirculation of the separator effluent. 

We do not believe that an additional 

recirculation stage is necessary. We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

F. Simulated Shipborne Environment 

Commenters raised four issues 

regarding the simulated shipborne 

environment. 

Issue 45: One commenter asked why 

the Coast Guard’s vibration test 

specification, which appears in 

§ 162.050–37, is not fully aligned with 

the IMO specification. The commenter 

stated that the second 2-hour period of 

endurance is unlikely to show much 

more than the first period. The 

commenter also believed maintaining a 

different standard than the IMO 

standard will cause continued 

confusion among manufacturers. 

Response: We agree. We revised 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of 46 CFR 

162.050–37 to align them with identical 

vibration tests in paragraph 3.2.2.1 of 

the Annex for MEPC.107(49) and 

paragraph 2.2.1.1 of the Annex for 

MEPC.108(49). 

Issue 46: We received two comments 

stating that the proposed standards do 

not require that a separator be capable 

of operating while a vessel is underway 

and subject to vessel pitching, rolling, 

and vertical and horizontal ‘‘G’’ forces. 

Response: The equipment is subjected 

to environmental testing designed to 

simulate the shipboard environment. 

Based on the proven abilities of the 

current approved separators to operate 

in a dynamic marine environment, we 

do not propose to require dynamic 

motion testing while operating the 

separators for the purposes of 

certification. We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 47: One commenter 

recommended that we conduct incline 

experiments for all three test fluids. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

We believe that the intent of the 

environmental testing portions of the 

IMO resolutions ensures the electrical 

and electronic sections of the equipment 

are capable of operating under the test 

conditions. Therefore, requiring this test 

to be conducted with all three fluids is 

excessive and not in line with the intent 

of the requirements. We made no 

changes based on this comment. 

Issue 48: One commenter said that the 

Coast Guard should provide a list of 

fluids to conduct exposure tests. 

Response: We disagree. Paragraph (d) 

of 46 CFR 162.050–21 requires 

compliance with 46 CFR chapter I, 

subchapter F—Marine Engineering, as 

applicable. Also the material 

specifications of the separator will be 

considered during plan review. We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

G. Operating Manual 

Commenters raised two issues 

regarding the operating manual. 

Issue 49: One commenter stated that 

the separator instruction booklet should 

be carefully written in easilyunderstood English. 

Response: We agree. We have added 

an express requirement in § 162.050– 

5(a)(6) that the manual must be easily 

understood. We also adopted the 

naming convention of MEPC.107(49) 

and identified the manual as the 

‘‘operating and maintenance manual.’’ 

Issue 50: One commenter stated that 

the operations manual should provide 

guidance on failure-logging of separators 

and guidance on obtaining system 

improvements. 

Response: We disagree. We believe 

that our revision of requirements for 

manuals in § 162.050–5(a)(6) is 

consistent with MEPC.107(49). We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

H. Applicability 

Commenters raised two issues 

regarding applicability. 

Issue 51: One commenter stated that 

the proposed regulation’s applicability 

should be clearly addressed. Another 

commenter asked if the current bilge 

separators approved under 

MEPC.107(49) will remain ‘‘approved’’ 

after the new rule is adopted. And if 

that is the case, will there be different 

categories of approval (e.g., 

MEPC.107(49), MEPC.60(33), 46 CFR 

subpart 162.050). Another commenter 

asked if we intended for the rule 

changes to take effect upon acceptance 

of the rule or at a later date. 

Response: Most sections of this 

interim rule will become effective 

March 17, 2009. The revised MARPOL 

Annex I became effective internationally 

January 1, 2007. Paragraph 1.3.1 of 

resolution MEPC.107(49), which was 

incorporated into the revised MARPOL 

Annex I Regulation 14, makes the 

resolution applicable to ships built on 

or after January 1, 2005, and to ships 

that install new PPE on or after January 

1, 2005. This aspect of the revised 

Annex I was not reflected in our 

proposed rule. To implement these 

incorporated requirements, we have 

added three paragraphs—33 CFR 

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

155.370(a)(4)—to the interim rule 

requiring vessels built on or after 

January 1, 2005, and vessels that install 

new PPE on or after January 1, 2005, to 

meet the new PPE requirements. We are 

delaying the effective date of those 

paragraphs, so that we may seek your 

comments on them before making them 

effective. Based on your comments, we 

may revise these paragraphs before 

making them effective in a final rule. 

Since publishing a notice of policy in 

December 2003 acknowledging the new 

MARPOL guidelines (68 FR 75603, 

December 31, 2003), we have approved 

some systems from PPE manufacturers 

who, in anticipation of the new 

MARPOL guidelines, sought Coast 

Guard approval under testing standards 

other than those in the current 46 CFR 

subpart 162.050. As the 2003 notice 

stated, the Coast Guard may, in its 

discretion, determine whether 

alternative standards ensured equivalent 

performance characteristics. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Systems approved under MEPC.60(33) 

that were installed before January 1, 

2005, on vessels built before January 1, 

2005, and are still in good working 

order will not be affected by this rule. 

Systems approved before the effective 

date of this rule using resolution 

MEPC.107(49) guidelines will remain 

approved. For any systems approved to 

a standard other than MEPC.107(49) 

after January 1, 2005, but before March 

17, 2009, the approval will expire 

March 17, 2009. 

Issue 52: One commenter stated that, 

if adopted, the new rules would apply 

to U.S.-flag ships only and 

recommended developing a requirement 

for identification of equipment built, 

tested, and certified for U.S.-flag vessels 

or alternatively adopt IMO standards in 

its entirety. 

Response: We disagree. Current 

regulations in 33 CFR 155.380 stipulate 

compliance with 46 CFR 162.050 

requirements for all U.S.-flag inspected 

vessels. Uninspected U.S.-flag vessels 

and foreign-flag vessels may either 

comply with 46 CFR 162.050 or 

MARPOL Annex I. (See discussion of 

§ 155.380(b) in the Changes from 

Proposed Rule section below.) The 

identification of equipment built, tested, 

and certified for U.S.-flag vessels, is 

currently required by 46 CFR 162.050– 

11, Marking. We have not changed these 

current requirements. 

I. PPE Alternatives 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding PPE alternatives. 

Issue 53: One commenter requested 

that the Coast Guard consider properly 

designed and engineered holding tanks 

as a regulatory alternative to installing 

separator equipment that is unreliable 

and difficult to maintain on small 

vessels manned by lower-level mariners. 

Response: This rulemaking 

implements PPE design and 

performance guidelines and standards 

in MEPC.107(49) and MEPC.108(49), 

and does not change which vessels must 

have PPE. Subpart B of 33 CFR part 155 

and Regulation 16 of MARPOL Annex I 

dictate that ships of 400 gross tons or 

more must be fitted with PPE. 

Our regulations require holding tanks 

on oceangoing ships over 400 gross tons 

in certain situations (see 33 CFR 

155.360(b) and (c), and 33 CFR 

155.370(b) and (c)), in addition to 

requiring the installation of approved 

PPE. We made no changes from the 

proposed rule based on this comment. 

J. Data Recording 

Commenters raised three issues 

regarding data recording. 

Issue 54: One commenter asked if a 

vessel’s speed and position-data 

requirement include the bilge alarm as 

well as the oil-discharge monitoring 

system. 

Response: Neither the MEPC 

resolutions nor our proposed rules 

contain a requirement for bilge alarms to 

record the vessel speed and position. 

We made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 55: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule does not prevent 

overriding data inputs for failed 

equipment. 

Response: This rule may only 

discourage, not prevent, overriding data 

inputs. However, those who tamper 

with the system will leave evidence in 

the form of broken seals on the bilge 

alarm. We made no changes based on 

this comment. 

Issue 56: One commenter stated that 

a recording interval for bilge alarms is 

not specified in § 162.050–33(h). The 

commenter also wanted to know if our 

intent for bilge-alarm recording intervals 

is the same as in § 157.12d(h)(3) for oil 

content meters. 

Response: Where the meter has a 

stated 10-minute interval, there is no 

required interval for the bilge alarm to 

print, display, or save a particular piece 

of information. The bilge alarm is 

merely required to save alarm events 

and operational status with a date and 

time stamp. The recorded information 

aids regulatory agencies in correlating 

separator-related entries in the oil 

record book. We made no changes from 

the proposed rule in response to this 

comment. 

K. Test Rig 

Commenters raised four issues 

regarding test rigs. 

Issue 57: One commenter stated that 

the 30° chisel-edged chamfer in figure 

162.050–17(d), Sample Point, should be 

around the outside perimeter instead of 

the inside perimeter of the sampler inlet 

to minimize disturbance of the sampling 

flow and to be consistent with 

MEPC.107(49). 

Response: We agree and have 

corrected the chamfer illustrated in 

Figure 162.050–17(d). 

Issue 58: One commenter 

recommended requiring the use of a 

syringe pump with a screw-type driver 

in place of the buret for oil injection at 

low concentrations to avoid pulsations 

of oil injections. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

Our figure at 46 CFR 162.050–19 and 

MEPC.107(49) figure 5 stipulate ‘‘burets 

and metering pumps for injecting 

known oil ppm’s and high oil 

transients,’’ and thus provide discretion 

to the testing lab to deliver the oil in the 

manner of its choosing. During the 

review of a facility’s application under 

46 CFR 162.050–15, we examine 

information on the facility’s test rigs. 

Any deviation from the required test 

rigs must be noted in this information. 

We have no evidence of buret injections 

creating pulsations of oil injections at 

low concentrations. We made no 

changes in response to this comment. 

Issue 59: One commenter 

recommended including the use of an 

inline disperser as an alternative to the 

high-shear pump to vary the oil droplets 

size distribution. 

Response: The designated testing lab 

may propose alternative testing methods 

to the Marine Safety Center before 

beginning the tests. If agreed upon, any 

deviation from the required test rig must 

be noted in the test report or 

application. We made no changes from 

the proposed rule based on this 

comment. 

Issue 60: One commenter suggested 

including the specifications of the tank 

used for Test Fluid C per Figure 3 and 

notes 1 through 3 of paragraph 1.2.4 of 

Part I of the Annex to MEPC.107(49) as 

it would ensure consistent mixing of 

Test Fluid C by different test facilities. 

Response: The Coast Guard agrees. 

Our proposed paragraph (b)(2) of 46 

CFR 162.050–20 references a worksheet, 

figure 162.050–20, for determining 

Constituents of Test Fluid C. In 

response to this commenter’s 

suggestion, we are adding MEPC’s 

Figure 3 to that worksheet, and have 

inserted the notes as text in that 

worksheet. 

L. Response Time 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding response time. 

Issue 61: One commenter stated that 

the measuring time in proposed 46 CFR 

162.050–33(e) should be changed from 5 

seconds to 15 seconds. The commenter 

also said the proposed 5 seconds would 

exclude, from future installations, bilge 

alarms that are already in service and 

have been proven to provide fail-safe 

performance. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

The purpose of this regulatory change is 

to increase the performance standards of 

the equipment. The changes will not 

require existing equipment MEPC.60(33) 

to be retrofitted at this time. Previously 

installed bilge alarms that were 

approved under the MEPC.60(33) 

requirements and are in good working 

order will not have to meet the 5-second 

response time. However, future 

installations of these MEPC.60(33)- 

approved bilge alarms will not be 

permitted. This is in line with the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3373 

requirements of MEPC.107(49). We 

made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

M. Test Fluid 

Commenters raised four issues 

regarding test fluid. 

Issue 62: One commenter stated that 

separators should be tested with saltwater-mixed test fluids. 

Response: Both 46 CFR 162.050–23 

(a)(4), and the IMO resolution, 

paragraph 1.2.7 of Part 1 of the Annex 

to MEPC.107(49), allow the use of salt 

water, provided the density of the water 

used in the tests is no greater than 1.015 

at 20° Celsius. We have decided not to 

mandate testing with salt water as this 

could materially affect the costs of 

certification. We made no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Issue 63: One commenter said that 

turbidity from sources other than oils— 

including rust and dirt—may fool the 

bilge alarm into thinking it is seeing oil 

and, because of this, operators are 

burdened with removing these other 

turbidity sources from exposure to the 

bilge alarm to permit pumping anything 

over the side. 

Response: To ensure alignment with 

the international requirements, the 

Coast Guard will require the same three 

test fluids stipulated in paragraph 1.2.4 

of Part 1 of the Annex to MEPC.107(49). 

Further, we believe that the inclusion of 

Test Fluid C will account for the 

equipment’s ability to handle 

particulate matter (including rust) as 

well as emulsions. We made no changes 

in response to this comment. 

Issue 64: One commenter stated that 

it is impossible to duplicate emulsion 

fluid tests in actual sea service. The 

commenter believes a minimum 6- 

month trial run in actual service could 

be part of the rule requirement to obtain 

equipment certification. 

Response: The Coast Guard does not 

intend to implement a 6-month testing 

regime for the purpose of certifying PPE. 

Such testing would be inconsistent with 

the requirements of MEPC.107(49). 

Furthermore, Test Fluid C was 

developed following thorough 

discussion at IMO and provides a good 

representation of common bilge water. 

We made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

Issue 65: One commenter believes that 

soot in ‘‘reasonable representative 

quantities’’ should be a component in 

test fluids, both in the Coast Guard’s 

proposed fluids and MEPC.107(49) 

fluids. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

The constituents of Test Fluid C were 

developed based on the input of 

numerous IMO delegations through 

discussions over several years. This is 

believed to be an accurate facsimile of 

the fluid that may be encountered on a 

large percentage of the vessels currently 

in operation. The IMO has received 

several similar comments and has 

maintained the same stance regarding 

changes to it. The Coast Guard concurs 

with this stance and will maintain the 

Test Fluid C constituents as they are set 

out by MEPC.107(49) paragraph 1.2.4. 

We made no changes in response to this 

comment. 

N. Incorporating MEPC.107(49) by 

Reference 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding incorporation by reference. 

Issue 66: One commenter believes that 

incorporating or referencing 

MEPC.107(49) in the proposed rule will 

lead to an accurate and thorough 

understanding of the requirements. 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees 

because, as discussed in the preamble of 

the NPRM (70 FR 67067, November 3, 

2005), we believe that there are 

elements of MEPC.107(49) that need 

clarification. The comments on our 

proposed rule provide evidence that 

some aspects of the resolutions require 

further clarification. We made no 

changes from the proposed rule based 

on this comment. 

O. Test Report 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding test reports. 

Issue 67: One commenter said that 

verification of the stability of the Test 

Fluid C emulsion and other testing 

parameters must be shown in the test 

report with documentation to prove 

conformity. 

Response: We believe that a stable 

emulsion will be established if a lab 

follows the Test Fluid C preparation 

requirements under 46 CFR 162.050–20. 

In response to this comment, we have 

added a requirement in 46 CFR 

162.050–9(a)(6), to provide verification 

that the lab followed the testing 

procedures prescribed in 46 CFR 

subpart 162.050. 

P. Cleaning Detergent in Engine Room 

Commenters raised two issues 

regarding cleaning detergent in the 

engine room. 

Issue 68: One commenter believes that 

any equipment (separators or bilge 

alarms) should be certified with 

qualification about what type of 

cleaners can be used aboard vessels 

with that product or any inability of that 

product to handle emulsions. The 

proposed rule clearly implies that they 

could not meet MEPC.107(49) testing 

protocols. Information about system 

performance enhancements such as 

preferred cleaners, etc., belong in their 

operating manuals, not on their 

certificates. These qualifications should 

be removed from the actual certificates 

and the product’s actual certification/ 

testing procedures should be re-verified. 

Response: Detergents are generally 

known to cause emulsions, and the IMO 

resolutions and corresponding Coast 

Guard implementing regulations have 

added an emulsified test fluid to 

challenge the equipment. However, the 

Coast Guard does not plan to add this 

type of information to the approval 

certificate because unlike older 

technology represented in the previous 

standard, MEPC.60(33), under 

MEPC.107(49) standards, PPE are 

expected to handle the range of fluids 

and emulsions that are founds in bilges 

today. Therefore, we are not making a 

change from the proposed rule based on 

this comment. 

Issue 69: One commenter stated that 

separators should be required to be 

insensitive to a host of United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

approved detergents that may be used 

anywhere in the engine room on a 

vessel. 

Response: With the possibility of 

emulsified bilge water always present 

the bilge separator must be capable of 

separating the oil from the emulsion to 

produce an effluent with an oil content 

not exceeding 15 ppm even when 

detergents are present in the bilge. The 

bilge separator should therefore be 

tolerant of a wide range of detergents, 

but at the same time, as noted in 

paragraph 1.1.3 of the introduction to 

the MEPC.107(49) Annex, proper 

measures should be taken to minimize 

the presence of cleaning agents in the 

bilge. As noted above in response to 

issue 63 regarding turbidity, to ensure 

alignment with the international 

requirements, the Coast Guard will 

require the same three test fluids 

stipulated in MEPC.107(49). We believe 

that the inclusion of Test Fluid C will 

account for the equipment’s ability to 

handle emulsions caused by detergents. 

We made no changes from the proposed 

rule based on this comment. 

Q. PPE Design 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding PPE design. 

Issue 70: One commenter stated ‘‘the 

absolute absence of any type of 

standardization of OWS [oily water 

separator] systems makes the initial 

investigation confusing, dirty, time 

consuming and sometimes plain 

incorrect.’’ 

Response: The Coast Guard disagrees. 

The IMO resolutions and the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

corresponding Coast Guard regulations 

are primarily performance-based in 

determining the design of a separator. 

The commenter’s suggestion would 

require prescriptive regulations and 

could further limit the production of 

innovative technologies and 

improvements in the field of separation 

technology. We made no changes based 

on this comment. 

R. Oil Categories 

Commenters raised one issue 

regarding oil categories. 

Issue 71: One commenter suggested 

that the Coast Guard use its current 

category of oils based on American 

Petroleum Institute (API) gravity values 

and require the laboratory conducting 

the testing of the oil discharge 

monitoring equipment (monitoring 

system) report the values of the crude 

oils used as described in the Parameters 

Tolerance column of the Crude Oils 

table in paragraph 1.2.6 of Part 1 of the 

Annex to MEPC.108(49). The 

commenter stated this is in line with the 

intent of MEPC.108(49) and the Coast 

Guard’s regulation allowing for the 

onboard calibration of the ODME for the 

type of crude oil or petroleum product 

being transported. As an alternative, the 

commenter requested the Coast Guard 

provide Standard Reference Material 

(SRM) crude oil and petroleum product 

samples to the company for testing 

purposes or information on where the 

company can obtain the samples. 

Response: We believe that Table 

162.050–27(c)—Oil Type and 

Characteristics in the proposed 46 CFR 

162.050–27 accomplishes the goal of 

this request. Also, 46 CFR 162.050– 

27(c)(3) allows for the substitution of an 

oil with similar properties to those 

listed in table 162.050–27(c). Further, 

the testing laboratory is required to 

report the properties of the test oils 

under 46 CFR 162.050–9(a)(5). We made 

no changes in response to this comment. 

S. Beyond the Scope of This Rulemaking 

Commenters raised two issues beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Issue 72: We received two comments 

regarding Oil Record Books (ORBs). Of 

those, one commenter requested that we 

amend the final rule to mandate training 

in the proper method of entering entries 

into the ORB for anyone expected to 

operate separators. The other comment 

stated the ORBs are not readily 

available. 

Response: We believe that these 

requests regarding oil record books are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

This rulemaking seeks to implement the 

MEPC PPE guidelines and standards 

being incorporated into MARPOL 

Annex I. Oil record books are not 

referenced in either MEPC.107(49) or 

MEPC.108(49). 

We have forwarded the comment 

regarding the availability of ORBs to the 

appropriate office for their 

consideration. We made no changes to 

this comment. 

Issue 73: We received two comments 

from the same commenter regarding 

operating requirements. The commenter 

stated that it should be a requirement to 

have onboard a complete set of 

recommended repair parts for 

separators. The commenter also said 

that a complete set (100 percent of 

installed working elements) of filters, 

coalescers, filter media, membranes, 

etc., should be required for separators to 

assure continued operation in the event 

of severe fouling. 

Response: We feel that this suggestion 

to require a complete set of repair parts 

is beyond the scope of the rulemaking. 

The application for certification, 46 CFR 

162.050–5, already requires submission 

of detailed instructions on maintenance 

of the unit to be certified. Repair parts 

are typically only stipulated for certain 

systems on board that materially affect 

the safe handling or navigation of the 

vessel. We made no changes in response 

to this comment. 

T. Changes From Proposed Rule 

In 33 CFR part 155, Oil or Hazardous 

Material Pollution Prevention 

Regulations for Vessels, we have made 

the following changes from the 

proposed rule. As noted in our response 

to Issue 51, to reflect the requirements 

of MEPC.107(49) that has been 

incorporated into MARPOL Annex 1 

effective January 1, 2007, we have 

invited comments on our changes to 

three paragraphs in §§ 155.350, 155.360, 

and 155.370, and have delayed the 

implementation of those three 

paragraphs pending our review of 

comments. As discussed in Issues 36 

and 37, we also revised § 155.380, and 

added paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to that 

section. Also, we removed references to 

‘‘bilge monitor’’ in the section heading 

and paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 155.380. 

In reviewing part 155, we discovered 

that the IMO Marine Environmental 

Protection Committee Circular summary 

of MARPOL 73/78-approved equipment 

referenced in 33 CFR 155.380(b) no 

longer exists, so we have changed this 

reference to include any equipment 

approved under MARPOL Annex I. 

Approval of OWS equipment and bilge 

alarms under MARPOL Annex I is 

offered as an alternative for U.S. 

uninspected ships and foreign ships to 

approval under 46 CFR 162.050. We 

believe that this revision will 

adequately reflect the same level of 

equipment approval as the previous 

requirement. Also, we revised the 

authority citation for the part by 

relocating the reference to 46 U.S.C. 

3703. 

In 33 CFR part 157, Rules for the 

Protection of the Marine Environment 

Relating to Tank Vessels Carrying Oil in 

Bulk, we have revised the format of the 

incorporation by reference section, 

§ 157.02, so that the material approved 

for incorporation by reference may be 

more easily associated with the 

section(s) incorporating this material. 

As indicated in our response to Issue 1, 

in part 157 we have removed the term 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ to identify the 

‘‘monitoring system.’’ As noted in Issue 

28, we have revised § 157.12c(e). Finally 

for part 157, in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

§ 157.12f, we deleted the unnecessary 

words ‘‘at least all’’ when describing the 

operations that must be included in a 

functional test on an oil content meter 

and a control section of a monitoring 

system. 

In 46 CFR part 162, Engineering 

Equipment, we made many revisions. 

We revised the format of the 

incorporation by reference section, 

§ 162.050–4, so that the incorporatedby-reference-approved material may be 

more easily associated with the 

section(s) incorporating this material. 

Also in that section, we discovered that 

the International Standards 

Organization (ISO) 8217 standard 

incorporated in 46 CFR 162.050–20(a) 

was revised in 2005. Therefore, we have 

revised the reference to this ISO 

standard in § 162.050–4(c)(1). This ISO 

revision changed the ‘‘type’’ description 

for the marine residual fuel oil required 

by § 162.050–20(a)(1). This change is 

due to ISO’s reduction of the 

temperature at which the viscosity is 

measured. At the original test 

temperature of 100° Celsius, this fuel oil 

had a viscosity of 35 (hence the original 

name: RMG 35). At the new test 

temperature of 50° Celsius, this same 

fuel oil has a viscosity of 380 (hence the 

new name: RMG 380). The updated ISO 

8217 does not affect the ‘‘type’’ 

description for the marine distillate fuel 

oil referred to in § 162.050–20(a)(2). 

As discussed in our response to Issue 

1, we replaced the term ‘‘cargo monitor’’ 

in part 162 with the term ‘‘oil content 

meter.’’ The following table reflects 

other changes to part 162 made in 

response to comments. 

For reasons stated in our response to Issue 

number . . . 

. . . we revised the following section: 

49 ........................ 162.050–5(a)(6) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3375 

For reasons stated in our response to Issue 

number . . . 

. . . we revised the following section: 

67 ........................ 162.050–9(a)(6) 

57 ........................ 162.050–17(d) 

60 ........................ 162.050–20 

5 .......................... 162.050–20(b)(3) 

43 ........................ 162.050–21(e) 

18 ........................ 162.050–23(a)(13) 

8 .......................... 162.050–23(b)(1) 

3 .......................... 162.050–27(b) and (c) 

10 ........................ 162.050–27(a)(1) 

4 .......................... 162.050–27(e)(4) 

28 ........................ 162.050–33(f) 

35 ........................ 162.050–33(d) 

9 .......................... 162.050–35(b)(3) 

14 ........................ 162.050–35(g)(3) 

16 ........................ 162.050–35(g) 

45 ........................ 162.050–37(b) and (c) 

19 and 26 ............ 162.050–39(b) [removed] 

Discussion of Interim Rule 

We are amending our oil pollution 

prevention equipment regulations to 

make them consistent with new IMO 

guidelines and specifications in 

resolutions MEPC.107(49) and 

MEPC.108(49), which are incorporated 

into MARPOL Annex I regulations 14 

(Oil filtering equipment), 18 (Segregated 

Ballast Tanks), and 31 (Oil discharge 

monitoring and control system). These 

revisions will implement Annex I 

regulations and should reduce the 

amount of oil discharged from vessels, 

and eliminate the use of ozonedepleting solvents in equipment tests. 

This interim rule will require all 

vessels replacing or installing oil 

separators and bilge alarms to install 

equipment that meets revised standards 

and it will require newly-constructed 

vessels carrying oil in bulk to install 

monitoring systems that meet revised 

standards. Tests for approval of this 

equipment have been revised to deal 

with common bilge contaminants and 

eliminate the use of ozone-depleting 

solvents. 

We have delayed the implementation 

of three paragraphs involving 

equipment installed on or after January 

1, 2005. As discussed in our response to 

Issue 51, paragraph 1.3.1 of resolution 

MEPC.107(49) was incorporated into 

MARPOL Annex I on January 1, 2007, 

and makes the resolution applicable to 

ships built on or after January 1, 2005, 

and to ships that install PPE on or after 

January 1, 2005. This aspect of the 

revised Annex I was not reflected in our 

proposed rule. 

To implement these incorporated 

requirements, we have added three 

paragraphs—33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 

155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4)—to the 

interim rule that require vessels built or 

PPE installed on or after January 1, 

2005, to meet the new PPE 

requirements. As noted above, we seek 

your comments on these three 

paragraphs which we have delayed 

implementing until October 13, 2009, of 

the interim rule. Based on your 

comments, we may revise these 

paragraphs before issuing a final rule. 

Since publishing a notice of policy in 

December 2003 acknowledging the new 

MARPOL guidelines (68 FR 75603, 

December 31, 2003), we have approved 

some systems from PPE manufacturers 

who, in anticipation of the new 

MARPOL guidelines, sought Coast 

Guard approval under testing standards 

other than those in the current 46 CFR 

subpart 162.050. As that 2003 notice 

stated, the Coast Guard may, in its 

discretion, determine whether 

alternative standards ensured equivalent 

performance characteristics. 

Systems approved under MEPC.60(33) 

that are installed on vessels built before 

January 1, 2005, and are still in good 

working order will not be affected by 

this rule. Systems approved before the 

effective date of this rule using 

MEPC.107(49) guidelines as the 

alternative will remain approved. For 

any system approved after January 1, 

2005, using an alternative other than 

MEPC.107(49), the approval will expire 

March 17, 2009. 

As noted in response to Issue 1, we 

made some nomenclature changes to 

better align our terms with those in 

MEPC.108(49) and in our current 

pollution certificate requirements. 

Related to this nomenclature change, we 

have added paragraph 33 CFR 

157.12d(a)(4)(viii)(G) to ensure the 

control section of the monitoring system 

is tested in accordance with the 

vibration testing requirements described 

in 46 CFR 162.050–37. And we also 

added paragraph 33 CFR 157.12d(a)(7) 

to ensure each main component of the 

monitoring system is designed in 

accordance with the applicable 

requirements contained in subchapters 

F and J. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

this interim rule does not relieve vessel 

owners and operators of meeting 

requirements of other applicable laws 

such as the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1387 (also 

known as the Clean Water Act) or 

related regulations. This would include 

compliance with any National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Vessel General Permit regulations that 

may be promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency in 

response to a court order to vacate an 

EPA regulation, 40 CFR 122.3(a), which 

identifies discharges—including most 

incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel—that do not require NPDES 

permits. See EPA NPDES General 

Permits for Discharges Incidental to the 

Normal Operation of a Vessel notices 

published June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34296) 

and December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79473). 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material in 33 CFR 

157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050–4 for 

incorporation by reference under 5 

U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are 

available from the sources listed in 33 

CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050–4. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this interim rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993, requires a 

determination whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

subject to the requirements of the 

Executive Order. This rulemaking is not 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and OMB has not reviewed it. 

Public comments on the NPRM are 

summarized in Part IV of this preamble. 

We received no public comments and 

have made no changes that would alter 

our assessment of impacts in the NPRM. 

We have found no additional data or 

information that would change our 

findings in the NPRM. We have adopted 

the assessment in the NPRM for this 

interim rule. See the ‘‘Regulatory 

Evaluation’’ of the NPRM for the 

complete analysis. A summary of the 

assessment follows. 

We estimated 176 existing vessels and 

46 new vessels annually will be affected 

by this rule and incur additional costs 

for installing OWS and bilge alarms. 

We estimated the annual costs of the 

OWS and bilge alarms combined range 

from $9,000 to $19,000, depending on 

vessel type and size for both existing 

and new vessels. We estimated nondiscounted annual costs for existing 

vessels at approximately $2.3 million 

and approximately $550,000 for new 

vessels, or about $2.9 million combined. 

We estimated the total 10-year present 

value cost of the rule to be $21 million 

or $25 million based on a seven or three 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

percent discount rate (all values 

rounded). 

The benefits of this rule are improved 

environmental conditions from the use 

of PPE, which meets higher standards of 

pollution prevention. The new OWS 

equipment will better handle the 

separation of emulsified oils, 

surfactants, and contaminants from 

water. There is also a broader range and 

volume of pollutants that will no longer 

be released into the environment 

because of these new standards. See the 

‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ section of the 

NPRM for additional details. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

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

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have found no additional 

data or information that would change 

our findings in the NPRM. We have 

adopted the certification in the NPRM 

for this interim rule. See the ‘‘Small 

Entity’’ section of the NPRM for the 

complete threshold analysis. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, 

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

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If you think 

that your business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a 

small entity and that this interim rule 

will have a significant economic impact 

on it, please submit a comment to the 

Docket Management Facility at the 

address under ADDRESSES. In your 

comment, explain why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If the rule 

affects your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. Wayne 

Lundy, Office of Systems Engineering 

(CG–5213), Coast Guard, telephone 202– 

372–1379. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). The paperwork burden associated 

with the manufacture, laboratory 

testing, approval tests, and marking of 

pollution prevention equipment is 

addressed in the existing collection of 

information, OMB #1625–0035, entitled 

‘‘Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, 

Electrical and Engineering Equipment; 

Construction and Materials.’’ The Office 

of Management and Budget approved 

this collection of information on March 

17, 2006. It will expire after the 3-year 

approval period ends on March 31, 

2009. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

It is well settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled, now, that all of the 

categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 

3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, 

construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, 

personnel qualification, and manning of 

vessels), as well as the reporting of 

casualties and any other category in 

which Congress intended the Coast 

Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s 

obligations, are within the field 

foreclosed from regulation by the States. 

(See the decision of the Supreme Court 

in the consolidated cases of United 

States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 

529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 

2000).) 

The pollution prevention equipment 

regulations promulgated in this rule are 

within the field foreclosed from 

regulation by the States, and therefore 

preemption under E.O. 13132 is not an 

issue. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

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

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

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

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3377 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This interim rule uses the following 

consensus standards that are not 

voluntary standards: 

• IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.393(X)—Recommendation on 

International Performance and Test 

Specifications For Oily-Water 

Separating Equipment and Oil Content 

Meters; 

• IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.496(XII)—Guidelines and 

• Specifications for Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers; 

• IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.586(14)—Revised Guidelines and 

Specifications for Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers; 

• IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee Resolution 

MEPC.13(19)—Guidelines for Plan 

Approval and Installation Survey of Oil 

Discharge Monitoring and Control 

Systems for Oil Tankers and 

Environmental Testing of Control 

Sections Thereof; 

• IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee Resolution 

MEPC.108(49)—Revised Guidelines and 

Specifications for Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers. 

• International Organization for 

Standardization Standard ISO 8217 

(2005) Petroleum products—Fuels (class 

F)—Specification of marine fuels; 

• International Organization for 

Standardization Standard ISO 9377–2 

(2000), Water Quality—Determination of 

hydrocarbon oil index—Part 2: Method 

Using solvent extraction and Gas 

Chromatography. 

They are used because the United 

States is party to MARPOL Annex I and 

we must use these standards to 

effectively implement MARPOL Annex 

I regulations. The sections that reference 

these standards and the locations where 

these standards are available are listed 

in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050– 

4. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded under the Instruction 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded, under figure 2– 

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

and under section 6(b) of the ‘‘Appendix 

to National Environmental Policy Act: 

Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 

Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency 

Policy,’’ (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002), 

from further environmental 

documentation. This regulation fits 

within these categorical exclusions 

because it concerns equipment approval 

and carriage requirements and 

implements regulations designed to 

protect the environment. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 155 

Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

33 CFR Part 157 

Cargo vessels, Incorporation by 

reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

46 CFR Part 162 

Fire prevention, Incorporation by 

reference, Marine safety, Oil pollution, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 

162 as follows: 

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

155 to read as follows: 

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

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

1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 

through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 

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

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

155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of 

Pub. L. 101–380. Sections 155.1110 through 

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

Note: Additional requirements for vessels 

carrying oil or hazardous materials are 

contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40, 

150, 151, and 153. 

■ 2. In § 155.350, revise the section 

heading and add paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 155.350 Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil 

tank ballast water discharges on 

oceangoing ships of less than 400 gross 

tons. 

(a) * * * 

(3) For equipment installed after 2004 

to be approved under paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, it must meet current 

standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 

162.050, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 155.360, revise the section 

heading, redesignate paragraph (a) as 

(a)(1) and add paragraph (a)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 155.360 Oily mixture (bilge slops) 

discharges on oceangoing ships of 400 

gross tons and above but less than 10,000 

gross tons, excluding ships that carry 

ballast water in their fuel oil tanks. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) For equipment installed after 2004 

to be approved under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section, it must meet current 

standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 

162.050, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 155.370, add paragraph (a)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 155.370 Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil 

tank ballast water discharges on 

oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross tons and 

above and oceangoing ships of 400 gross 

tons and above that carry ballast water in 

their fuel oil tanks. 

(a) * * * 

(4) For equipment installed after 2004 

to be approved under paragraph (a) of 

this section, it must meet current 

standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 

162.050, unless the equipment is 

installed on a ship constructed before 

2005 and it would be unreasonable or 

impracticable to meet those current 

standards. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 155.380 to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 155.380 Oily water separating equipment 

and bilge alarm approval standards. 

(a) On U.S. inspected ships, oily water 

separating equipment and bilge alarms 

must be approved under 46 CFR 

162.050. 

(b) On U.S. uninspected ships and 

foreign ships, oily water separating 

equipment and bilge alarms must be 

approved under either 46 CFR 162.050 

or MARPOL 73/78 Annex I. 

Note to § 155.380(b): A copy of Annex I to 

the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as 

modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating 

thereto, as amended (MARPOL 73/78) may be 

purchased from the International Maritime 

Organization, Publications Section, 4 Albert 

Embankment, London SE1 75R, United 

Kingdom, Telex 23588; see also http:// 

www.imo.org. 

(c) A ship that is required to have a 

bilge alarm may defer installment and 

use a previously installed bilge monitor 

provided the bilge monitor met Coast 

Guard approval requirements at the time 

of its installation and it does not allow 

more than a 15 ppm oil content in water 

discharge. 

(d) The accuracy of the bilge alarms 

must be checked at IOPP Certificate 

renewal surveys according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

Alternatively, the unit may be replaced 

by a calibrated bilge alarm. The 

calibration certificate for the bilge 

alarm, which certifies the date of the 

last calibration check, should be 

retained onboard for inspection 

purposes. The accuracy checks can only 

be done by the manufacturer or persons 

authorized by the manufacturer. 

(e) Ship staff training must include 

familiarization in the operation and 

maintenance of the equipment. 

(f) The routine maintenance of the 

oily water separating equipment and the 

bilge alarm must be clearly defined by 

the manufacturer in the associated 

operating and maintenance manuals. All 

routine and repair maintenance must be 

recorded. 

PART 157—RULES FOR THE 

PROTECTION OF THE MARINE 

ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO TANK 

VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK 

■ 6. Revise the authority citation for part 

157 to read as follows: 

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

3703a (note); Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subparts G, 

H, and I are also issued under section 

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

L. 104–55, 109 Stat. 546. 

■ 7. Revise § 157.02 to read as follows: 

§ 157.02 Incorporation by reference: 

Where can I get a copy of the publications 

mentioned in this part? 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

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

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish notice of 

change in the Federal Register and the 

material must be available to the public. 

All approved material is available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

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

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, 

Systems Engineering Division (CG– 

5213), Office of Design and Engineering 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 

Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20593–0001, telephone 202–372–1379, 

and is available from the sources 

indicated in this section. 

(b) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO)—4 Albert 

Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United 

Kingdom. 

(1) IMCO Assembly Resolution 

A.393(X), adopted on 14 November 

1977, Recommendation on International 

Performance and Test Specifications For 

Oily Water Separating Equipment and 

Oil Content Meters (‘‘A.393(x)’’), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.12. 

(2) IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.496(XII), Adopted on 19 November 

1981, Agenda Item 11, Guidelines and 

Specifications for Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers (‘‘A.496(XII)’’), incorporation 

by reference approved for § 157.12. 

(3) IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.586(14), Adopted on 20 November 

1985, Agenda item 12, Revised 

Guidelines and Specifications for Oil 

Discharge Monitoring and Control 

Systems for Oil Tankers (‘‘A.586(14)’’), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.12. 

(4) IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee Resolution 

MEPC.13 (19), adopted on 9 December 

1983, Guidelines for Plan Approval and 

Installation Survey of Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers and Environmental Testing of 

Control Sections Thereof 

(‘‘MEPC.13(19)’’), incorporation by 

reference approved for § 157.12. 

(5) IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee Resolution 

MEPC.108(49), Adopted on 18 July 

2003, Revised Guidelines and 

Specifications for Oil Discharge 

Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil 

Tankers (‘‘MEPC.108(49)’’), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.12. 

(6) IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.601(15), Provision and Display of 

Manoeuvring Information on Board 

Ships, Annex sections 1.1, 2.3, 3.1, and 

3.2 with appendices, adopted on 19 

November 1987 (‘‘A.601(15)’’), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.450. 

(7) IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.744(18), Guidelines on the Enhanced 

Programme of Inspections During 

Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil 

Tankers, Annex B sections 1.1.3–1.1.4, 

1.2–1.3, 2.1, 2.3–2.6, 3–8, and Annexes 

1–10 with appendices, adopted 4 

November 1993 (‘‘A.744(18)’’), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.430. 

(8) IMO Assembly Resolution 

A.751(18), Interim Standards for Ship 

Manoeuvrability, Annex sections 1.2, 

2.3–2.4, 3–4.2, and 5, adopted 4 

November 1993 with Explanatory Notes 

in MSC/Circ. 644 dated 6 June 1994 

(‘‘A.751(18)’’), incorporation by 

reference approved for § 157.445. 

(c) Oil Companies International 

Marine Forum (OCIMF) 27 Queen 

Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9BU, 

England]. 

(1) International Safety Guide for Oil 

Tankers and Terminals, Fourth Edition, 

Chapters 6, 7, and 10, 1996, 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 157.435. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 157.03 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 157.03, remove the words 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ from paragraph (2) of 

the definition of ‘‘clean ballast’’, and 

add, in their place, the words ‘‘oil 

discharge monitoring’’. 

§ 157.11 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 157.11 (b)(2)(iii), remove the 

words ‘‘a cargo monitor’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘an oil content 

meter’’. 

■ 10. Revise § 157.12 to read as follows: 

§ 157.12 Oil discharge monitoring and 

control system. 

(a) Each vessel must have an oil 

discharge monitoring and control 

system (monitoring system) that is 

designed for use with each type of cargo 

oil that the vessel carries. 

(b) Each oil content meter component 

of the monitoring system installed on a 

U.S. vessel must be approved under 46 

CFR part 162, subpart 162.050. Each oil 

content meter component of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3379 

monitoring system installed on a foreign 

vessel must be approved: 

(1) Under 46 CFR part 162, subpart 

162.050; or 

(2) As meeting IMO Marine 

Environment Protection Committee 

resolution MEPC.108(49) by a country 

that has ratified the MARPOL 73/78. 

Paragraph 1.2.2 of MEPC.108(49) 

provides, as to equipment installed in 

‘‘oil tankers the keels of which are laid, 

or which are at a similar stage of 

construction, before January 1, 2005,’’ 

for alternative compliance with IMO 

resolutions A.393(X), A.496(XII), 

MEPC.13(19), and A.586(14). These five 

resolutions are incorporated by 

reference (see § 157.02). 

(c) Each oil discharge monitoring and 

control system on a U.S. vessel must be 

installed in accordance with §§ 157.12b 

through 157.12g of this part. 

■ 11. Add §§ 157.12a through 157.12g to 

read as follows: 

§ 157.12a Definitions. 

As used in §§ 157.12a through 

157.12g— 

Control section means a unit in a 

monitoring system composed of the 

items specified in § 157.12d(a)(4)(viii). 

Control unit means a device that 

receives automatic signals of oil content 

of the effluent ppm, flow rate of 

discharge m3/hour, ship’s speed in 

knots, ship’s position-latitude and 

longitude, date and time (GMT, 

Greenwich Mean Time), and status of 

the overboard discharge control. The 

control unit makes automatic recordings 

of data as specified in § 157.12d(h)(2). 

Oil discharge monitoring and control 

system or monitoring system means a 

system that monitors the discharge into 

the sea of oily ballast or other oilcontaminated water from the cargo tank 

areas and comprises the items specified 

in § 157.12d(a)(4). 

Overboard discharge control means a 

device that automatically initiates the 

sequence to stop the overboard 

discharge of the effluent in alarm 

conditions and prevents the discharge 

throughout the period the alarm 

condition prevails. The device may be 

arranged to close the overboard valves 

or to stop the relevant pumps, as 

appropriate. 

PPM means parts of oil per million 

parts of water by volume. 

Starting interlock means a facility that 

prevents the initiation of the opening of 

the discharge valve or the operation of 

other equivalent arrangements before 

the monitoring system is fully 

operational when use of the monitoring 

system is required by the Convention. 

§ 157.12b Implementation requirements. 

Oil discharge monitoring and control 

systems must be fitted to oil tankers to 

which this subpart applies. A 

monitoring and control system must 

employ a control unit and be fitted with 

a starting interlock and overboard 

discharge control. 

§ 157.12c Construction, maintenance, 

security, calibration, and training. 

(a) The oil discharge monitoring and 

control system must be designed to 

ensure that user access is restricted to 

essential controls. Access beyond these 

controls must be available for 

emergency maintenance and temporary 

repair but must require the breaking of 

security seals or activation of another 

device, which indicates an entry to the 

equipment. 

(b) The seals must be of a design that 

only the manufacturer or the 

manufacturer’s agent can replace the 

seals or reset the system following 

inspection and permanent repairs to the 

equipment. 

(c) The accuracy of the monitoring 

system must be verified during 

International Oil Pollution Prevention 

certificate renewal surveys. The 

calibration certificate certifying date of 

last calibration check must be retained 

on board for inspection purposes. 

(d) The monitoring system may have 

several scales as appropriate for its 

intended use. The recording device 

fitted to a meter which has more than 

one scale must indicate the scale which 

is in use. 

(e) Simple means must be provided 

aboard ship to check on instrument 

drift, repeatability of the instrument 

reading, and the ability to re-zero the 

instrument. 

(f) Ship staff training must include 

familiarization in the operation and the 

maintenance of the equipment. 

(g) The routine maintenance of the 

monitoring system and troubleshooting 

procedures must be clearly defined in 

the Operating and Maintenance Manual. 

All routine maintenance and repairs 

must be recorded. 

§ 157.12d Technical specifications. 

(a) Oil discharge monitoring and 

control system. (1) The monitoring 

system must be capable of effectively 

monitoring and controlling the 

discharge of any effluent into the sea 

through those overboard discharge 

outlets permitted by § 157.11 that are 

necessary to fulfill the operational 

requirements of the oil tanker. 

(2) The discharge of dirty ballast 

water or other oil-contaminated water 

from the cargo tank areas into the sea 

through outlets, which are not 

controlled by the monitoring system is 

prohibited. 

(3) The monitoring system must 

function effectively under all 

environmental conditions normally 

encountered by oil tankers, and must be 

designed and constructed to satisfy the 

specifications for approval in 46 CFR 

subpart 162.050. Moreover— 

(i) The system must be designed so a 

discharge of dirty-ballast or other oilcontaminated water from the cargo tank 

areas cannot take place unless the 

monitoring system is in the normal 

operating mode and the relevant 

sampling point has been selected; 

(ii) The system should sample the 

effluent discharge from a minimum 

number of discharge outlets and be 

arranged so that discharge overboard 

can take place via only one outlet at a 

time; 

(iii) Where it is intended that more 

than one line be used for simultaneous 

discharging purposes, one oil content 

meter, together with a flow meter, must 

be installed in each discharge line. 

These instruments must be connected to 

a common processor; and 

(iv) To avoid alarms because of shortterm high-oil-concentration signals 

(spikes) causing indications of high 

instantaneous rates of discharge, the 

short-term high ppm signal may be 

suppressed for a maximum of 10 

seconds. Alternatively, the 

instantaneous rate of discharge may be 

continuously averaged during the 

preceding 20 seconds or less as 

computed from instantaneous ppm 

values of the oil content meter readings 

received at intervals not exceeding 5 

seconds. 

(4) The monitoring system must 

comprise— 

(i) An oil content meter to measure 

the oil content of the effluent in ppm. 

The meter must be approved in 

accordance with the provisions 

contained in 46 CFR subpart 162.050 

and certified to take into account the 

range of cargoes carried; 

(ii) A flow rate indicating system to 

measure the rate of effluent being 

discharged into the sea; 

(iii) A ship speed indicating device to 

give the ship’s speed in knots; 

(iv) A ship position indicating device 

to give the ship’s position-latitude and 

longitude; 

(v) A sampling system to convey a 

representative sample of the effluent to 

the oil content meter; 

(vi) An overboard discharge control to 

stop the overboard discharge; 

(vii) A starting interlock to prevent 

the discharge overboard of any effluent 

unless the monitoring system is fully 

operational; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(viii) A control section comprising— 

(A) A processor that accepts signals of 

oil content in the effluent, the effluent 

flow rate, and the ship’s speed, and 

computes these values into liters of oil 

discharged per nautical mile and the 

total quantity of oil discharged; 

(B) A means to provide alarms and 

command signals to the overboard 

discharge control; 

(C) A recording device to provide a 

record of data required under 

§ 157.12d(h)(2); 

(D) A data display to exhibit the 

current operational data required under 

§ 157.12d(i); 

(E) A manual override system to be 

used in the event of failure of the 

monitoring system; 

(F) A means to provide signals to the 

starting interlock to prevent the 

discharge of any effluent before the 

monitoring system is fully operational; 

and 

(G) The control section of the 

monitoring system must be tested in 

accordance with the vibration testing 

requirements described in 46 CFR 

162.050–37. 

(5) Each main component of the 

monitoring system must be fitted with a 

name plate, properly identifying the 

component by assembly drawing 

number, type or model number, and 

serial number, as appropriate. 

(6) The electrical components of the 

monitoring system that are to be 

installed in an explosive atmosphere 

must be in compliance with 46 CFR 

162.050–25. 

(7) Each main component of the 

monitoring system must be designed in 

accordance with the applicable 

requirements contained in subchapters 

F and J. 

(b) Sampling system. (1) Sampling 

points must be located so relevant 

samples can be obtained from those 

outlets used for operational discharges 

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section. The sampling probes located in 

the overboard discharge lines and the 

piping system connecting the sampling 

probes to the oil content meter must 

meet the requirements of this paragraph. 

(2) The piping and probes must be— 

(i) Of a material resistant to fire, 

corrosion, and oil; and 

(ii) Of adequate strength and properly 

jointed and supported. 

(3) The system must have a stop-valve 

fitted adjacent to each probe, except 

that, where the probe is mounted in a 

cargo line, two stop-valves must be 

fitted, in series, in the sample line. One 

of these may be the remote controlled 

sample selector valve. 

(4) Sampling probes must be arranged 

for easy withdrawal and must, as far as 

practicable, be mounted at an accessible 

location in a vertical section of the 

discharge line. Should it be necessary to 

fit sampling probes in a horizontal 

section of the discharge line it must be 

ascertained, during the installation 

survey, that the pipe runs full of liquid 

at all times during the discharge of the 

effluent. Sampling probes must 

normally penetrate inside the discharge 

pipe to a distance of one quarter the 

diameter of that pipe. 

(5) Means must be provided for 

cleaning the probes and piping system 

by the provision of permanent clean 

water flushing arrangements or an 

equivalent method. The design of the 

probes and piping must be such as to 

minimize their clogging by oil, oily 

residue, and other matter. 

(6) The velocity of the fluid in the 

piping must be such that, taking into 

consideration the length of the piping, 

the overall response time must be as 

short as possible between an alteration 

in the mixture being pumped and the 

alteration in the oil content meter 

reading. In no case should the response 

time, including the response time of the 

oil content meter, be more than 40 

seconds. 

(7) The location of sampling probes in 

relation to any point of flow diversion 

to a slop tank must be selected with 

regard to the need for sampling the oily 

water in the recirculation mode. 

(8) The arrangements for driving the 

sampling pump or any other pumps 

used in the system must account for the 

safety requirements of the space in 

which the pump is located. Any 

bulkhead penetration between a 

hazardous and a non-hazardous area 

must be of a design meeting the 

requirements of 46 CFR 32.60–20 and 46 

CFR subpart 111.105. 

(9) The flushing arrangement must be 

such that where necessary it can be 

utilized for test-running and stabilizing 

the oil content meter and correcting for 

zero setting. 

(10) Sample water returning to the 

slop tank must not be allowed to freefall into the tank. In tankers equipped 

with an inert gas system, a water seal 

meeting the requirements of 46 CFR 

32.53–10(b) must be arranged in the 

piping leading to a slop tank. 

(11) A valve must be provided for the 

manual collection of samples from the 

inlet piping to the oil content meter at 

a point downstream of any sampling 

pump. 

(c) Flow rate indicating system. (1) A 

flow meter for measuring the rate of 

discharge must be installed in a vertical 

section of a discharge line or in any 

other section of a discharge line as 

appropriate, so as to be always filled 

with the liquid being discharged. 

(2) A flow meter must employ an 

operating principle which is suitable for 

shipboard use and, where relevant, can 

be used in large diameter pipes. 

(3) A flow meter must be suitable for 

the full range of flow rates that may be 

encountered during normal operation. 

Alternatively, arrangements such as the 

use of two flow meters of different 

ranges or a restriction of the operational 

flow rate range may be employed if 

necessary to meet this requirement. 

(4) The flow meter, as installed, must 

have an accuracy of ±10 percent, or 

better, of the instantaneous rate of 

discharge throughout the operating 

range for discharging the effluent. 

(5) Any component part of the flow 

meter in contact with the effluent 

should be of corrosion-resistant and oilresistant material of adequate strength. 

(6) The design of the flow metering 

arrangements must account for the 

safety requirements of the space in 

which such metering arrangements are 

located. 

(d) Ship’s speed indicating system. 

The automatic speed signal required for 

a monitoring system must be obtained 

from the ship’s speed indicating device 

by means of a repeater signal. The speed 

information used may be either speed 

over the ground or speed through the 

water, depending upon the speed 

measuring equipment installed on 

board. 

Note to paragraph (d): See 

‘‘Recommendation on Performance Standards 

for Devices to Indicate Speed and Distance,’’ 

Annex to resolution A.824(19) as amended 

by resolution MSC.96(72). 

(e) Ship position indicating device. 

The ship position indicating device 

must consist of a receiver for a global 

navigation satellite system, a terrestrial 

radio navigation system, or other means 

suitable for use at all times throughout 

the intended voyage to establish and 

update the ship’s position by automatic 

means. 

(f) Overboard discharge control 

management. The overboard discharge 

control must be able to stop the 

discharge of the effluent into the sea 

automatically by either closing all 

relevant overboard discharge valves or 

stopping all relevant pumps. The 

discharge control arrangement must be 

fail-safe so that all effluent discharge is 

stopped when the monitoring system is 

not in operation, at alarm conditions, or 

when the monitoring system fails to 

function. 

(g) Processor and transmitting device. 

(1) The processor of a control section 

must receive signals from the oil content 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3381 

meter, the flow rate indicating system 

and the ship’s speed indicating system 

at time intervals not exceeding 5 

seconds and must automatically 

compute the following: 

(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of 

oil in liters per nautical mile; and 

(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged 

during the voyage in cubic meters or 

liters. 

(2) When the limits imposed by 

§ 157.37(a)(3) and (4) are exceeded, the 

processor must provide alarms and 

provide command signals to the 

overboard discharge control 

arrangement, which will cause the 

discharge of effluent into the sea to stop. 

(3) The processor must normally 

include a device for the continuous 

generation of time and date information. 

Alternative arrangements that ensure 

the automatic and continuous reception 

of time and date information from an 

external source may be approved by the 

Marine Safety Center. 

(4) In the event of power failure the 

processor must retain its memory in 

respect to computation of the total 

quantity of oil discharged, time, and 

date. A printout of data must be 

obtained when the monitoring system is 

operating with manual override, but the 

printout of data is not required if, when 

the power fails, the monitoring system 

activates the overboard discharge 

control to stop the discharge of effluent. 

(h) Recording devices. (1) The 

recording device of a control section 

must include a digital printer, which 

may be formatted electronically. The 

recorded parameters must be explicitly 

identified on the printout. The printout 

must be legible and must remain so 

once removed from the recording device 

and must be retained for at least 3 years. 

(2) The data to be automatically 

recorded must include at least the 

following: 

(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of 

oil (liters per nautical mile); 

(ii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm); 

(iii) The total quantity of oil 

discharged (cubic meters or liters); 

(iv) Time and date (GMT, Greenwich 

Mean Time); 

(v) Ship’s speed in knots; 

(vi) Ship’s position—latitude and 

longitude; 

(vii) Effluent flow rate;(viii) Status of 

the overboard discharge control or 

arrangement; 

(ix) Oil type selector setting, where 

applicable; 

(x) Alarm condition; 

(xi) Failure, including, but not limited 

to, fault or no flow; and 

(xii) Override action, including, but 

not limited to, manual override, 

flushing, and calibration. Any 

information inserted manually as a 

result of an override action must be 

identified as such on the printout. 

(3) Data required in paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section must be printed out or 

may be stored electronically with 

printout capability, with the following 

minimum frequency: 

(i) When the discharge is started; 

(ii) When the discharge is stopped; 

(iii) At intervals of not more than 10 

minutes (except when the system is in 

stand-by mode); 

(iv) When an alarm condition 

develops; 

(v) When normal conditions are 

restored; 

(vi) Whenever the computed rate of 

discharge varies by 10 liters per nautical 

mile; 

(vii) When zero-setting or calibration 

modes are selected; and 

(viii) On manual command. 

(4) The recording device must be 

located in a position easily accessible to 

the person in charge of the overboard 

discharge operation. 

(i) Data display. (1) In addition to the 

recorded printout, the current data must 

be visibly displayed and at a minimum 

contain the following: 

(i) Instantaneous rate of discharge of 

oil (liters per nautical mile); 

(ii) Total quantity of oil discharged 

(cubic meters or liters); 

(iii) Instantaneous oil content (ppm); 

(iv) Flow rate; 

(v) Ship’s speed; and 

(vi) Status of the overboard discharge 

control or arrangement. 

(2) The data display must be located 

in a position easily observed by the 

person in charge of the overboard 

discharge operation. 

(j) Manually operated alternatives in 

the event of equipment malfunction. 

Acceptable alternative means of 

obtaining information in the event of a 

failure in the monitoring system include 

the following: 

(1) Oil content meter or sampling 

system: Visual observation of the 

surface of the water adjacent to the 

effluent discharge; 

(2) Flow meter: Pump discharge 

characteristics; 

(3) Ship’s speed indicating device: 

Main engine rpm; 

(4) Processor: Manual calculation and 

manual recording; and 

(5) Overboard discharge control: 

manual operation of pumps and valves. 

(k) Alarm conditions resulting in the 

stopping of discharge. Audio-visual 

alarms must be activated for any of the 

following conditions and the monitoring 

system must be so arranged that the 

discharge of effluent into the sea is 

stopped: 

(1) Whenever the instantaneous rate 

of discharge of oil exceeds 30 liters per 

nautical mile; 

(2) When the total quantity of oil 

discharged reaches 1/30,000 of the 

previous cargo for new vessels and 1/ 

15,000 for existing vessels; or 

(3) In the event of failure of the 

system’s operation, such as: 

(i) Power failure; 

(ii) Loss of sample; 

(iii) Significant failure of the 

measuring or recording system; or 

(iv) When the input of any sensor 

exceeds the effective capacity of the 

system. 

(l) Location of alarm indicator. The 

alarm indicator of the system must be 

installed in the cargo control room, 

where provided, and/or in other places 

where it will attract immediate attention 

and action. 

§ 157.12e Certificate of approval. 

(a) A copy of the certificate of 

approval for the oil content meters must 

be carried aboard an oil tanker fitted 

with such equipment at all times. 

(b) A certificate of type approval must 

be issued for the specific application for 

which the oil content meter is approved, 

that is, for crude oil, ‘‘black’’ products, 

‘‘white’’ products, or other products or 

applications as listed on the certificate. 

§ 157.12f Workshop functional test 

requirements. 

(a) Each oil content meter and each 

control section of a monitoring system 

must be subjected to a functional test on 

a suitable test bench prior to delivery. 

The detailed program for a functional 

test of such equipment must be 

developed by the manufacturer, taking 

into account the features and functions 

of the specific design of equipment. A 

completed workshop certificate 

including the delivery test protocol 

must be received with each unit 

delivered. 

(b) A functional test conducted on an 

oil content meter must include the 

following operations: 

(l) A check of flow rate, pressure drop, 

or an equivalent parameter as 

appropriate; 

(2) A check of all alarm functions 

built into the meter; 

(3) A check of all switching functions 

interconnecting with other parts of the 

system; and 

(4) A check for correct reading at 

several ppm values on all measurement 

scales when operated on an oil 

appropriate for the application of the oil 

content meter or by an equivalent 

method. 

(c) A functional check conducted on 

a control section of a monitoring system 

must include the following operations: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3382 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) A check of all alarm functions; 

(2) A check of the correct function of 

the signal processor and the recording 

equipment when simulated input 

signals of ppm, flow rate, and speed are 

varied; 

(3) A check that the alarm is activated 

when the input signals are varied to 

exceed the discharge limits contained in 

§ 157.37(a)(3) and (4); 

(4) A check that a signal is given to 

the overboard discharge control when 

alarm conditions are reached; and 

(5) A check that the alarm is activated 

when each one of the input signals is 

varied to exceed the capacity of the 

system. 

§ 157.12g Plan approval requirements. 

Adequate documentation must be 

prepared well in advance of the 

intended installation of a monitoring 

system and must be submitted to the 

Marine Safety Center for approval. The 

following documentation must be 

submitted: 

(a) A description of the monitoring 

system. The description must include a 

diagram of the pumping and piping 

arrangements identifying the 

operational outlets for dirty ballast and 

oil-contaminated water from the cargotank area and compatible with the 

operational requirements set out in the 

oil tanker’s cargo and ballast handling 

manuals. Special considerations will be 

given to installations in oil tankers, 

which have unusual pumping and 

piping arrangements. 

(b) Equipment manuals, supplied by 

manufacturers, which must contain 

details of the major components of the 

monitoring system. 

(c) An operations and technical 

manual for the complete monitoring 

system which is proposed to be 

installed in the oil tanker. This manual 

must cover the arrangements and 

operation of the system as a whole and 

must specifically describe parts of the 

system, which are not covered by the 

manufacturer’s equipment manuals. 

(d) The operations section of the 

manual must include normal 

operational procedures and procedures 

for the discharge of oily water in the 

event of malfunction of the equipment. 

(e) The technical section of the 

manual must include adequate 

information (description and diagram of 

the pumping and piping arrangements 

of the monitoring system and electrical/ 

electronic wiring diagrams) to enable 

fault finding and must include 

instructions for keeping a maintenance 

record. 

(f) A technical installation 

specification defining, among other 

things, the location and mounting of 

components, arrangements for 

maintaining the integrity of the 

boundary between safe and hazardous 

spaces, and the arrangement of the 

sample piping, including calculation of 

the sample response time referred to in 

§ 157.12d(b)(6). The installation must 

comply with manufacturer’s specific 

installation criteria. 

(g) A copy of the certificate of type 

approval for the oil content meter. 

(h) Technical documentation relevant 

to other main components of the 

monitoring system. This documentation 

must include the vibration report for the 

control section of the monitoring 

section. 

(i) A recommended test and checkout 

procedure specific to the monitoring 

system installed. This procedure must 

specify all the checks to be carried out 

in a functional test by the installation 

contractor and must provide guidance 

for the surveyor when carrying out the 

onboard survey of the monitoring 

system and confirming the installation 

reflects the manufacturer’s specific 

installation criteria. 

§ 157.37 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 157.37— 

■ a. In the introductory text of 

paragraph (a)(6), remove the words ‘‘a 

cargo monitor’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘an oil discharge 

monitoring’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘cargo monitor’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘oil discharge monitoring and 

control system’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d), remove the words 

‘‘a cargo monitor’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘an oil discharge 

monitoring and control system’’. 

■ 13. Revise § 157.39(b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 157.39 Machinery space bilges. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Has in operation an oil discharge 

monitoring and control system in 

compliance with § 157.12 and oil 

separating equipment in compliance 

with 33 CFR 155.380. 

§ 157.43 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 157.43— 

■ a. In the introductory text of 

paragraph (a), remove both occurrences 

of the words ‘‘cargo monitor’’ and add, 

in their respective places, the words ‘‘oil 

discharge monitoring and control 

system’’; and 

■ b. In the introductory text of 

paragraph (b), remove the words ‘‘a 

cargo monitor’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘an oil discharge monitoring 

and control system’’. 

Appendix F to Part 157—[Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ Appendix F to Part 157 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 15. Remove and reserve Appendix F 

to part 157. 

Title 46—Shipping 

PART 162—ENGINEERING 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 16. Revise the authority citation for 

part 162 to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46 

U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 

FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 

12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 

351; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 17. In § 162.050–1, revise paragraph 

(a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 162.050–1 Scope. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Procedures for approval of 15 ppm 

separators, oil content meters, and bilge 

alarms. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Revise § 162.050–3 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–3 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

15 ppm separator means a separator 

that is designed to remove enough oil 

from an oil-water mixture to provide a 

resulting mixture that has an oil 

concentration of 15 ppm or less. 

Bilge alarm means an instrument that 

is designed to measure the oil content 

of oily mixtures from machinery space 

bilges and fuel oil tanks that carry 

ballast and activate an alarm at a set 

concentration limit and record date, 

time, alarm status, and operating status 

of the 15 ppm separator. 

Independent laboratory means a 

laboratory that— 

(1) Has the equipment and procedures 

necessary to approve the electrical 

components described in §§ 162.050– 

21(b) and 162.050–25(c), or to conduct 

the test described in § 162.050–37(a); 

and 

(2) Is not owned or controlled by a 

manufacturer, supplier, or vendor of 

separators, oil content meters, or bilge 

alarms. 

Oil content meter or meter means a 

component of the oil discharge 

monitoring and control system that is 

designed to measure the oil content of 

cargo residues from cargo tanks and oily 

mixtures combined with these residues. 

PPM means parts per million by 

volume of oil in water. 

Response time means the time 

elapsed between an alteration in the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3383 

sample being supplied to the bilge alarm 

and the ppm display showing the 

correct response. 

■ 19. Revise § 162.050–4 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–4 Incorporation by reference: 

Where can I get a copy of the publications 

mentioned in this part? 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart 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 paragraph 

(b) of this section, the Coast Guard must 

publish a notice of change in the 

Federal Register and the material must 

be available to the public. All approved 

material is available for inspection at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

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

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards 

(CG–521), 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593–0001, telephone 

202–372–1379, and is available from the 

sources indicated in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(b) American Society for Testing and 

Materials 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 

(1) ASTM D2777–98, Standard 

Practice for Determination of Precision 

and Bias of Applicable Test Methods of 

Committee D–19 on Water (‘‘ASTM 

D2777–98’’), incorporation by reference 

approved for § 162.050–15. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) 1, rue de 

Varembe ́, Case postale 56, CH–1211 

Geneva 20, Switzerland (Internet: http:// 

www.iso.org): 

(1) International Standard ISO 8217 

Third edition 2005–11–01, Petroleum 

products—Fuels (class F)— 

Specifications of marine fuels (‘‘ISO 

8217’’), incorporation by reference 

approved for § 162.050–20. 

(2) International Standard ISO 9377– 

2 First edition 2000–10–15, Water 

Quality—Determination of hydrocarbon 

oil index—Part 2: Method using solvent 

extraction and gas chromatography 

(‘‘ISO 9377–2’’), incorporation by 

reference approved for § 162.050–39. 

(d) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 

(UL) 12 Laboratory Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709–3995 

(1) Underwriters Laboratories 

Standard 913 (as revised April 8, 1976), 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§§ 162.050–21, 162.050–25. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 20. In § 162.050–5, revise the 

introductory text of paragraph (a) and 

revise paragraph (a)(6) and (a)(8) to read 

as follows: 

§ 162.050–5 Contents of application. 

(a) An application for approval of a 

separator, oil content meter, or a bilge 

alarm must contain the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(6) An operating and maintenance 

manual containing detailed and easily 

understandable instructions on 

installation, operation, calibration, 

zeroing, and maintenance of the item. 

* * * * * 

(8) For each oil content meter, a 

statement of whether it is to be used 

with crude oils, refined products, or 

both. 

* * * * * 

■ 21. In § 162.050–7— 

■ a. In paragraph (e), remove the words 

‘‘fifty (50)’’ wherever they appear and 

add, in their place, the figure ‘‘50’’; 

■ b. Revise paragraph (f) to read as set 

out below; 

■ c. Revise paragraph (h)(2) to read as 

set out below; 

■ d. In paragraph (h)(3), remove ‘‘No. 

3S’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘No. 3A’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (h)(4), remove 

‘‘No.5S’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘No. 5A’’, 

and 

■ f. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraphs (i) and (i)(2) to read as set 

out below; 

■ g. Remove paragraph (j) and 

redesignate paragraph (k) as paragraph 

(j); 

■ h. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–7 Approval procedures. 

* * * * * 

(f) The approval tests in this subpart 

must be performed by a facility 

designated under § 162.050–15. The 

facility must also be accepted as an 

independent laboratory by the Coast 

Guard under subpart 159.010 of this 

chapter. The facility must perform each 

test in accordance with the test 

conditions prescribed in this subpart for 

the test, prepare a test report for the 

item if it completes all of the tests, and 

send the report with three copies to the 

Commanding Officer, USCG Marine 

Safety Center. The applicant may 

observe the tests. If an item does not 

complete testing, a new application 

must be made before retesting. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) The oil content of each sample of 

separated water effluent taken during 

approval testing is 15 ppm or less; 

* * * * * 

(i) An oil content meter is approved 

under this subpart if— 

* * * * * 

(2) Each oil content reading recorded 

during approval testing is ± 10 ppm or 

± 10 percent, whichever is greater, of the 

oil content of the sample influent 

mixture taken at the time of the reading; 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) The oil content of each sample 

taken during approval testing is 15 ppm 

± 5 ppm; 

(3) Its response time is five seconds or 

less; and 

* * * * * 

■ 22. In § 162.050–9, add paragraph 

(a)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 162.050–9 Test report. 

(a) * * * 

(6) A statement that the lab followed 

the testing procedures prescribed in 46 

CFR subpart 162.050. 

* * * * * 

§ 162.050–11 [Amended] 

■ 23. In § 162.050–11— 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the word 

‘‘monitor’’ and add, in its place, the 

words ‘‘oil content meter’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(8), remove the 

words ‘‘a cargo monitor’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘an oil content 

meter’’. 

§ 162.050–14 [Removed] 

■ 24. Remove § 162.050–14. 

■ 25. In § 162.050–15, revise paragraphs 

(a), (d), (e), (f)(3), and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–15 Designation of facilities. 

(a) Each request for designation as a 

facility authorized to perform approval 

tests must be submitted to the 

Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Center, Engineering 

Division, 2100 2nd St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20593–0001. 

* * * * * 

(d) If the facility meets the 

requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(4) of this section, they must 

obtain 12 samples containing mixtures 

of oil in water that are within a 10-to30 ppm range that can be verified by an 

independent third-party source 

mutually acceptable to the applying lab 

and the Coast Guard prior to 

verification. 

(e) The facility must measure the oil 

content of each sample using the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3384 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

method described in § 162.050–39 and 

report the value of each of the 12 

measurements to the Commanding 

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Center, Engineering Division, 2100 2nd 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001. 

(f) * * * 

(3) The absolute value of Xd must be 

smaller than u based on the following 

analysis of paired observations: 

(i) Calculate the value of X ̄ d and Sd. 

This is the mean and standard 

deviation, respectively, of the 

differences between the known sample 

concentrations and the values obtained 

by the facility with their equipment. 

The value of X ̄ d for the 12 measurements 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section, or for 11 measurements if 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies, 

must be within the range 1 ≤ X ̄ d ≤ + 1. 

(ii) Determine the appropriate critical 

value of the Student’s t-distribution 

with (n-1) degrees of freedom for a 

confidence level of a = 0.01. If all 12 

samples meet the criteria of paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section then (n-1) = 11 and 

the critical value, 

t

1 2 − α ,

is 3.106. If paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section applies, then (n-1) = 10 and 

t

1 2 − α = 3 169 . .

(iii) Compute the value of u, where 

u t

s

n

d = ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ 1 − 2

α ,

where n = 12 if all samples meet the 

criteria of paragraph b(f)(1) and n = 11 

if paragraph (f)(2) applies. 

(iv) Compare the absolute value of X ̄ d

to the value of u. If |X ̄ d| < u, then the 

facility meets the criteria. 

* * * * * 

(h) A facility may not subcontract for 

approval testing unless previously 

authorized by the Coast Guard. A 

request for authorization to subcontract 

must be sent to the Commanding 

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Center, Engineering Division, 2100 2nd 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001. 

■ 26. In § 162.050–17— 

■ a. Revise Figure 162.050–17(a) to read 

as set out below; 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), 

(c)(1), and (c)(3) as set out below; 

■ c. Remove the reference to ‘‘162.050– 

17(e)’’ in paragraph (d), and add, in its 

place, the reference ‘‘162.050–17(d)’’; 

and 

■ d. Remove Figure 162.050–17(e) and 

add, in its place, Figure 162.050–17(d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 162.050–17 Separator test rig. 

(a) * * * 

FIGURE 162.050–17(a)—SEPARATOR 

TEST RIG 

(b) * * * 

(1) Be a centrifugal pump capable of 

operating at 1,000 revolutions per 

minute or more; 

(2) Have a delivery capacity of at least 

1.5 times the maximum throughput at 

which the separator being tested is 

designed to operate; 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Influent water flows at a Reynolds 

Number of at least 10,000; 

(2) * * * 

(3) Its length is at least 20 times its 

inside diameter. 

(d) * * * 

FIGURE 162.050–17(d)—SAMPLE 

POINT 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6ER16JA09.018</MATH> ER16JA09.019</MATH> ER16JA09.020</MATH> ER16JA09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3385 

■ 27. In § 162.050–19— 

■ a. In the section heading, remove the 

word ‘‘Monitor’’ and add, in its place, 

the words ‘‘Oil content meter’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), remove the words 

‘‘monitors’’ and ‘‘monitor’’ and add, in 

their respective places, the words ‘‘oil 

content meters’’ and ‘‘meter’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c), remove the text 

‘‘one thousand (1,000)’’ and add, in its 

place, the figure ‘‘1,000’’; and 

■ d. Revise Figure 162.050–19 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–19 Oil Content Meter and Bilge 

Alarm Test Rig 

* * * * * 

FIGURE 162.050–19—MONITOR 

AND BILGE ALARM TEST RIG 

■ 28. Add § 162.050–20 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–20 Separator and bilge alarm 

test fluids. 

(a) Tests required in §§ 162.050–23 

and 162.050–35 must be performed 

using the following three types of test 

fluids: 

(1) Test Fluid A, which is a marine 

residual fuel oil in accordance with ISO 

8217 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 162.050–4), type RMG 380 (density at 

15 °C not less than 980 kg/m3); 

(2) Test Fluid B which is a marine 

distillate fuel oil in accordance with ISO 

8217, type DMA (density at 15 °C not 

less than 830 kg/m3); 

(3) Test Fluid C must be a mixture of 

an oil-in-fresh water emulsion, where 1 

kg of the mixture consists of: 

(i) 947.8 g of fresh water; 

(ii) 25.0 g of Test Fluid A; 

(iii) 25.0 g of Test Fluid B; 

(iv) 0.5 g of surfactant (sodium salt of 

dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid) in the 

dry form; and 

(v) 1.7 g of iron oxides, a black 

ferrosoferric oxide (Fe3O4) with a 

particle size distribution of which 90 

percent is less than 10 microns, the 

remainder having a maximum particle 

size of 100 microns. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6ER16JA09.006</GPH> ER16JA09.007</GPH>
3386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Test Fluid C must be prepared as 

needed for § 162.050–23 or § 162.050–35 

by using the following procedures: 

(1) Measure out 1.2 times the quantity 

of surfactant required from the 

WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINING 

CONSTITUENTS OF TEST FLUID C, 

see figure 162.050–20; 

(2) Mix it with fresh water and stir 

well in a small container to make a 

mixture until the surfactant has been 

thoroughly dissolved, but use no more 

than the minimum amount of water 

necessary to make a complete solution; 

(3) Fill clean test fluid tank with fresh 

water with a quantity 1.2 times the 

volume of the total quantity of water in 

Test Fluid C needed for the test 

described in §§ 162.050–23 and 

162.050–35; 

(4) Operate the centrifugal pump B 

running at a speed of not less than 3,000 

rpm with a flow rate at which the 

volume of the test fluid has been 

changed out at least once per minute; 

(5) Add the surfactant mixture from 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section first, 

followed by oil and suspended solids 

(iron oxides) respectively, both 1.2 

times of the required amounts, to the 

fresh water in the tank; 

(6) To establish a stable emulsion 

keep running the centrifugal pump B for 

one hour and confirm no oil floats on 

the surface of the test fluid; and 

(7) After the one hour stated in 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section, keep 

running the centrifugal pump B at 

reduced speed to approximately 10 

percent of original flow rate, until the 

end of the test. 

FIGURE 162.050–20 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6ER16JA09.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3387 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6ER16JA09.013</GPH>
3388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 162.050–21 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 162.050–21— 

■ a. In paragraph (b), add the words 

‘‘(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 162.050–4)’’ after the words ‘‘(dated 

April 8, 1976)’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), remove the text 

‘‘twenty-four (24)’’ and add, in its place, 

the figure ‘‘24’’, and remove the words 

‘‘to be installed in an unattended 

machinery space’’. 

■ 30. In § 162.050–23— 

■ a. Remove paragraph (a)(2), and 

redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) through 

(a)(13) as paragraphs (a)(2) through 

(a)(12); 

■ b. Revise redesignated paragraph 

(a)(4) to read as set out below; 

■ c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(11), 

remove the text ‘‘one (1)’’ and add, in 

its place, the figure ‘‘1’’; 

■ d. In redesignated paragraph (a)(12), 

immediately after the text ‘‘Test No. 5’’, 

remove the letter ‘‘S’’ and add, in its 

place, the letter ‘‘A’’; 

■ e. Add paragraph (a)(13) to read as 

follows; and 

■ f. Remove paragraphs (b) through (g), 

and add new paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 162.050–23 Separator: Approval tests. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) The influent water used in each 

test must be clean fresh water or clean 

fresh water in solution with sodium 

chloride. In either case, the relative 

density of the water must be no greater 

than 1.015 at 20 °C. 

* * * * * 

(13) If a separator has an integral bilge 

alarm, the separator must be tested with 

the bilge alarm installed. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following tests must be 

conducted using Test Fluid A: 

(1) Test No. 1A. The separator is filled 

with water and started. Next, the 

separator is fed with pure Test Fluid A 

for at least 5 minutes and then with a 

mixture of Test Fluid A and water 

influent containing Test Fluid A content 

of between 5,000 and 10,000 ppm until 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6ER16JA09.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3389 

a steady flow rate at a steady, constant 

ppm occurs. After the flow rate is 

steady, the influent is fed to the 

separator for 30 minutes. Samples of 

separated water effluent are taken after 

the first 10 and 20 minutes. At the end 

of the 30-minute period, the air cock on 

the test rig is opened and, if necessary, 

the oil and water supply valves are 

closed to stop the flow of influent. A 

sample is then taken of the separated 

water effluent as the effluent flow 

ceases. 

(2) Test No. 2A. Repeat Test No. 1A 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section using 

an influent containing approximately 25 

percent oil and 75 percent water. 

Percentage is on a by volume basis. 

(3) Test No. 3A. The separator is fed 

with 100 percent Test Fluid A until 

Fluid A is discharged at the oil 

discharge outlet of the separator at 

essentially the same rate that oil is being 

fed to the separator. The separator is 

then fed with 100 percent Test Fluid A 

for 5 additional minutes. If any oily 

mixture is discharged from the 

separated water outlet on the separator 

during the test, that observation is 

recorded. 

(4) Test No. 4A. The separator is fed 

with water for 15 minutes. Samples of 

the separated water effluent are taken at 

the beginning of the test and after the 

first 10 minutes. 

(5) Test No. 5A. The separator is 

operated automatically for 3 hours. 

During the test, the separator is 

continuously fed with an influent 

varying from water to a mixture of 25 

percent Test Fluid A in water and back 

to water every 15 minutes. The Test 

Fluid A concentration in the influent is 

varied in at least five equal increments 

during each 15-minute period and the 

time intervals between the incremental 

changes are equal. During the last hour, 

the separator must be inclined at an 

angle of 22.5° with the plane of its 

normal operating position. During the 

last time increment in which the unit is 

fed a 25 percent Fluid A mixture, a 

sample of the separated water effluent is 

taken. If the separator stops at any time 

during this test, that observation is 

recorded. 

(c) The following tests must be 

conducted using Test Fluid B: 

(1) Test No. 1B. Repeat Test No. 1A 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section using 

Test Fluid B; and 

(2) Test No. 2B. Repeat Test No. 2A 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section using 

Test Fluid B. 

(d) The following tests must be 

conducted using Test Fluid C: Test No. 

1C. The separator is fed with a mixture 

composed of 6 percent Test Fluid C and 

94 percent water by volume such that 

the emulsified Test Fluid C content is 

approximately 3,000 ppm in the test 

water until a steady flow rate occurs. 

After the flow rate is steady, the influent 

containing the 6 percent Test Fluid C 

solution is fed to the separator operating 

automatically for 3 hours. Samples of 

separated water effluent are taken at 50 

minutes and 100 minutes. At the end of 

the 3-hour period, the air cock on the 

test rig is opened and, if necessary, the 

oil and water supply valves are closed 

to stop the flow of influent. A sample is 

then taken of the separated water 

effluent as the effluent flow ceases. 

§ 162.050–25 [Amended] 

■ 31. In § 162.050–25— 

■ a. In paragraph (c), add the words 

‘‘(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 162.050–4)’’ immediately after the 

words ‘‘(dated April 8, 1976)’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (g), remove the text 

‘‘twenty (20)’’ and add, in its place, the 

figure ‘‘20’’. 

■ 32. Revise § 162.050–27 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–27 Oil content meter: Approval 

tests. 

This section contains requirements 

that apply to performing each test. 

(a) Test conditions. (1) The tests and 

each step in the tests must be carried 

out in the order described in this 

section. Each test must be performed 

without time delay between steps in the 

test. No maintenance, including 

replacement of parts, may be performed 

on the meter during or between the tests 

described in this section. 

(2) A test rig of the type described in 

§ 162.050–19 must be used when 

performing each test. 

(3) Each mixture used during the tests 

must be prepared by combining oil 

supplied from the oil injection pipe of 

the test rig and water supplied from the 

mixture tank of the test rig. However, if 

the flow of oil through the oil injection 

pipe becomes intermittent, oil and water 

may be combined in the mixture tank to 

form the mixture. 

(4) A mixture may be circulated 

through a meter only once during 

testing. 

(5) Unless otherwise provided in a 

specific test, the water used in each test 

must be clean, fresh water. 

(6) The oil used in each test, except 

Test No. 2 in paragraph (c) of this 

section, must be Arabian light crude oil. 

(7) Each test must be performed at an 

ambient temperature of between 10 °C 

and 30 °C. 

(8) Unless otherwise provided in a 

specific test, each test must be 

performed at the maximum mixture 

pressure, the maximum flow rate, and 

the power supply ratings at which the 

meter is designed to operate. 

(9) The particulate contaminant 

described in Test No. 5 in paragraph (f) 

of this section, if not attapulgite, must 

be of a type that does not lose more than 

3 percent of its weight after ignition and 

must be insoluble in a 500 ppm mixture. 

(10) In each test the meter must be 

operated in accordance with the 

procedures described in its instructions 

manual. 

(11) Unless otherwise provided in a 

specific test, the centrifugal pump 

shown in Figure 162.050–19 in 

§ 162.050–19 must be operated at 1,000 

revolutions per minute or more in each 

test. 

(12) Whenever the oil content of a 

mixture is recorded, a sample of the 

mixture must also be taken. The oil 

content of the sample must be measured 

using the method described in 

§ 162.050–39. 

(13) A one-liter sample of each oil to 

be used in testing must be taken and 

provided for use in the sample analysis 

required by § 162.050–39. 

(b) Test No. 1 Calibration and Zero 

Test. The meter is calibrated and zeroed 

to manufacturer’s instructions. It is then 

fed with water for 15 minutes and then 

with mixtures in the following 

concentrations: 15 ppm, 50 ppm, 100 

ppm, and each additional concentration, 

in increments of 50 ppm up to the 

highest oil concentration that can be 

read on the meter. Each mixture is fed 

to the meter in the order listed in Table 

162.050–27(c) for 15 minutes. Water is 

fed to the meter for a 15-minute period 

between each mixture. At the end of 

each 15-minute period, an oil content 

reading is obtained and recorded, and a 

calibration curve must be created. 

(c) Test No. 2 Response to Different 

Oil Types Test. (1) If the meter is 

designed for use with crude oils, it is 

fed with a mixture of water and the first 

oil listed in Table 162.050–27(c) at the 

following concentrations: 15 ppm, 100 

ppm, and a concentration that is 90 

percent of the highest oil concentration 

in water that can be read on the meter. 

Each concentration is fed to the meter 

in the order listed until a steady reading 

occurs and is recorded. After each 

steady reading is recorded, the meter is 

fed with water for 15 minutes. At the 

end of each 15-minute period of feeding 

the meter with water, an oil content 

reading is again obtained and recorded, 

and a calibration curve must be created. 

(2) The steps described in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section are repeated using 

each of the other oils listed in Table 

162.050–27(c). A calibration curve must 

be created for each oil tested. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 162.050–27(C)—OIL TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS

Oil type Characteristics 

Sahara blend crude oil ........................................................................................................................... Density—low. 

Viscosity—low. 

Pour point—very low. 

Producing country—Algeria. 

General description—mixed base. 

Arabian light crude oil ............................................................................................................................ Density—medium. 

Viscosity—medium. 

Pour point—low. 

Producing country—Saudi Arabia. 

General description—mixed base. 

Nigerian medium crude oil ..................................................................................................................... Density—high. 

Viscosity—medium. 

Pour point—low. 

Producing country—Nigeria. 

General description—naphthenic base. 

Bachaquero 17 crude oil ........................................................................................................................ Density—very high. 

Viscosity—very high. 

Pour point—low. 

Producing country—Venezuela. 

General description—asphaltic base. 

Minas crude oil ....................................................................................................................................... Density—medium. 

Viscosity—high. 

Pour point—very high. 

Producing country—Indonesia. 

General description—paraffinic base. 

Residual fuel oil ..................................................................................................................................... Bunker C or No. 6 Fuel Oil. 

(3) If any oil listed in Table 162.050– 

27(c) is unavailable, an oil with similar 

properties may be substituted in testing. 

(4) If the meter will be used with 

refined oil products, the steps described 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are 

performed using each of the following: 

(i) Leaded regular grade automotive 

gasoline; 

(ii) Unleaded automotive gasoline; 

(iii) Kerosene; and 

(iv) Light diesel or No. 2 fuel oil. 

(5) If the meter will be used with 

category C and D oil-like noxious liquid 

substances to meet the requirements of 

33 CFR 151.41(b), the tests described in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are 

to be performed using the substances for 

which approval is sought. 

(d) Test No. 3 Response Time Test. (1) 

The meter is fed with water, zeroed, and 

then fed with a 100 ppm mixture. The 

time at which the meter first detects oil 

in the mixture, the times of reading 63 

ppm and 90 ppm, and the time of 

reaching the highest steady reading of 

oil content are recorded. The oil content 

of the mixture at the highest steady 

reading is also recorded. 

(2) The metering pump is turned off 

and the time at which the highest 

reading starts to decrease, the times of 

reading 37 ppm and 10 ppm, and the 

time of returning to the lowest steady oil 

content reading are recorded. The oil 

content of the mixture at the lowest 

steady reading is also recorded. 

(3) The time interval between first 

detecting oil in the mixture and reading 

63 ppm, and the time interval between 

the first decrease in the highest reading 

and reading 37 ppm, are averaged and 

recorded as the response time for the 

meter. 

(e) Test No. 4 Oil Fouling and 

Calibration Shift Test. (1) The meter is 

fed with water, zeroed, and then fed 

with a mixture containing 10 percent oil 

for one minute. The following must be 

recorded: 

(i) Time at which the meter first 

detects oil; 

(ii) Time of reading 15 ppm; 

(iii) Time of reading 100 ppm; 

(iv) Time of exceeding the highest oil 

concentration that can be read on the 

meter; 

(v) Time of returning to the highest oil 

concentration that can be read on the 

meter; 

(vi) Time of returning to a reading of 

100 ppm; 

(vii) Time of returning to a reading of 

15 ppm; and 

(viii) Time of returning to the lowest 

steady oil content reading. 

(2) The oil content of the mixture at 

the lowest steady reading described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this section is 

recorded. 

(3) The meter is fed with water, 

zeroed, and then fed with oil for 1 

minute after which the flow of water is 

resumed. The times described in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section are 

recorded. 

(4) If it is necessary to clean the meter 

after each oil-fouling test for it to return 

to a zero reading, this fact and the time 

required to clean and recalibrate the 

meter must be noted and recorded in the 

test report. 

(5) The meter is fed with a 100 ppm 

mixture until a steady oil content 

reading is obtained and recorded. 

(f) Test No. 5 Contaminant Test. (1) 

The meter is fed with a 15 ppm mixture 

until a steady oil content reading is 

obtained and recorded. 

(2) The meter is fed with a 15 ppm oil 

mixture of contaminated water 

consisting of not less than 270 ppm by 

weight of the clay mineral attapulgite, or 

similar contaminant that is stable in 

both fresh and salt water and 30 ppm by 

weight of iron oxides. The test 

contaminant should have a particle size 

distribution with about 30 percent of 10 

microns or less and a maximum particle 

size of 100 microns. The oil content 

reading, when steady, is recorded. 

(3) Each of the two contaminants will 

be mixed sequentially in the following 

manner: the mixing of attapulgite shall 

be for a period of not less than 15 

minutes so that a homogeneous 

suspension is formed; then, iron oxides 

will be added for an additional period 

of not less than 10 minutes. The mixing 

process should maintain the 

contaminants in suspension throughout 

the test period. 

(4) The test in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section is repeated for 100 and 300 ppm 

oil mixtures in contaminated water. 

(g) Test No. 6 Air Entrainment Test. 

(1) The meter is fed with a 15 ppm 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3391 

mixture until a steady oil content 

reading is obtained and recorded. 

(2) Air is injected into the meter test 

rig before the sample pump or, in the 

absence of such pump, immediately 

before any conditioning unit used to 

prepare the mixture for measurement. 

Injection must be by needle having an 

orifice dimension not exceeding 0.5 mm 

in diameter arranged in line with the 

sample flow. The quantity of air injected 

must be 1 percent of the designated flow 

rate of the sample pump or conditioning 

unit at the point of injection. 

(3) Air must be delivered to the 

system by direct injection or pump via 

a suitable measuring device designed to 

permit a constant controllable flow rate 

within ±10 percent of the required rate 

of injection for an uninterrupted 

effective test period of not less than 15 

minutes. 

(4) The oil content reading, when 

steady, is recorded. 

(h) Test No. 7 Oil Particle Size— 

Centrifugal Pump Test. (1) The meter is 

fed with a 100 ppm mixture until a 

steady oil content reading is obtained 

and recorded. 

(2) The meter is fed with a 100 ppm 

mixture that has first passed through the 

centrifugal pump of the test rig. The 

pump is run at one-fourth of its design 

speed. The oil content reading, when 

steady, is recorded. 

(3) The steps described in paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section are repeated with 

the pump running at one-half of its 

design speed and then repeated at its 

design speed. 

(i) Test No. 8 Temperature Test. (1) 

The steps described in paragraph (h)(1) 

of this section are repeated. 

(2) The temperature of the mixture is 

adjusted to 10 °C and the flow 

continued until a steady oil content 

reading is obtained and recorded. 

(3) The steps described in paragraph 

(i)(2) of this section are repeated with 

the temperature of the mixture at 65 °C 

or the highest mixture temperature at 

which the meter is designed to operate, 

whichever is lower. 

(j) Test No. 9 Sample Pressure or Flow 

Test. (1) The steps described in 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section are 

repeated. 

(2) If the meter has a positive 

displacement mixture pump, the 

mixture pressure is lowered to one-half 

of the meter’s maximum design 

pressure. If the meter has a centrifugal 

mixture pump, or is not equipped with 

a mixture pump, the mixture flow rate 

is reduced to one-half of the meter’s 

design flow rate. The reduced flow rate 

or mixture pressure is maintained until 

a steady oil content reading is obtained 

and recorded. 

(3) If the meter has a positive 

displacement mixture pump, the 

mixture pressure is increased to twice 

the meter’s design pressure. If the meter 

has a centrifugal mixture pump or does 

not have a mixture pump, the mixture 

flow rate is increased to twice the 

meter’s maximum design flow rate. The 

increased flow rate or mixture pressure 

is maintained until a steady oil content 

reading is obtained and recorded. 

(k) Test No. 10 Shutoff Test. (1) The 

steps described in paragraph (h)(1) of 

this section are repeated. 

(2) The water and metering pumps on 

the test rig are stopped for 8 hours after 

which the steps described in paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section are repeated. 

(l) Test No. 11 Supply Voltage 

Variation Test. (1) The supply voltage to 

the meter is increased to 110 percent of 

its design supply voltage. The meter is 

then fed a 100 ppm mixture for one 

hour. At the end of the 1-hour period, 

an oil content reading is obtained and 

recorded. 

(2) The steps described in paragraph 

(l)(1) of this section are repeated with 

the supply voltage to the meter lowered 

to 90 percent of its design supply 

voltage. 

(3) Upon completing the steps 

described in paragraph (l)(2) of this 

section, the supply voltage to the meter 

is returned to the design rating. 

(4) The steps described in paragraphs 

(l)(1) through (l)(3) of this section are 

repeated varying each power supply to 

the meter in the manner prescribed in 

those steps for supply voltage. 

(m) Test No. 12 Calibration and Zero 

Drift Test. (1) The meter is calibrated 

and zeroed. 

(2) The steps described in paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section are repeated. 

(3) A 100 ppm mixture is fed to the 

meter for 8 hours. At the end of the 8- 

hour period, an oil content reading is 

obtained and recorded. 

(4) The meter is fed with water until 

a steady oil content reading is obtained 

and recorded. 

(n) Test No. 13 Shutdown and Restart 

Test. (1) All power to the meter is 

shutoff for one week. After 1 week the 

meter is restarted, zeroed, and 

calibrated. 

(2) The meter is fed with a 100 ppm 

mixture for 1 hour. An oil content 

reading is then obtained and recorded. 

(3) The meter is fed with water for 1 

hour. An oil content reading is then 

obtained and recorded. 

(4) The steps described in paragraphs 

(n)(2) and (n)(3) of this section are 

repeated three additional times. During 

the last hour in which the meter is fed 

with a 100 ppm mixture, the meter is 

inclined at an angle of 22.5° with the 

plane of its normal operating position. 

§ 162.050–29 [Removed] 

■ 33. Remove § 162.050–29. 

§ 162.050–31 [Removed] 

■ 34. Remove § 162.050–31. 

■ 35. In § 162.050–33— 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b) to read as set 

out below; 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the two 

‘‘p.p.m.’’ abbreviations, and add, in 

their places, the letters ‘‘ppm’’; and 

■ c. Add new paragraphs (d) through (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 162.050–33 Bilge alarm: Design 

specification. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each bilge alarm must be designed 

to meet the requirements for an oil 

content meter in § 162.050–25(b) 

through (f) and 162.050–25(i), and the 

requirements in this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each bilge alarm must have a ppm 

display. Emulsions and/or the type of 

oil must not affect the ppm display. 

Calibrating the bilge alarm must not be 

necessary once installed on board the 

vessel, however, onboard testing in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

operating instructions is permitted for 

the purposes of checking instrument 

drift and repeatability of the instrument 

reading, as well as the ability to re-zero 

the instrument. The accuracy of the 

readings must at all times remain within 

the limits described in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. 

(e) Each bilge alarm must be designed 

so that it displays each change in oil 

content of the mixture it is measuring 

within 5 seconds after the change 

occurs. 

(f) Access to the bilge alarm must 

require the breaking of a seal, except 

when— 

(1) Re-zeroing the instrument; 

(2) Checking the instrument drift; or 

(3) Checking the repeatability of the 

instrument reading. 

(g) Each bilge alarm must activate its 

alarm whenever clean water is used for 

cleaning or zeroing purposes. 

(h) The bilge alarm must record date, 

time, alarm status, and operating status 

of the 15 ppm bilge separator. The 

recording device must also store data for 

at least 18 months and be able to display 

or print a protocol. In the event the 15 

ppm bilge alarm is replaced, means 

must be provided to ensure the data 

recorded remains available on board for 

18 months. 

■ 36. Revise § 162.050–35 to read as 

follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
3392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 162.050–35 Bilge alarm: Approval tests. 

This section contains requirements 

that apply to bilge alarms. 

(a) Test Conditions. (1) Each test must 

be conducted under the conditions 

prescribed for meters in § 162.050– 

27(a)(1) through (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(8), 

(a)(10), (a)(11), and (a)(13). 

(2) The tests in this section must be 

performed using test fluids described in 

§ 162.050–20. 

(3) The oil content of each sample 

must be measured using the method 

described in § 162.050–39. 

(b) Test No. 1A Calibration and Zero 

Test. (1) The bilge alarm is calibrated 

and zeroed to manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(2) It is then fed with water for 15 

minutes and then with a mixture of Test 

Fluid A and water in the following 

concentrations: 0 ppm, 15 ppm, and the 

highest oil concentration that can be 

read on the monitor. A sample of the 

mixture causing actuation of the alarm 

is taken. The alarm is then fed with 

water for 15 minutes. 

(3) Repeat steps in paragraphs (b)(2) of 

this section first using Test Fluid B and 

then again with Test Fluid C. Collect 

samples as required in the test for each 

run of Test Fluid B and Test Fluid C. 

(4) If the bilge alarm must be 

calibrated and re-zeroed between test 

fluids, this must be noted in the test 

report. 

(c) Test No. 2A Contaminant Test. (1) 

The bilge alarm is fed for 5 minutes 

with a 10 ppm mixture of Test Fluid B 

and water. At the end of the 5-minute 

period an oil content reading is obtained 

and recorded. 

(2) The bilge alarm is then fed for 5 

minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test 

Fluid B and water contaminated with a 

10 ppm concentration of iron oxide. 

Any change in the bilge alarm reading 

during the 5 minutes is recorded. 

(3) Repeat steps in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section using iron oxide 

concentrations of 50 ppm and 100 ppm. 

(4) The bilge alarm is then fed for 5 

minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test 

Fluid B and water. At the end of the 5- 

minute period an oil content reading is 

obtained and recorded. 

(5) The bilge alarm is fed for 5 

minutes with a 10 ppm mixture of Test 

Fluid B and fresh water with 6 percent 

sodium chloride. Any change in the 

bilge alarm reading is recorded. 

(d) Test No. 3A Sample Pressure or 

Flow Test. (1) The bilge alarm is fed 

with a mixture of Test Fluid B and 

water and the test fluid content of the 

mixture is increased until the bilge 

alarm actuates. The ppm display is 

recorded and a sample of the mixture 

causing actuation of the alarm is taken. 

(2) If the alarm has a positive 

displacement mixture pump, the 

mixture pressure is reduced to one-half 

of the alarm’s maximum design 

pressure. If the alarm has a centrifugal 

mixture pump or is not equipped with 

a mixture pump, the mixture flow rate 

is reduced to one-half of the alarm’s 

maximum design flow rate. After 

reduction of pressure or flow rate, the 

oil content in the mixture is increased 

until the alarm actuates. The ppm 

display is recorded and a sample of the 

mixture causing actuation of the alarm 

is taken. 

(3) If the alarm has a positive 

displacement mixture pump, the 

influent pressure is increased to twice 

the alarm’s minimum design pressure. If 

the alarm has a centrifugal mixture 

pump or if the alarm is not equipped 

with a mixture pump, the influent flow 

rate is increased to twice the alarm’s 

maximum design flow rate. After 

increasing the pressure or flow rate, the 

oil content in the mixture is increased 

until the alarm actuates. The ppm 

display is recorded and a sample of the 

mixture causing actuation is taken. 

(e) Test No. 4A Shutoff Test. (1) The 

steps described in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section are repeated. 

(2) The metering and water pumps of 

the test rig are stopped for 8 hours with 

the bilge alarm left turned on with no 

other changes made. 

(3) The metering and water pumps are 

started and the Test Fluid B content of 

the mixture is increased until the bilge 

alarm actuates. A sample of the mixture 

causing actuation is taken. The bilge 

alarm ppm display readings before and 

after the 8-hour period will be recorded. 

(f) Test No. 5A Supply Voltage 

Variation Test. (1) The supply voltage to 

the bilge alarm is raised to 110 percent 

of its design supply voltage. The bilge 

alarm is fed with a mixture of Test Fluid 

B and water and the test fluid content 

of the mixture is increased until the 

bilge alarm actuates. The ppm display is 

recorded and a sample of the mixture 

causing actuation is taken. 

(2) The supply voltage to the alarm is 

lowered to 90 percent of its design 

supply voltage. The bilge alarm is fed 

with a mixture of Test Fluid B and 

water and the test fluid content of the 

mixture is increased until the bilge 

alarm actuates. The ppm display is 

recorded and a sample of the mixture 

causing actuation is taken. 

(3) Upon completion of the steps 

described in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section, the supply voltage to the alarm 

is returned to its design value. 

(4) The steps described in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section are 

repeated varying each other power 

supply to the alarm in the manner 

prescribed in those steps for supply 

voltage. 

(g) Test No. 6A Calibration and Zero 

Drift Test. (1) The steps described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are 

repeated and then the steps in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section are 

repeated. 

(2) The bilge alarm is fed with a 15 

ppm mixture of Test Fluid B and water 

for eight hours and any calibration drift 

is recorded. Samples of the mixture 

must be taken at the beginning of the 

test and at 2-hour intervals until the 

completion of the 8-hour period. 

(3) Following the steps in paragraph 

(g)(2) of this section, the bilge alarm 

must be run on clean, oil-free water only 

and any zero drift must be recorded. 

(h) Test No. 7A Response Time Test. 

(1) The bilge alarm is fed with a 40 ppm 

mixture of Test Fluid B and water until 

the bilge alarm actuates. The time of 

turning on the metering pump of the test 

rig and the time of alarm actuation are 

recorded. The flow rate on the flow 

meter of the test rig is also recorded. 

(i) Test No. 8A Shutdown and Restart 

Test. (1) All power to the bilge alarm is 

shutoff for 1 week. After 1 week the 

alarm is then restarted, zeroed, and 

calibrated. 

(2) The steps described in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section are repeated. Water 

is then fed to the bilge alarm for 1 hour. 

(3) The steps described in paragraph 

(i)(2) of this section are repeated seven 

additional times. During the last hour, 

the alarm must be inclined at an angle 

of 22.5° with the plane of its normal 

operating position. 

■ 37. In § 162.050–37— 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b) to read as set 

out below; and 

■ b. Add paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–37 Vibration test. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) Each oil content meter and bilge 

alarm and each control of a separator 

must be subjected to continuous 

sinusoidal vibration in each of the 

following directions for a 2 hour period 

in each direction: 

(i) Vertically up and down; 

(ii) Horizontally from side to side; and 

(iii) Horizontally from end to end. 

(2) The vibrating frequency must be 

80 Hz, except that the vibrating 

frequency of equipment that has a 

resonant frequency between 2 Hz and 80 

Hz must be the resonant frequency. If 

the vibrating frequency is between 2 Hz 

and 13.2 Hz, the displacement 

amplitude must be ±1 mm. If the 

vibrating frequency is between 13.2 Hz 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3393 

and 80 Hz, the acceleration amplitude 

must be ± [(.7)(gravity)]. 

(c) After completion of the tests 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, a search must again be made for 

resonance and any significant change in 

the vibration pattern must be noted in 

the test report. 

■ 38. Revise § 162.050–39 to read as 

follows: 

§ 162.050–39 Measurement of oil content. 

The collection and testing of all 

samples of oil in water from the 

required test will be accomplished in 

accordance with ISO 9377–2 (2000), 

Water Quality—Determination of 

hydrocarbon oil index-Part 2: Method 

Using solvent extraction and Gas 

Chromatography (incorporated by 

reference, see § 162.050–4). 

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

Brian M. Salerno, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Marine Safety, Security & 

Stewardship. 

[FR Doc. E9–802 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES6